Objective Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-04-2014, 03:09 AM
RE: Objective Morality
Artie if indeed you are sincere and I offended you, I apologise.

Whatever the case may be, I do not feel I can contribute anything else worth reading anyway.

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
06-04-2014, 03:27 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(06-04-2014 02:45 AM)Baruch Wrote:  
(05-04-2014 10:22 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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.

Even then, a high degree of certainty is still not pure objectivity. Probably the closest we can ever get to that is within the realm of mathematics, and even then you can make arguments against that (mathematics may only be objective within our universal frame reference and might not apply to other universes if they exist).

But as for human perception, thought, and interaction? Given our current biological underpinnings, I'd say that pure objectivity for us is an impossibility; one that would require a fundamental reworking of our biology and physiology to overcome, so far as I can tell from my limited and subjective perspective.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2014, 03:28 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(06-04-2014 03:09 AM)Banjo Wrote:  Artie if indeed you are sincere and I offended you, I apologise.

Whatever the case may be, I do not feel I can contribute anything else worth reading anyway.
Thank you apology accepted. I think most of the dissension comes from talking past each other using different definitions. No need to think you can't contribute anything worth reading.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2014, 03:31 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.

Juries dont disagree all the time. They can disagree some of the time - and depending on the case and evidence available. Your generalization is fallacious.
It is of course possible that there is an elaborate set up or conspiracy and hence mistakes can be made - but it doesnt follow mistakes are always made. Your inductive reasoning from some mistakes are made to mistakes always made is invalid.

Likewise your comments below are also invalid inductive reasoning:
Quote:As long as human perceptions and judgements are involved, there is NO "objective" anything
Human perceptions are as much part of reality as stones, comets and stars. Judgments & perceptions about an event can be erroneous, wrong, misremembered etc - but it does not follow that because some judgments are faulty therefore all judgments are faulty - that is bad philosophy & science.

If you dont want to use the term "objectivity" about a judgment for a perceived event then it can be re-phrased in a Bayesian probabilistic way or Popperian falsification way as the best we have to approach objectivity *just in case* some evidence comes up to invalidate the testimony/judgment/perception.
In some cases it highly unlikely that the judgments are mistaken - but I can accept the cautionary skepticism just in case some conspiracy or set up has occurred.

I'll give you a funny example.
I once saw an abdominal/pelvic X-Ray of a dildo inserted a little too far and got lost !
Now - I could accept the testimony of the couple that they were playing with a dildo and it was pushed too far into the anus. Yes, it could be a hoax - just to go to A & E for a laugh (this is no laughing matter ! and the facial expressions didnt convey this) - but just because it is a testimony doesnt mean it is not objective and falsely remembered or hallucination. Now I look at the X-Rays and see the white shapes of the batteries and dildo deeply lodged were no light shines. It could be a mixup with the x-rays. I could be mus-perceiving, my colleagues and I - including the radiologists could be having mass hallucinations of dildo's in x-rays.......it is theoretically possible. By the way, the X-Ray was not done because the testimony was not believed - just to know the location and what to do next. Finally after some medical procedures the dildo is removed. Was it an objective fact a dildo went to far and lodged in the anus ?
...I chose a funny one - hopefully a memorable example !

....and for the final photo:
[Image: 436589.thumb?d=1363531328]

(not the original case discussed)

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, 03:31 AM
RE: Objective Morality
No worries Artie and thanks. You're a gentleman.

Mate, I'm just a drummer. What the hell do I know?

I'd only just woken up...

I'll leave you guys to it.

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
06-04-2014, 03:34 AM
RE: Objective Morality
WTF????

Big Grin

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
06-04-2014, 03:45 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(06-04-2014 03:27 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(06-04-2014 02:45 AM)Baruch Wrote:  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.

Even then, a high degree of certainty is still not pure objectivity. Probably the closest we can ever get to that is within the realm of mathematics, and even then you can make arguments against that (mathematics may only be objective within our universal frame reference and might not apply to other universes if they exist).

But as for human perception, thought, and interaction? Given our current biological underpinnings, I'd say that pure objectivity for us is an impossibility; one that would require a fundamental reworking of our biology and physiology to overcome, so far as I can tell from my limited and subjective perspective.

Evolutionkills - it really doesn't have to be so complicated. I have enough valid objective evidence that you exist as a human and have a computer and spend part of your time blogging on TTA. Its not only about objective mathematics. Yes it could be an elaborate conspiracy and you are a non-human bot. If you now tell me your an AI bot or another alien species blogging from the planet zeewoopo then I am still unlikely to be convinced but in principle I could be wrong.
See my other post if you want to rephrase "objectivity" in terms of Bayesian or Poperian falsification - I can except this, but much of the time it is pedantic unnecessary hyper-skepticism. (it becomes a faith based skepticism on the other extreme of the religious faith based certainties eg in gods)

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, 04:29 AM (This post was last modified: 06-04-2014 04:40 AM by Artie.)
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 10:15 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  "Objective morality" is crap.
Please quote and give the URLs for the definitions you use for "objective", "morality" and "objective morality" combined. I am trying to establish a baseline for further interaction.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2014, 05:52 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(06-04-2014 04:29 AM)Artie Wrote:  Please quote and give the URLs for the definitions you use for "objective", "morality" and "objective morality" combined. I am trying to establish a baseline for further interaction.

We've already been there, done that. You are either really that fucking stupid, a disingenuous turd, or a troll. I'm willing to bet all three. Dodgy


(03-04-2014 03:19 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(03-04-2014 03:11 AM)Artie Wrote:  Can you find me a definition of "objective" saying something objective needs to be "absolute, universal, or uniform"?

Objective Morality

Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true. Proponents of this theory would argue that a statement like "Murder is wrong" can be as objectively true as "1 + 1 = 2." Most of the time, the alleged source is God, or the Kantian Categorical Imperative; arguably, no objective source of morality has ever been confirmed, nor have any a priori proofs been offered to the effect that morality is anything other than subjective. Kant ultimately fails, because he is perceptibly committed to Christian morality, which guides his arguments.

The moral principles that people claim to be "objective" usually coincide very well with what they feel subjectively to be true. When pressed to provide justification, the person in question will usually just fail to understand that morality might not be objective, and might consequently grow increasingly doubtful or hysterical as the subjective bases of their arguments are progressively revealed, as has been observed in recent times.
-Rational Wiki

(03-04-2014 10:20 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(03-04-2014 02:49 PM)Artie Wrote:  So you really require some objective statistics to "know" that this is an objective fact?

Yes, anyone who cares about what is true does. It's clear that you don't have a fucking clue what an objective fact is.

Objective
-(Of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts:
-Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/def.../objective

Fact
-A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

So do I need more than your's or mine's intuition or emotions to determine if something is an objective fact? Yes, I do; because I'm concerned with whether or not the things you are claiming are objectively true or not. You don't have any clue how to approach a discussion with even a modicum of scientific rationality and objectivity.

(05-04-2014 09:09 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(05-04-2014 08:57 AM)Artie Wrote:  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.

(05-04-2014 11:35 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Objective Morality would be one that is not dependant upon situation or outside circumstance. 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.

This of course is not reality and thus why there is no such thing.

(05-04-2014 11:48 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(05-04-2014 11:39 AM)Artie Wrote:  Please quote any source defining "objective" or "objective morality" as you have described above.

(05-04-2014 11:11 AM)Artie Wrote:  "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". http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini.../objective http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective What do you think objective means?


http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Objective_morality

Quote:Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true. Proponents of this theory would argue that a statement like "Murder is wrong" can be as objectively true as "1 + 1 = 2." Most of the time, the alleged source is God, or the Kantian Categorical Imperative; arguably, no objective source of morality has ever been confirmed, nor have any a priori proofs been offered to the effect that morality is anything other than subjective. Kant ultimately fails, because he is perceptibly committed to Christian morality, which guides his arguments.


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?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
06-04-2014, 06:38 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(06-04-2014 05:52 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(06-04-2014 04:29 AM)Artie Wrote:  Please quote and give the URLs for the definitions you use for "objective", "morality" and "objective morality" combined. I am trying to establish a baseline for further interaction.

We've already been there, done that. You are either really that fucking stupid, a disingenuous turd, or a troll. I'm willing to bet all three. Dodgy


(03-04-2014 03:19 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Objective Morality

Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true. Proponents of this theory would argue that a statement like "Murder is wrong" can be as objectively true as "1 + 1 = 2." Most of the time, the alleged source is God, or the Kantian Categorical Imperative; arguably, no objective source of morality has ever been confirmed, nor have any a priori proofs been offered to the effect that morality is anything other than subjective. Kant ultimately fails, because he is perceptibly committed to Christian morality, which guides his arguments.

The moral principles that people claim to be "objective" usually coincide very well with what they feel subjectively to be true. When pressed to provide justification, the person in question will usually just fail to understand that morality might not be objective, and might consequently grow increasingly doubtful or hysterical as the subjective bases of their arguments are progressively revealed, as has been observed in recent times.
-Rational Wiki

(03-04-2014 10:20 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Yes, anyone who cares about what is true does. It's clear that you don't have a fucking clue what an objective fact is.

Objective
-(Of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts:
-Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/def.../objective

Fact
-A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

So do I need more than your's or mine's intuition or emotions to determine if something is an objective fact? Yes, I do; because I'm concerned with whether or not the things you are claiming are objectively true or not. You don't have any clue how to approach a discussion with even a modicum of scientific rationality and objectivity.

(05-04-2014 09:09 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  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.

(05-04-2014 11:35 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Objective Morality would be one that is not dependant upon situation or outside circumstance. 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.

This of course is not reality and thus why there is no such thing.

(05-04-2014 11:48 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Objective_morality



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?

He knows I caught him in a no win situation. Thats why he is crying about a definition I gave him ages ago and won't give the answer that is a choice of denying reality and his definition of Objective or admitting that morality is subjective. It was fun batting him around like a wounded mouse but at this point he is just repeating himself over and over and I am getting tired of copy/paste. Personally I am done feeding the troll but everyone else feel free.

[Image: keep-calm-and-hail-cthulhu.jpg]
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

(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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: