Objective Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-04-2014, 01:16 PM (This post was last modified: 08-04-2014 01:23 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Objective Morality
3. What is objectively moral is survival. Survival is morally right.
So it's morally right to kill the prison guards and all those in attendance when your death sentence is being carried out.
Uh huh. Sure it is. Weeping
"Well being" for gays is to engage in the practices they choose to. Most religious fundies totally disagree with that. Another example of his crap reasoning.
"Well being" can be many things to many people. Long term "well being", short term "well being" etc etc etc. What mindless BS.

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
08-04-2014, 01:27 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(08-04-2014 12:38 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  
(08-04-2014 11:54 AM)Artie Wrote:  The objectively moral correct thing to do would be:

1. Wait for the patient to ask to die.
2. If he does one day, inform his relatives.
3. Have the patient discuss it with his relatives and say goodbye.
4. Turn off the machines.
And here we are. One of us says it's 50 degrees. The other says it's -50 degrees. That's not possible with objective measurement.
Evolution has the objectively correct moral answer. I just gave it to you. My scenario is what causes the least amount of pain to the least amount of people following evolutionary objective morality. If you have a different scenario causing the same amount of pain to the same amount of people it would be equally objectively right. If you have a scenario that causes less pain and I have missed it, this scenario would be the one that is evolutionary correct.
Quote:We've reached the point where we are repeating ourselves; I have no additional points to make. Thanks for the discussion.
Your welcome and thanks too. I think we have been talking past each other a lot though.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2014, 01:28 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(08-04-2014 06:00 AM)Artie Wrote:  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?
Let's say Monday had a thunderstorm.
Tuesday was a still and sunny day.

The thing is, even though Tuesday is sunny, this doesn't change the fact that Monday had a thunderstorm. So the change in the environment (from thunder to sunny) hasn't changed the objective fact.
If Bill comes to town on Wednesday and is asked if there was a thunderstorm on Monday, he initially would say "I don't know" but then he does some research and finds out that indeed there was a thunderstorm on Monday. This means the objective fact isn't dependent on the observer. It can be discovered by anyone. Even an alien or a cow for that matter, if they are the observer it still doesn't change the fact that a thunderstorm happened on Monday.

(08-04-2014 06:00 AM)Artie Wrote:  
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.
This is correct. If a person believes that there wasn't a thunderstorm on Monday then we can prove that they are wrong simply by looking at the facts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2014, 01:34 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(08-04-2014 01:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(08-04-2014 06:00 AM)Artie Wrote:  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.
This is correct. If a person believes that there wasn't a thunderstorm on Monday then we can prove that they are wrong simply by looking at the facts.
So how can something be objectively morally correct just because a lot of people agree? If the whole planet had agreed that there wasn't a thunderstorm on Monday it would still be objectively incorrect...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2014, 01:40 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(08-04-2014 01:13 PM)Artie Wrote:  
(08-04-2014 12:33 PM)Impulse Wrote:  A particular culture, for example, could consider it an ultimate honor to be eaten by a crocodile and therefore consider the morally right thing as allowing the child to be eaten. I think you could present a case for the position that saving the child is objectively the best choice in terms of evolution, but "best choice" and "morally right" aren't at all the same.
What does it matter what this culture considers morally right when what is objectively morally right is to save the child? Their opinion would be objectively morally wrong.
Quote:In terms of evolution, what was bred into the bones as you put it, was doing what contributes to survival. Initially, that would not have been morality even when supporting the group or tribe was included in what was good for survival. As our brains and emotions developed, so did our sense of rightness and wrongness. That "sense" added a whole other layer of complexity to what we eventually came to consider as pertaining to "morality". Among that additional complexity are both reasoning and social context and there you have the subjective component.
Like the objective foundation will always objectively be

1. We have a survival instinct. This is an objective fact.
2. It was hard wired into us by evolution, an objective process. This is an objective fact. I didn't exist before I was conceived so it wasn't my personal subjective opinion to be born with a survival instinct.
3. What is objectively moral is survival. Survival is morally right.
4. Well-being leads to enhanced chances of survival.
5. Actions that lead to well-being and survival are objectively moral, actions that lead to the opposite are objectively immoral.
5. Murder leads to non-survival therefore it is objectively morally wrong.
6. Helping people leads to survival therefore helping people is objectively morally right.

And you use your reasoning and social context to apply the above to every new situation. That doesn't make it subjective? Subjective would be if you took point six and subjectively changed it to murder is objectively right... did you read my post 420? Do you realize that there isn't a word or paragraph in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights that goes against my six points? It's just a wordy detailed way of spelling out my six points above.
Morality only makes sense in a human, contextual framework. There is no objective morality. What you are incorrectly trying to define as objective morality is simply an evolutionary process. Evolution cannot be objective.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective?s=t
Quote:ob·jec·tive
[uhb-jek-tiv] Show IPA
noun
1. something that one's efforts or actions are intended to attain or accomplish; purpose; goal; target: the objective of a military attack; the objective of a fund-raising drive.
2. Grammar .
a. Also called objective case. (in English and some other languages) a case specialized for the use of a form as the object of a transitive verb or of a preposition, as him in The boy hit him, or me in He comes to me with his troubles.
b. a word in that case.
3. Also called object glass, object lens, objective lens. Optics. (in a telescope, microscope, camera, or other optical system) the lens or combination of lenses that first receives the rays from the object and forms the image in the focal plane of the eyepiece, as in a microscope, or on a plate or screen, as in a camera. See diag. under microscope.
adjective
4. being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions.
5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
6. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
7. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective ).
8. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
We are talking about the adjective. #4 relates more to the noun version. Note, every other variation relates to thoughts, feelings, and perceptions. Evolution has none of these. It can't be objective. The word "objective", like "morality", only makes sense in a human context.

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2014, 01:42 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(08-04-2014 01:45 AM)Artie Wrote:  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
On the one hand you say it is objectively immoral to cause pain and suffering but on the other hand you say it is OK if the participants consensually agree to inflict pain and suffering on each other.

But this would make it subjective because judgement of the same activities are now dependent on the observer. When you are the observer you think this agreement validates the behaviour and is OK. There are people who are adamantly against violent sports like boxing, they don't think it is ever OK for people to cause suffering and pain like this. They think boxing is immoral and they want it banned.

So in order to resolve this dispute we need to have an objective method of discovery. You stated that evolution was the basis for morality so we would need to look to evolution to see if boxing is fine.
Can you please explain how evolution shows that unconsensual assault is wrong but consensual boxing is right?

(08-04-2014 01:45 AM)Artie Wrote:  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.
So if I am starving and I come across a couple (star crossed lovers) having a picnic. Is it moral for me to kill them and eat their picnic food?
Please relate your reasoning in terms of evolution.

Another question for you.
Given that the DNA copy process generally has "mistakes" and that only some mistakes are beneficial and that many mistakes are detrimental. And given that detrimental mistakes can be inherited thus making the future human population weaker then is it immoral for us to use medical science to allow the carriers of these detrimental mistakes to survive and procreate.

Please give your moral/immoral reasoning in terms of evolution.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
08-04-2014, 01:45 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(08-04-2014 01:34 PM)Artie Wrote:  
(08-04-2014 01:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  This is correct. If a person believes that there wasn't a thunderstorm on Monday then we can prove that they are wrong simply by looking at the facts.
So how can something be objectively morally correct just because a lot of people agree? If the whole planet had agreed that there wasn't a thunderstorm on Monday it would still be objectively incorrect...
That's right again.
If everyone on the planet considers murder to be immoral. It still does not mean that murder is objectively immoral. Everyone might simply be incorrect.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
08-04-2014, 01:49 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(08-04-2014 01:40 PM)Impulse Wrote:  Morality only makes sense in a human, contextual framework. There is no objective morality. What you are incorrectly trying to define as objective morality is simply an evolutionary process. Evolution cannot be objective.
Did evolution sit down and say to itself: it is my subjective opinion that organisms should have a survival instinct then? Wink
Quote:We are talking about the adjective. #4 relates more to the noun version. Note, every other variation relates to thoughts, feelings, and perceptions. Evolution has none of these. It can't be objective.
I think you mean evolution can't be subjective because it doesn't have any thoughts, feelings and perceptions. That is why it is objective not subjective.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2014, 02:14 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(08-04-2014 01:49 PM)Artie Wrote:  
(08-04-2014 01:40 PM)Impulse Wrote:  Morality only makes sense in a human, contextual framework. There is no objective morality. What you are incorrectly trying to define as objective morality is simply an evolutionary process. Evolution cannot be objective.
Did evolution sit down and say to itself: it is my subjective opinion that organisms should have a survival instinct then? Wink
Did evolution sit down and say to itself: it is my objective opinion that organisms should have a survival instinct then? Wink

(08-04-2014 01:49 PM)Artie Wrote:  
Quote:We are talking about the adjective. #4 relates more to the noun version. Note, every other variation relates to thoughts, feelings, and perceptions. Evolution has none of these. It can't be objective.
I think you mean evolution can't be subjective because it doesn't have any thoughts, feelings and perceptions. That is why it is objective not subjective.
No, that is why it is neither. Did you read the definitions of objective?

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2014, 02:16 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(08-04-2014 09:28 AM)Artie Wrote:  ...
My position is this (and don't single out points read it as a whole):

1. We have a survival instinct. This is an objective fact.
2. It was hard wired into us by evolution, an objective process. This is an objective fact. I didn't exist before I was conceived so it wasn't my personal subjective opinion to be born with a survival instinct.
3. What is objectively moral is survival. Survival is morally right.
4. Well-being leads to enhanced chances of survival.
5. Actions that lead to well-being and survival are objectively moral, actions that lead to the opposite are objectively immoral.
5. Murder leads to non-survival therefore it is objectively morally wrong.
6. Helping people leads to survival therefore helping people is objectively morally right.

Now, sit down and use these six points as a basis for what is morally objectively right and wrong and elaborate on them. And what do you get?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Don't tell us that what they wrote in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is their subjective opinion... Wink

Thank you for laying it out so clearly. That helps.

Where we diverge is at point 3.

I say that is subjective.

Back for more after work.

Cheers

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