Objective Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-04-2014, 02:26 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(06-04-2014 03:21 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It's a difficult conversation (discussing morality) without first agreeing on what morality is.
I use this definition: "Morality ... is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality It's the best one I have found but if you know a better one please quote it here with the URL.
Quote:If I am extremely selfish, then I am only interested in my own survival, if I recognise that if I attempt to murder people then it puts my own life in danger because the people I attempt to murder, they will be motivated to use extreme force against me. Their loved ones will also be motivated against me. And also the community/society in general will be motivated to use force to nutralise me. So it is in my best selfish interests not to murder people.
Does this make me a moral person?
Everybody is "selfish" in the sense that they want to survive. If this "selfishness" results in behavior that benefits everybody not only you this behavior is "good" and moral.
Quote:Regarding helping others. If I help someone in the hope that someday they will help me (in my own hour of need), does this mean that my motives to help are because of morality or because of selfishness?
There's no difference.
(06-04-2014 03:02 PM)Artie Wrote:  To save others at the cost of myself.
Quote:I would rather myself live than four random strangers. My own selfish survival insticts tell me not to be a hero, but to act in self preservation. Are you able to explain to me why my own act of self preservation would be deemed objectively to be immoral?
Because evolutionary wise the importance of the survival of many outweigh the importance of survival of one. Which is why bees give their lives to protect their hive instinctively. That we all are programmed to risk our lives for others is beneficial for all of us because statistically the behavior increases survival chances for all even though single individuals might occasionally die. Risking your life for others is an act of self preservation.
Quote:I don't believe in "sacrifice for the greater good", I am human and I want to live.
It's not a belief, it's just instinct. If you show everybody you don't have the instinct to help others they won't help you either and you'll reduce your chances of survival.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2014, 03:25 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(06-04-2014 11:43 PM)morondog Wrote:  You can say that I must do whatever it takes to ensure survival of the species and that is what's moral but... I mean what is the point of civilization unless I can break free from my evolutionary violent past? So fuck evolution as a source of morality.

Besides which evolution is about survival of genes. I bear close resemblance but not 100% to every other human. If it's all about survival of *my* genes then I should go rape lots of women, according to this idea. (Precisely contrary to the golden rule).
If you are in a stable relationship with the right amount of children living in a stable crime-free society you maximize the chances of the survival of your genes and we call this moral. If you go around raping lots of women you minimize the chances of the survival of your genes and even yourself and that would be immoral behavior. That is why we evolved morals such as the Golden Rule. However, there are many people who don't understand this and we call them sociopaths. Often there is something wrong with the hard wiring of the brains of these people due to injury or disease so they lose the ability to differentiate between right and wrong. If you know some please have them go and have their brains checked out to eliminate physical causes.
Quote:I'm kinda rambling here but my point is there is no way to say that a particular action will result in benefit to the species. What if we're competing for resources? Is it then moral for me to wipe out you and all your family? 'Cos that'll be better for survival.
And when my friends come and wipe you out in revenge how is that improving your survival?
Quote:If all of us survive including you and your family there won't be enough for everyone. Better to kill you.
And when you are known by everybody else as killers how does that improve your chances of survival? Who will help you in your hour of need? Everybody will just shun you afraid they'll be next or make sure they won't be.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2014, 05:15 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(07-04-2014 03:25 AM)Artie Wrote:  If you are in a stable relationship with the right amount of children living in a stable crime-free society you maximize the chances of the survival of your genes and we call this moral.
Yet again, your opinion. The only way to know if I've maximised the chances of my genes survival is post facto, *after* they have indeed survived.

A more violent society based on might-makes-right (which is what we actually *have* after millions of years of evolution, notwithstanding your love of the golden rule) might be more of a gamble but might result in stronger and more able progeny, thus still maximising my genes' survival potential. You *cannot* claim to know that survival potential is best in a stable society. We got to the top of the food chain by being rough and tough, not a bunch of pansies.

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
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
07-04-2014, 05:18 AM
RE: Objective Morality
So far you haven't demonstrated an objective morality by the way. You're trying very hard to define *your own* morality as *the* morality which is objective, as far as I can see.

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
07-04-2014, 05:34 AM
RE: Objective Morality
I don't see the point in intellectually dismissing the concept of "Objective Morality" when the theists are defining inherited traits/instinct and social/environmental conditioning as "objective morals".

Rather then argue the validity of the term, use their definition of it and show its naturalistic origin. Take away their toy from them, failing to do so and they assume a win, then run around waving their objective morality rattle singing the na na na nana na song.

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2014, 05:55 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(07-04-2014 05:15 AM)morondog Wrote:  A more violent society based on might-makes-right (which is what we actually *have* after millions of years of evolution, notwithstanding your love of the golden rule) might be more of a gamble but might result in stronger and more able progeny, thus still maximising my genes' survival potential. You *cannot* claim to know that survival potential is best in a stable society. We got to the top of the food chain by being rough and tough, not a bunch of pansies.
"In 2008 approximately one in every 31 adults (7.3 million) in the United States was behind bars, or being monitored (probation and parole)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarcerat...ted_States How would you explain to them (especially those on Death Row) how it is good to be on the top of the food chain and how their situation improves the chances of survival for them and their families and children?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2014, 06:10 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(07-04-2014 05:55 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(07-04-2014 05:15 AM)morondog Wrote:  A more violent society based on might-makes-right (which is what we actually *have* after millions of years of evolution, notwithstanding your love of the golden rule) might be more of a gamble but might result in stronger and more able progeny, thus still maximising my genes' survival potential. You *cannot* claim to know that survival potential is best in a stable society. We got to the top of the food chain by being rough and tough, not a bunch of pansies.
"In 2008 approximately one in every 31 adults (7.3 million) in the United States was behind bars, or being monitored (probation and parole)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarcerat...ted_States How would you explain to them (especially those on Death Row) how it is good to be on the top of the food chain and how their situation improves the chances of survival for them and their families and children?

So Death Row is an evolutionary thing? How do *you* explain to them that for the good of society and because they have violated the golden rule they must now die, and that this is *right* and not merely an ad-hoc rule born of our violent society?

If I am rich and powerful, how good are the chances of *my* genes propagating as opposed to one who is poor and weak? Convince me, the rich and powerful guy, that I should help the poor and weak one, that this is a moral action, where morals are defined as 'that which leads to the survival of my genes'.

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
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
07-04-2014, 06:11 AM
RE: Objective Morality
Pathetic analogy Artie.

I see you are here to save us. Please forgive me but I do not believe you are up to the task.

The people arguing with you seem pretty switched on and have faced worthier opponents.

Perhaps you'd be better off saving kittens.

William Laine Craig seems one of the best the theists have. And I consider him a moronic simpleton.

Give it up and spare us all.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
07-04-2014, 06:12 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(07-04-2014 02:26 AM)Artie Wrote:  ...
I use this definition: "Morality ... is
...
but if you know a better one please quote it here with the URL.
...

Stanford:
“The term “morality” can be used either:

1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
a) some other group, such as a religion, or
b) accepted by an individual for her own behavior or

2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

What “morality” is taken to refer to plays a crucial, although often unacknowledged, role in formulating ethical theories? To take “morality” to refer to an actually existing code of conduct put forward by a society results in a denial that there is a universal morality, one that applies to all human beings. … “Morality” has also been taken to refer to any code of conduct that a person or group takes as most important.

Among those who use “morality” normatively, all hold that “morality” refers to a code of conduct that applies to all who can understand it and can govern their behavior by it...”

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
07-04-2014, 07:33 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(07-04-2014 06:10 AM)morondog Wrote:  If I am rich and powerful, how good are the chances of *my* genes propagating as opposed to one who is poor and weak?
Depends on how you got the money and your behavior and what you do with them of course.
Quote:Convince me, the rich and powerful guy, that I should help the poor and weak one, that this is a moral action, where morals are defined as 'that which leads to the survival of my genes'.
Moral rich guys don't need convincing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_M...Foundation
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: