Objective Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-04-2014, 12:14 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(07-04-2014 11:36 AM)Artie Wrote:  Would need more details to answer that. Such as whose survival and how they live.

I'm speaking in general.

Is there an objective rule, outside of communities, that says life is valuable? For example, is it valuable that a virus fatal to humans survives, as well as humans, as well as life in other solar systems we may never see or know? How is this value measured outside of the communities?

(07-04-2014 11:36 AM)Artie Wrote:  No. It is a moral code evolved among organisms living in communities.

The golden rule can only exist within a community of living organisms?

(07-04-2014 11:36 AM)Artie Wrote:  No. Rocks don't cooperate in social communities.

The golden rule can only exist within a social community of living things?

(07-04-2014 11:36 AM)Artie Wrote:  
Quote:4. If group survival is the key motivator, would banishing a human sick with an incurable virus be adhering to the golden rule?
Not possible to answer without more details of the particular case.

What sort of details would you require to apply an objective measurement, vs. a subjective one?

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2014, 12:21 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(07-04-2014 10:26 AM)Artie Wrote:  Evolution, that doesn't have any "personal feelings or opinions", evolved the moral code the Golden Rule via natural selection.

And by the way, if it were "objective" it wouldn't EVOLVE, moron.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2014, 12:56 PM
RE: Objective Morality
[Image: 28053e68124984203cab52c238c0dbe62225a9c4...e4897f.jpg]

Rev and I figured Artie out about a dozen pages back... Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
07-04-2014, 01:04 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(07-04-2014 02:26 AM)Artie Wrote:  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.
Yes, that is part of it.
It would be an expectation that there are moral truths (objectivity) which can be objectively discovered or that a person holds a personal opinion (subjective) with regards to "reasoned" moral "truths".
In both circumstances the person holding the moral beliefs has an expectation that people ought to (or should) do moral acts and ought not to (or should avoid) doing immoral acts.
So the moral framework includes "moral obligation" and normative ("shoulds" and "oughts").
Also a key aspect of the moral framework is "choice". If there is no choice then there is no morality. e.g. If a man is held at gun point to give money to charity. This generally isn't deemed as a moral action because the man is merely acting to save his own life. It is deemed a selfish act rather than a moral one.
The intentionality of the action is very important. Did they do it because it was the "right" thing to do, or did they do it because of selfish gain?


(07-04-2014 02:26 AM)Artie Wrote:  
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.
It appears to me that you think the intention (and choices) don't matter.
It seems you are only judging in past tense based on the outcome. And your measuring stick is judge whether the action improved human society.

I would argue that most of the time, most people are focused on improving their own lot in life rather than "human society" in general. Most people on the planet are struggling to live, struggling to put food on the table, to put clothes on their backs. Should they focus on improving society or should they focus on survival of themselves and their family?

(07-04-2014 02:26 AM)Artie Wrote:  
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.
In a bee hive the workers never get to procreate. A colony organism such as bees and ants are much different to humans. Us humans, we compete for the ability to procreate. Evolution wise our own DNA is unique, we gain no value from destroying our own DNA so that someone else's DNA can survive.
Maybe you would lay your life down for the Queen (bless her royal hiney).
But I would rather get laid, and live my own life than do anything to benefit the Queen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2014, 01:13 PM (This post was last modified: 07-04-2014 01:17 PM by DLJ.)
RE: Objective Morality
(07-04-2014 11:25 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(07-04-2014 08:47 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Ohmy Really? After all these pages, you have no idea?

I'm sceptical.

I'm thinking that the problem lies in the definition of 'objective'. Right?
Well, you write "universal (objective) morality." What does this mean? That universal is the same as objective? Here are three definitions of "objective":

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/objective
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective

None of them mention anything about something objective needing to be universal or that objective is the same as universal.

I'm OK with all those definitions
e.g. (respectively)
"Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices"
"existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world" ... assuming a non-solipsistic scenario
"not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion."

So perhaps the disagreement lies in the inclusion/exclusion of evolved instincts.

I think you are arguing that evolved instincts are objective because they do not involve conscious thought or considered opinion.

I (and others) are arguing that evolved instincts require a subject... meaning that personal feelings (instinctive or otherwise) can only exist if there is a person (or any sentient creature).

Would you agree with this analysis?

Unsure

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
07-04-2014, 01:21 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(07-04-2014 12:14 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  Is there an objective rule, outside of communities, that says life is valuable? For example, is it valuable that a virus fatal to humans survives, as well as humans, as well as life in other solar systems we may never see or know? How is this value measured outside of the communities?
I don't know what you mean. Suppose you have a universe without "life" and then add "life". Would that add to the value of the universe? Is that what you mean?

(07-04-2014 11:36 AM)Artie Wrote:  No. It is a moral code evolved among organisms living in communities.
Quote:The golden rule can only exist within a community of living organisms?
Yes.
(07-04-2014 11:36 AM)Artie Wrote:  Not possible to answer without more details of the particular case.
Quote:What sort of details would you require to apply an objective measurement, vs. a subjective one?
Details enabling me to see it from the objective perspective of evolution, that is find out which tactic would cause the least amount of pain to the least amount of people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2014, 01:44 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(07-04-2014 01:04 PM)Stevil Wrote:  If a man is held at gun point to give money to charity. This generally isn't deemed as a moral action because the man is merely acting to save his own life. It is deemed a selfish act rather than a moral one.
I don't see the problem. An action performed in self defense to save his life is a moral action because saving a life is a moral action.
Quote:I would argue that most of the time, most people are focused on improving their own lot in life rather than "human society" in general.
That is why most people live by the Golden Rule since that means improving their lot in life.
Quote:Most people on the planet are struggling to live, struggling to put food on the table, to put clothes on their backs. Should they focus on improving society or should they focus on survival of themselves and their family?
A stable functioning society where they can get cheap food and get cheap clothes means better chances of survival of themselves and their family.

I have read all but edited out all I felt I didn't need comment on.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2014, 01:59 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(07-04-2014 12:56 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  [Image: 28053e68124984203cab52c238c0dbe62225a9c4...e4897f.jpg]

Rev and I figured Artie out about a dozen pages back... Drinking Beverage

Wow! He really racked up a lot of posts. I put him on ignore after this catastrofuck.

I gave him the benefit of the doubt for several responses before I realized he was just trolling me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
07-04-2014, 02:08 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(07-04-2014 01:21 PM)Artie Wrote:  Details enabling me to see it from the objective perspective of evolution, that is find out which tactic would cause the least amount of pain to the least amount of people.
This is not what evolution is about.
Evolution is survival of the fittest.
Not least amount of pain.

If it were about minimising pain then we wouldn't have evolved nerve endings.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
07-04-2014, 02:12 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(07-04-2014 01:13 PM)DLJ Wrote:  I'm OK with all those definitions
e.g. (respectively)
"Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices"
"existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world" ... assuming a non-solipsistic scenario
"not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion."
I'm glad. I was wondering where "universal" came from.
Quote:So perhaps the disagreement lies in the inclusion/exclusion of evolved instincts.

I think you are arguing that evolved instincts are objective because they do not involve conscious thought or considered opinion.
Right. Exactly.
Quote:I (and others) are arguing that evolved instincts require a subject... meaning that personal feelings (instinctive or otherwise) can only exist if there is a person (or any sentient creature).

Would you agree with this analysis?
I'm not sure... are personal feelings instinctive? I mean, a brain running only on instincts would be like a robot programmed by evolution. Would this robot have feelings?

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