Objective Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-04-2014, 12:53 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(07-04-2014 03:17 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Hey Artie

I just wanted to say that I think you are doing a great job of addressing people's comments. Although most people (myself included) disagree with your POV I think it is great to have people expressing different views.

Well done.
Thank you very much I really appreciate it. And I'm sorry if some comments and insults I receive should ricochet and hit you too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2014, 01:05 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(07-04-2014 07:57 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You just made up that definition of "fittest". In all of human history, "prisons" have existed for a tiny fraction of time, thus ANYTHING you say using THAT pathetic bs is ridiculous. The "fittest" by definition is the one the most likely to survive.
Bucky Ball, if you don't understand that if you go out and cause a lot of pain to a lot of people they are likely to cause a lot of pain to you in return and may even kill you therefore the one that doesn't cause a lot of pain to a lot of people is "fitter" than you because he is more likely to survive then we can't have a rational exchange and I'll just put you on ignore. Bye.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2014, 01:18 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(07-04-2014 03:17 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(07-04-2014 02:52 PM)Artie Wrote:  Bedtime and working week. I will be busy but shall try to find some time to answer posts.
Hey Artie

I just wanted to say that I think you are doing a great job of addressing people's comments. Although most people (myself included) disagree with your POV I think it is great to have people expressing different views.

Well done.

Ditto.

These are the conversation that I look forward to.


Got another plane to catch. Back later.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
08-04-2014, 01:23 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(08-04-2014 01:05 AM)Artie Wrote:  Bucky Ball, if you don't understand that if you go out and cause a lot of pain to a lot of people they are likely to cause a lot of pain to you in return and may even kill you therefore the one that doesn't cause a lot of pain to a lot of people is "fitter" than you because he is more likely to survive then we can't have a rational exchange and I'll just put you on ignore. Bye.
I have to say the following people have profited and procreated very well from the pain game:
Holyfield
Foreman
Tyson
Lennox Lewis
Klitschko
Mayweather
De La Hoya

I absolutely agree that in a normal sense it doesn't suit a person's self interests to commit murder, rape, assault because society will look to protect itself from you.
But I don't think we need to equate these things to morality, especially not objective morality.
It's just common sense. If someone is trying to hurt you, you either take them out or you try to avoid them. If someone stronger than you is trying to hurt you then you may want to form a group of people and take this person out, or maybe create some laws and then lock them up. It is self preservation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stevil's post
08-04-2014, 01:45 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(08-04-2014 01:23 AM)Stevil Wrote:  I have to say the following people have profited and procreated very well from the pain game:
Holyfield
Foreman
Tyson
Lennox Lewis
Klitschko
Mayweather
De La Hoya
Yes of course, when two people agree to inflict pain on each other in order to determine who is best at it and who can take the most then it's consentual and perfectly fine. Smile
Quote:I absolutely agree that in a normal sense it doesn't suit a person's self interests to commit murder, rape, assault because society will look to protect itself from you.
But I don't think we need to equate these things to morality, especially not objective morality.
It's just common sense. If someone is trying to hurt you, you either take them out or you try to avoid them. If someone stronger than you is trying to hurt you then you may want to form a group of people and take this person out, or maybe create some laws and then lock them up. It is self preservation.
It wasn't your subjective opinion that you should be born with a survival instinct. But since you were born with a survival instinct it is objectively morally right for you to perform actions promoting self preservation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2014, 02:25 AM
RE: Objective Morality
I admire your stamina Arti; I really do. Popcorn

"If you want a happy ending, that depends, of course, on where you stop your story." Orson Welles
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dee's post
08-04-2014, 02:42 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(08-04-2014 02:25 AM)Dee Wrote:  I admire your stamina Arti; I really do. Popcorn
Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Artie's post
08-04-2014, 05:01 AM
RE: Objective Morality
Hello Bucky Ball, how are you?

(07-04-2014 07:57 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The "fittest" by definition is the one the most likely to survive.
I suppose that depends on what you understand by "survive", but I find that description somewhat misleading because no individual organism ever survives; life as a process goes on but every living thing ends up as a lifeless nothing.

I'd say the fittest is the one whose "children" (in a very broad sense) are most likely to have "children".

I used to have a very religious friend who managed to slam his life against a truck, leaving a nine year old boy behind (the irony of prayer!). I have managed to live longer than he did, but I haven't brought any children to this already crowded planet. I've turned out to be more likely to survive than he was after a period of years, but my specific set of genes is a failed evolutionary experiment. I'd say he's proved to be fitter than I am.

Unless we ensure that those who come after us will be able to see their following generation grow, we are all failed evolutionary experiments. But instead, we engage in a pointless competition to see who can buy the most expensive grave.

I hope there aren't any alien biologists silently studying us. That'd be very embarrassing!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes living thing's post
08-04-2014, 05:41 AM (This post was last modified: 08-04-2014 05:45 AM by DLJ.)
RE: Objective Morality
(07-04-2014 02:12 PM)Artie Wrote:  
(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

That depends on your definition of 'feelings' and 'instincts'.
But it's a side-issue.

The point is that it's all about the chemical reactions within the subject reacting to it's environment.

Morality to be truly objective needs to remain fixed even in the absence of subjects (e.g. us) and also fixed as the environment changes.

That's what the Stanford definition meant by 'universal' i.e. existing as a fixed calibration / axiology irrespective of what was being measured.

Incidentally, I have no problem with the idea that we can create that axiology (or framework) e.g. Sam Harris's Moral Landscape and we can call it objective but only if we specifically refer to it as 'human' objective morality.

Even still, we can only really claim it as objective if everyone agrees (concensus morality) to using that axiology and even more still, we can only really call it 'comparative' i.e. being healthy is comparatively better than being sick... I think we are a long way off creating objective metrics for this (i.e. "I have health factor 27 today, I can't come to work".

Big Grin

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
08-04-2014, 06:00 AM (This post was last modified: 08-04-2014 06:12 AM by Artie.)
RE: Objective Morality
(08-04-2014 05:41 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Morality to be truly objective needs to remain fixed even in the absence of subjects (e.g. us)
Where in the definitons of objective does it say that for something to be objective it needs to remain fixed even in the absence of subjects?
Quote:and also fixed as the environment changes.
Where in the definitions of objective does it say that something objective needs to be fixed as the environment changes? If there was a thunderstorm yesterday wasn't it an objective fact that there was a thunderstorm yesterday? And isn't it an objective fact there isn't one today because the environment has changed?
Quote:Even still, we can only really claim it as objective if everyone agrees (concensus morality)
Where in the definitions of objective does it say anything about something being objective if everyone agrees? On the contrary, an objective fact is an objective fact no matter how many agrees or disagrees. If there is a thunderstorm it's an objective fact there is a thunderstorm no matter how many agree.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: