Objective Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-04-2014, 09:59 PM
RE: Objective Morality
It's often given a more passive front though, as if it's not PEOPLE who are imposing these beliefs, but the GOD ITSELF is doing so. So the adherents to the respective religions sometimes say,"Hey, don't blame me; I'm just the messenger."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 10:15 PM (This post was last modified: 05-04-2014 10:34 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 08:56 PM)Baruch Wrote:  
(05-04-2014 06:35 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  If you have to "make" whatever sort of *judgements*, then it's subjective, NOT "objective", by definition. The FACT is there was a death. The "subjective judgement" was applying standards of guilt to the act of causing the death. You are NOT disagreeing with me. In fact you just made my point for me.

Of course you can make objective judgments - either there was direct intention to kill or there was not. Intentions exist. Of course the judgments made can be mistaken because there COULD BE some set up (eg in the case I suggested it could be that the 1st degree murder was a set up and the drunk driver was quickly hit on the head and injected with alcohol to make it seem that they were drunk and careless etc)- but the fact there may be some epistemological barriers does not mean it is all subjective. Witnesses CAN be unreliable and I have read Elizabeth Loftus work on failure of witnesses - but just because there can be mistakes, misjudgments or set ups it does not discount the fact that it is possible to discover the objective difference between manslaughter and 1st degree murder (or other cases such as the property theft examples)

You can only make *what you THINK* are "objective" judgements. "Objective" is a fallacy. As long as human perceptions and judgements are involved, there is NO "objective" anything. There is no way to actually KNOW all the elements involved in your decision, or hold them at one time in consciousness (PROVEN by Neuropsych). You can never really know the mind of another. The POINT is that "taking a life" is no moral *absolute*. There are times it IS considered perfectly moral.

Edit : Juries disagree ALL THE TIME, seeing the same set of circumstances. Some people think this or that war was a "just war". Others disagree. "Objective morality" is crap.

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
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
05-04-2014, 10:22 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 10:15 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(05-04-2014 08:56 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Of course you can make objective judgments - either there was direct intention to kill or there was not. Intentions exist. Of course the judgments made can be mistaken because there COULD BE some set up (eg in the case I suggested it could be that the 1st degree murder was a set up and the drunk driver was quickly hit on the head and injected with alcohol to make it seem that they were drunk and careless etc)- but the fact there may be some epistemological barriers does not mean it is all subjective. Witnesses CAN be unreliable and I have read Elizabeth Loftus work on failure of witnesses - but just because there can be mistakes, misjudgments or set ups it does not discount the fact that it is possible to discover the objective difference between manslaughter and 1st degree murder (or other cases such as the property theft examples)

You can only make *what you THINK* are "objective" judgements. "Objective" is a fallacy. As long as human perceptions and judgements are involved, there is NO "objective" anything. There is no way to actually KNOW all the elements involved in your decision, or hold them at one time in consciousness (PROVEN by Neuropsych). You can never really know the mind of another. The POINT is that "taking a life" is no moral *absolute*. There are times it IS considered perfectly moral.

It is incredible easy for us to mis-remember and mis-interpret our mis-perceptions. Objectivity is something to strive for, but we can never achieve it.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 10:26 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 10:22 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...
Objectivity is something to strive for, but we can never achieve it.

... in your subjective opinion. Tongue

I've written a blog piece on organisation/individual ethics/morality if anyone is interested in reading it.

It'll probably get censored again... most of my stuff is.

Sadcryface

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
05-04-2014, 11:02 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 10:26 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(05-04-2014 10:22 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...
Objectivity is something to strive for, but we can never achieve it.

... in your subjective opinion. Tongue

I've written a blog piece on organisation/individual ethics/morality if anyone is interested in reading it.

It'll probably get censored again... most of my stuff is.

Sadcryface

Unless or until we can all fundamentally resigned ourselves to correct our very fallible brains, our subjectivity will keep fucking up our attempts at objectivity for the foreseeable future... Wink

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 11:10 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 09:17 PM)Baruch Wrote:  In addition are you saying "I should not let people live their own lives, make their own choices" - sounds like moral preaching !
I don't know what you should or shouldn't do.
I only know that if you seek to oppress me or my loved ones then I may oppose you.
I oppose a nanny state. I only want a government that intervenes when it has to.

I recognise the hypocrisy in a person supporting separation of state and church but then wanting their own moral beliefs enforced by law.

This isn't to say that hypocrisy is right or wrong but merely a recognition that hypocrisy is in play.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2014, 02:45 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 10:22 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(05-04-2014 10:15 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You can only make *what you THINK* are "objective" judgements. "Objective" is a fallacy. As long as human perceptions and judgements are involved, there is NO "objective" anything. There is no way to actually KNOW all the elements involved in your decision, or hold them at one time in consciousness (PROVEN by Neuropsych). You can never really know the mind of another. The POINT is that "taking a life" is no moral *absolute*. There are times it IS considered perfectly moral.

It is incredible easy for us to mis-remember and mis-interpret our mis-perceptions. Objectivity is something to strive for, but we can never achieve it.

I agree - but just because it is incredible easy for us to mis-remember and mis-interpret our mis-perceptions doesnt mean objectivity about an event is never achieved. Elizabeth Lotus for example is well known for investigating and writing about witness testimony limitations - but no were does she say lets scrap the whole idea because its possible to make mistakes. The very fact we can point out mistakes pre-supposes we can reach objectivity (or at least a very high probability in Bayesian terms if super skeptic) - otherwise the concept of being mistaken is meaningless.

On one extreme end people accept alleged witnesses of Jesus as valid testimony, on the other end vast conspiracy theories are required to undermine multiple reliable witnesses - clearly there is a spectrum of reliability. Tests with witness testimony proves that it can be reliable - for example research done by altering words used and leading questions about a cars speed can lead to different results for the same witnessed event - but only to a certain threshold. ALL witnesses claim to have seen the car and crash ! All claim the cars were moving ! Its just the speed can be altered by carefully crafted questions which alter perceptions & memories of the event.

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
06-04-2014, 02:48 AM
RE: Objective Morality
DLJ, how on Earth is your writing censored here?? I daresay you have one of the more delicate sensibilities around here. I don't see how your mind can conjure up something that the powers that be would think of censoring here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2014, 03:03 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 10:15 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(05-04-2014 08:56 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Of course you can make objective judgments - either there was direct intention to kill or there was not. Intentions exist. Of course the judgments made can be mistaken because there COULD BE some set up (eg in the case I suggested it could be that the 1st degree murder was a set up and the drunk driver was quickly hit on the head and injected with alcohol to make it seem that they were drunk and careless etc)- but the fact there may be some epistemological barriers does not mean it is all subjective. Witnesses CAN be unreliable and I have read Elizabeth Loftus work on failure of witnesses - but just because there can be mistakes, misjudgments or set ups it does not discount the fact that it is possible to discover the objective difference between manslaughter and 1st degree murder (or other cases such as the property theft examples)

You can only make *what you THINK* are "objective" judgements. "Objective" is a fallacy. As long as human perceptions and judgements are involved, there is NO "objective" anything. There is no way to actually KNOW all the elements involved in your decision, or hold them at one time in consciousness (PROVEN by Neuropsych). You can never really know the mind of another. The POINT is that "taking a life" is no moral *absolute*. There are times it IS considered perfectly moral.

Edit : Juries disagree ALL THE TIME, seeing the same set of circumstances. Some people think this or that war was a "just war". Others disagree. "Objective morality" is crap.

see my comments to evolution-kills about witness judgments. Read Elizabet Lotus - a world expert in the fallibility of witnesses. Just because mistakes can be made it does not validate all testimonies - that is a fallacy.
The example of judging a cars speed prior to a crash done is psychological tests shows we can be objective about events we witnessed to a high degree - i.e all agree there was a car ! All agree there was a crash ! However language manipulation distorts memory of the speed and other cognitive biases can impair other judgments - eg change bias, attention blindness, confirmation bias etc. The fact we can point out these biases presupposes there is an objective view and by being careful we can avoid many of these biases. I am certainly not claiming we can overcome all the biases all the time - definitely not. However going to the other extreme and dismissing ALL witnesses as all mistaken ALL of the time is nonsense (and also makes the cognitive biases + memory impairments all meaningless and impossible to contrast to real events).

...unless you are arguing from some extremely solipsistic view taking skepticism little too far.

Also - specialist training helps reduce subjectivity and gain better objective accuracy when making judgments. Certainly not infallible but very helpful - eg I have worked in areas of quality control and can spot discrepancies other lay people might be blind to or likewise someone working in forensics. Likewise radiographers or histologists and the like. ALL these CAN make mistakes - but it doesnt follow because mistakes can be made that mistakes are always made - hence we can be objective.
I recall going to histology & radiology MDT meetings and at first most cell cultures and MRI scans look the same ! Of course a few radiologists may disagree - but it doesnt follow that some disagreements mean all judgments are falsely subjective and can never reach any objectivity.

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
06-04-2014, 03:05 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(06-04-2014 02:48 AM)Charis Wrote:  DLJ, how on Earth is your writing censored here?? I daresay you have one of the more delicate sensibilities around here. I don't see how your mind can conjure up something that the powers that be would think of censoring here.

Nah. Not here. I'm talking about a blog for our company website.

If my writing is too salacious or contentious, one of the husband/wife team who own the company thinks it's great because it draws attention and the other worries about the risk of offending some of our more sensitive customers.

The very essence of subjectivity!

I'll know either way in a couple of days.

This blog piece actually opens with a quote from our very own TTA Prophet (with his permission).

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: