Objective Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-04-2014, 03:55 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(09-04-2014 03:44 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(09-04-2014 03:42 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Yay! We agree.

Awesome Thumbsup

We do!? What's wrong?

Nothing wrong.

Subjective feelings and opinions Thumbsup
Objective facts Thumbsup

We agree. Cool

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
09-04-2014, 03:58 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(09-04-2014 03:52 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(09-04-2014 03:46 AM)DLJ Wrote:  According to the speakers I was listening to at a recent cockroach conference, the consensus was that the whole humanity thing was generally a bad idea.
Tell them to take it up with God and if He doesn't answer just tell them to be patient and they'll probably outlive humans. Wink

Hehehe. I mentioned that.

Turns out, cockroaches are atheists too.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
09-04-2014, 04:10 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(09-04-2014 03:58 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(09-04-2014 03:52 AM)Artie Wrote:  Tell them to take it up with God and if He doesn't answer just tell them to be patient and they'll probably outlive humans. Wink

Hehehe. I mentioned that.

Turns out, cockroaches are atheists too.
Glad to be in such distinguished company.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Artie's post
09-04-2014, 05:35 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(09-04-2014 02:58 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(09-04-2014 02:23 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Just out of interest, what makes you think that human life is a good thing?

Do you have a crystal ball?

Tongue
No, we think that human life is a good thing because we are hard wired by evolution to see our own life and survival as a good thing and by extension other human life too.

Didn't he forget the "in the bone" part ?
Bonehead.
(And just for the record I LIKE being called a bonehead too, so ... never mind).

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
09-04-2014, 07:50 AM
RE: Objective Morality
Hello Stevil, may I join your chat? Nice talking to you.

(09-04-2014 02:26 AM)Stevil Wrote:  ... I have never once thought of the output from running a program to be the computer's opinion.
Well, I wouldn’t say our silicon computers have their own subjective opinions, but I would have to ask what someone means by “opinion” if they made such a claim, before deciding whether I agree or disagree with the idea. Because in my own subjective opinion, our silicon computers can have their own perspective.

Take two identical computers, each with a video camera attached, and run the same shape-detection algorithm in both. Place their cameras pointing at a black cylinder with a matte finish against a well lit white background, illuminating the scene with diffuse lights, so that the contrast between the object and the background is high. Place the cameras so that they form a right angle with the cylinder and each other; one of them pointing directly to one of the sides, and the other on a perpendicular axis.

Both identical sets of hardware run the same software and they are both fed information that can be described using a common description: the electromagnetic radiation reflected off the scene. However, one of the computers will report detecting a circle whereas the other will report a shape closer to a rectangle, depending among other factors on the lens used and the distance between the cylinder and the camera. True, each camera is not receiving exactly the same electromagnetic radiation, so the information both computers are receiving is not exactly the same, which justifies the different output. But cannot it be said that each computer is observing reality from a different perspective? By observing I simply mean extracting information from reality, in a very general sense.

Of course, our silicon computers do not work like our brains do; our opinions are not only influenced by the angle from which we physically observe the universe around us, but also by the memories of our past experiences, by our culture, by our interests and so on. Our opinions take a lot more inputs into account, and they are thus much more complex than the relatively simple output produced by our silicon computers.

But our brains are nevertheless computers in the sense that they are information processors. They take a huge load of inputs, each carrying (or not) a wave of electrochemical potential, process all those data and produce an output that is then directed towards muscles and glands with specific subsequent and hopefully not detrimental effects. Even our individual cells (most of them, at least) are information processors too, although they hardly ever use silicon directly; I’d say they’re carbon computers. The details of their operation differ vastly from the operational details of our silicon computers, but they execute sequential operations nonetheless, as cascades of chemical transformations.

For example, in order for our silicon computer to tell whether it should enter daylight savings mode, it will count the number of electronic oscillations happening on a piece of quartz subject to an electric field, transform that value into a different number by combining it with other values using arithmetic and logic operations, compare the result against another value, and branch its execution to the appropriate set of instructions according to the final state of one or two bits in the flag register.

A tree faces a similar “problem” when it is time to shed its leaves in preparation for the winter, and I put that into quotes because it is a problem for the tree, whereas most silicon computers perform equally well when their clocks are off by an hour. In this biodiverse planet, many different mechanisms can be used to overcome this problem as long as they work, but one way to solve it is by regularly producing a molecule that is directly or indirectly sensitive to sunlight. As the proportion of light/dark hours shifts towards dark after the summer, at least in nothern and southern latitudes, the concentration of the molecule grows, because the rate of its destruction decreases while the rate of its production is kept constant. This molecule is a stimulant for the expression of a specific set of genes; when its concentration is low, the chances of it firing the expression of those genes are low. But as the concentration rises, those chances get larger and larger too. Eventually, those genes are expressed, leading to the shutdown of nutrients moving towards the leaves and their subsequent fall.

Please note that trees can have their different perspectives too. Just when a tree in New Zealand may be shedding its leaves off, another one in England may be growing new ones. But I’d be reluctant to say that trees have their own opinions. Just the other day I asked one what it thought about human abortion, and it didn’t seem to give a fuck.

Anyway, I just wanted to share this view with you. Have a great day!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes living thing's post
09-04-2014, 10:30 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(09-04-2014 12:32 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(08-04-2014 03:00 PM)Impulse Wrote:  What you are missing is evolution doesn't have feelings, thoughts, perceptions, or prejudices and it therefore doesn't even have the possiblity of being influenced by them. It's just not in the playing field with objectivity and subjectivity - those are only in the realm of living humans.
Subjective is defined as "relating to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind: based on feelings or opinions rather than facts" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subjective

Objective is defined as: "2. Having actual existence or reality." ... "1. Something that actually exists." http://www.thefreedictionary.com/objective and doesn't necessarily require a person!
It seems different dictionaries disagree. They can't both be right. Personally, I think your dictionary is wrong because objectivity makes no sense except as a human classification that is meant to be opposite to subjectivity. But I see that this path of our discussion is at a dead end so let me go back to how we originally got here.

You were saying that the crocodile eating the child was the objectively right thing for it to do because survival, coming from evolution in the form of a survival instinct, is objectively moral. You are conflating the words "right" and "moral". Right has many meanings only one of which is "moral" and the only meaning that can apply to the crocodile is "desirable" or "best". I think even that is arguable, but I will give you that the child would serve as food and eating it would squash any threat the crocodile may feel from it. So, in that sense, it is "desirable" or "best". But this isn't "moral".

So what makes you say it is the moral thing for the crocodile to do? If it's simply killing the threat, then it would be moral for a criminal to kill a police officer that it felt threatened by. If obtaining food is what makes it moral, then cannibalism is also moral. Morality is far more complex than anything that comes strictly from evolution. That's because of the contextual and reasoning aspects that I mentioned earlier. And, again, therefore morality is subjective.

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Impulse's post
09-04-2014, 11:04 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(09-04-2014 10:30 AM)Impulse Wrote:  You were saying that the crocodile eating the child was the objectively right thing for it to do because survival, coming from evolution in the form of a survival instinct, is objectively moral. You are conflating the words "right" and "moral". Right has many meanings only one of which is "moral" and the only meaning that can apply to the crocodile is "desirable" or "best". I think even that is arguable, but I will give you that the child would serve as food and eating it would squash any threat the crocodile may feel from it. So, in that sense, it is "desirable" or "best". But this isn't "moral".
When I put in "right definition" in Google the first thing that comes up is

morally good, justified, or acceptable.

Quote:So what makes you say it is the moral thing for the crocodile to do?
It has a survival instinct and to survive it must eat so eating is good and the right behavior for a crocodile.
Quote:If it's simply killing the threat, then it would be moral for a criminal to kill a police officer that it felt threatened by.
No it wouldn't because it would result in a death and it would reduce the criminal's chances of well-being and survival whereas evolutionary morals evolved to ensure the survival of as many as possible. This action would be contrary to evolutionary morals.
Quote:If obtaining food is what makes it moral, then cannibalism is also moral.
No it isn't because if you kill somebody and eat them their friends are likely to come and kill and eat you and the result is at least two deaths which is the opposite of evolutionary morals.

Please keep them coming. I'll explain your scenarios one by one.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2014, 11:33 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(09-04-2014 11:04 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(09-04-2014 10:30 AM)Impulse Wrote:  You were saying that the crocodile eating the child was the objectively right thing for it to do because survival, coming from evolution in the form of a survival instinct, is objectively moral. You are conflating the words "right" and "moral". Right has many meanings only one of which is "moral" and the only meaning that can apply to the crocodile is "desirable" or "best". I think even that is arguable, but I will give you that the child would serve as food and eating it would squash any threat the crocodile may feel from it. So, in that sense, it is "desirable" or "best". But this isn't "moral".
When I put in "right definition" in Google the first thing that comes up is

morally good, justified, or acceptable.
You're kidding right? So because Google happened to land on a definition of "right" and it just happened to be the one matching "moral" that means none of the other definitions apply? You can do better than that. Drinking Beverage

(09-04-2014 11:04 AM)Artie Wrote:  
Quote:So what makes you say it is the moral thing for the crocodile to do?
It has a survival instinct and to survive it must eat so eating is good and the right behavior for a crocodile.
Quote:If it's simply killing the threat, then it would be moral for a criminal to kill a police officer that it felt threatened by.
No it wouldn't because it would result in a death and it would reduce the criminal's chances of well-being and survival whereas evolutionary morals evolved to ensure the survival of as many as possible. This action would be contrary to evolutionary morals.
Quote:If obtaining food is what makes it moral, then cannibalism is also moral.
No it isn't because if you kill somebody and eat them their friends are likely to come and kill and eat you and the result is at least two deaths which is the opposite of evolutionary morals.
Careful. You're introducing reasoning into your argument. Evolution doesn't involve reasoning. But subjective morality does. Consider

(09-04-2014 11:04 AM)Artie Wrote:  Please keep them coming. I'll explain your scenarios one by one.
Please keep explaining. So far, you're supporting my position. Drinking Beverage

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Impulse's post
09-04-2014, 11:42 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(09-04-2014 11:33 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
(09-04-2014 11:04 AM)Artie Wrote:  When I put in "right definition" in Google the first thing that comes up is

morally good, justified, or acceptable.
You're kidding right? So because Google happened to land on a definition of "right" and it just happened to be the one matching "moral" that means none of the other definitions apply? You can do better than that. Drinking Beverage
Well, right is also the opposite of left if that is what you mean by other definitions... Smile
Quote:Careful. You're introducing reasoning into your argument.
LOL I'm using reasoning to explain to you how evolution by natural selection works. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2014, 11:53 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(09-04-2014 11:42 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(09-04-2014 11:33 AM)Impulse Wrote:  You're kidding right? So because Google happened to land on a definition of "right" and it just happened to be the one matching "moral" that means none of the other definitions apply? You can do better than that. Drinking Beverage
Well, right is also the opposite of left if that is what you mean by other definitions... Smile
Quote:Careful. You're introducing reasoning into your argument.
LOL I'm using reasoning to explain to you how evolution by natural selection works. Smile

And with those 2 non-responses went the benefit of the doubt that I was giving you.

See ya. Drinking Beverage

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: