Objective Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-04-2014, 06:06 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(10-04-2014 05:30 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(10-04-2014 05:00 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Weeping
Unfortunately that's the current problem. He has evolved a psychopathic kill instinct.

Damn the Evolutionary Process! If only it had pre-defined goals and knew right from wrong.

Sadcryface
You mean like

1. Person number 1: Murder is right (subjective opinion)
2. Person number 2: Murder is wrong (subjective opinion)
3. Evolution: Murder is wrong (objective... nothing subjective, no opinions)

Smile

Lemme correct your mistake again... although, I gotta say, you are trying my patience...

1. Person number 1: Murder is right (subjective opinion)
2. Person number 2: Murder is wrong (subjective opinion)
3. Evolution: Murder is. wrong (objective... nothing subjective, no opinions)

Fixt! Thumbsup

Processes have no morality.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like DLJ's post
10-04-2014, 06:56 AM (This post was last modified: 10-04-2014 07:14 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Objective Morality
(10-04-2014 05:56 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(10-04-2014 05:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  "Murder" is a (specialized) legal term. The action is actually "taking a life". There are many many different situation in which "taking a life" is not considered immoral.
As if I wasn't aware of that...
Quote:Maybe someday the trolls will take a "High School Civics for Wanna Be Trolls".
Maybe someday you will take a course in moral behaviour? Wink And then a beginners course in psychology. First you "explain" something to me and try to give the impression that I don't know it to make yourself look smart. And then you suggest I take some "High School Civics for Wanna Be Trolls" to make the intelligence gap between us even bigger by demeaning me. Classical bully tactics. If you can't say something smart, at least try to make the person you talk with look even less smart than you.

Classic evasion tactics of a whining loser.
Calling out idiot trolls is not "immoral". I have taking more courses in "morality" than you will ever look at in your entire life.
IF you actually KNOW "that", then why do you continue to conflate and confuse the two and perversely REFUSE to make the distinction ?
I simply pointed out your mistake. IF you feel that makes you like like an idiot, as most of this thread has demonstrated, then so be it. I don't have to "make myself look smart". Smart is as smart does. So ... your points have been shot to hell here, and now all you can do is start with the whining, and saying those who have demonstrated your notions to be misguided are "bullies". Waaa waaa waaa. Cry me a river. Troll. I don't need to make you look "less smart". You do that very well yourself. The ONLY thing that matters is that you have UTTERLY failed to demonstrate that "objective morality" exists, or even HOW it *could* exist, what's it's definition would be, or how it could be shared, or determined.
(I thought I was on ignore ... so you're also an "immoral" liar. Remember that "bye bye" ? Or are you as demented as this thread has demonstrated ?)

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
10-04-2014, 07:23 AM
RE: Objective Morality
Hello Artie, how’s it going?

I think I may understand some of the notions you are trying to convey, but only if I change a few words to your descriptions. As they stand, they don’t really make sense in my mind.

If a program can be seen as a sequence of instructions, a programmer can be seen as an entity capable of issuing instructions. I can sit at the computer desk, type a few lines of code, run the program and see how the computer behaves.

I am able to issue instructions to computers because I contain the appropriate information within my structure: a complex network of cells able to constrict the motion of electrically charged ions along specific paths of motion, with specific meanings and specific outcomes, and plenty of motion happening within those neural pathways conveying even the most abstract notions.

Evolution, for example, is one of those abstract notions. It is not a material structure able to constrict the motion of anything along anywhere, but a description of how complex systems change over time. Unless you can explain to me, in a way that I can understand, how an abstract entity with no physical structure may constrict the motion of any particles to specific paths of motion (in order for it to be able to know anything), how that motion is acquired (how are those notions learned) and how this abstract intangible entity is able to actually arrange the so-called atoms in a long molecule of DNA so that they encode the behaviours that evolution purportedly programs living beings to follow, I will not take it as a truth, regardless of how strongly you seem to believe it. Call it caution.

I might agree with you if you said that evolution finds, rather than programs, appropriate behaviours. But I would still be uncomfortable using that terminology because it is not evolution what finds anything (for the same reasons as above), it is the actual living beings that exist what extract abstract notions from their interactions with the rest of reality.

However, that suggestion that evolution provides objectively appropriate behaviours makes no sense from any perspective I try to view it. Random variation and environmental selection arrive to local optima, not global optima. Is it objectively right for me to have an appendix somewhere in my intestines, that provides no usefulness to my body but it is nevertheless prone to infection? That’s an evolutionary trait. Are doctors who remove it immoral people? Or are they ill? Is it objectively wrong of me to get my appendix infected?

You say that it is objectively right for a tree to shed its leaves at certain time of the year, but you seem to forget that I asked you about the living cells in the leaves, not about the tree. The tree does not kill itself, it simply sheds it leaves. But the cells in the leaves do kill themselves, despite your claim that evolution programs living beings with a survival instinct. If your claim about evolution programming survival instincts were true, I would expect individual living beings not to kill themselves for the benefit of many others who will remain alive until the following spring.

If accepting cellular suicides is objectively right for a tree, then accepting human suicides should be objectively right for humanity.

(10-04-2014 12:08 AM)Artie Wrote:  We call the programming that our cells execute that evolved over billions of years by luck and natural selection the right (moral) programming because we are here to call it the right (moral) programming.
The use of an editorial “we” may be mistaken as an appeal to a majority and I don’t recommend you using it.

I don’t say what you suggest we say. For one, I don’t even talk about natural selection. I don’t think there is a nature that knows right and wrong selecting things. In my view, what there is is a huge amount of material structures, each located somewhere in relation to the rest, most of which know nothing at all. It is ultimately a structure’s environment what determines whether the structure is stable or not. A positron surrounded by nothing is very stable, it will last for a long time. However, a positron surrounded by electrons is very unstable, it will last for a very short time. In my view, it is random variation and environmental selection of stable forms.

But as me move in relation to other things, our environment changes. What may be appropriate in this moment in one location (for example shedding leaves off in New Zealand) is not necessarily appropriate in a different location (for example England). Even if we don’t move in relation to a tiny part of the universe (our planet) the rest of the things in the universe are constantly changing locations and orientations in relation to us, so the environment changes over time whether we want it or not. Which means that the appropriateness of our behaviours is likely to change whether we want it or not.

(10-04-2014 12:08 AM)Artie Wrote:  If a person has a bug or missing codes or an otherwise defective programming and he causes another person to not be here (murder) we call it immoral.
Again, that editorial we does not include me. If someone finds another person beating the shit out of the first one’s 4-year-old child while raping the child, and in a stroke of fury he causes that other person to not be here, I call it understandable.

(10-04-2014 12:08 AM)Artie Wrote:  What is objectively moral is what causes survival and what is objectively immoral is what causes non-survival simply because if survival wasn't moarlly right we wouldn't be here in the first place.
That survival you are talking about is a myth. In reality, nothing survives. Every single living thing ends up as a lifeless nothing, and unless you can produce a living object that can survive eternally, you cannot logically use survival as a basis for an objective morality any more than other people use some god’s commandments.

But I don’t recommend you believing anything of what I’ve just said, because I may be mistaken, and I don’t expect you to be convinced by any of my arguments, because you already seem convinced that you cannot be mistaken.

I do wish you a good day, though.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes living thing's post
10-04-2014, 07:40 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(10-04-2014 06:06 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Lemme correct your mistake again... although, I gotta say, you are trying my patience...

1. Person number 1: Murder is right (subjective opinion)
2. Person number 2: Murder is wrong (subjective opinion)
3. Evolution: Murder is. wrong (objective... nothing subjective, no opinions)

Fixt! Thumbsup

Processes have no morality.
1. Person number 1: Murder is right (subjective opinion)
2. Person number 2: Murder is wrong (subjective opinion)

Where would you go to check who's right (morally correct) of them? God, evolution, some other place?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2014, 09:09 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(10-04-2014 07:23 AM)living thing Wrote:  Hello Artie, how’s it going?
Fine how are you? Smile
Quote:However, that suggestion that evolution provides objectively appropriate behaviours makes no sense from any perspective I try to view it.
1. Some people think that murder is wrong.
2. Some people think that murder is right.

Evolution evolved both kinds of people. Those who murdered each other didn't survive (obviously), those who thought that murder was wrong helped each other and survived. That is called natural selection. We are mostly descendants after those who helped each other and survived so that is how our brains are wired. There are 7 billion on the planet and under 500 000 murderers. Not murdering people and helping them instead has proven to be a most advantageous survival strategy.
Quote:Random variation and environmental selection arrive to local optima, not global optima. Is it objectively right for me to have an appendix somewhere in my intestines, that provides no usefulness to my body but it is nevertheless prone to infection?
It's A Safe House For Good Bacteria http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...102334.htm
Quote:Are doctors who remove it immoral people?
Not if it gets infected and threatens your life. Otherwise it would be immoral.
Quote:Is it objectively wrong of me to get my appendix infected?
Smile How do you get your appendix infected on purpose?
Quote:You say that it is objectively right for a tree to shed its leaves at certain time of the year, but you seem to forget that I asked you about the living cells in the leaves, not about the tree. The tree does not kill itself, it simply sheds it leaves. But the cells in the leaves do kill themselves, despite your claim that evolution programs living beings with a survival instinct. If your claim about evolution programming survival instincts were true, I would expect individual living beings not to kill themselves for the benefit of many others who will remain alive until the following spring.
I can't go into which organisms have a survival instinct and where the line goes... I was talking about humans.
Quote:If accepting cellular suicides is objectively right for a tree, then accepting human suicides should be objectively right for humanity.
And of course it is if the suicide helps others survive. Hypothetical situation: If something had gone wrong in a nuclear power plant and you were the only one who could fix it but there was radiation and no time to fiddle with any survival gear, wouldn't you give your life to save the city?
Quote:I don’t say what you suggest we say. For one, I don’t even talk about natural selection. I don’t think there is a nature that knows right and wrong selecting things.
There's snow. There's a black rabbit and a white rabbit. The predator can't see the white rabbit on the white snow. He catches and eats the black rabbit. White rabbits are naturally selected for and survive.
Quote:If someone finds another person beating the shit out of the first one’s 4-year-old child while raping the child, and in a stroke of fury he causes that other person to not be here, I call it understandable.
The appropriate action would be to restrain this person in some way and let the authorities take care of him. If the person attacked you and you have to kill him to avoid him killing you it would be self defense and perfectly moral.
Quote:That survival you are talking about is a myth. In reality, nothing survives. Every single living thing ends up as a lifeless nothing, and unless you can produce a living object that can survive eternally, you cannot logically use survival as a basis for an objective morality any more than other people use some god’s commandments.
Surviving as in surviving for as long as possible then... Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2014, 09:11 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(09-04-2014 11:40 PM)Artie Wrote:  If you can start a post by saying that "the golden rule doesn't appear to be a rule" when it's the most recognized and valued moral rule on the planet and it only goes down from there I give up any rational conversation with you.

I'll start a post however the fuck I want to start a post.

I wasn't talking to you; why are you responding to me? Did it say "Hey Artie..." at the beginning? We respectfully parted ways on our debate a few pages back, remember? Not everything is about you. I'm going to continue to attack some of your ideas because I feel they're incorrect; I'm not debating but am instead posting my ideas for all the other people in this thread to read and comment on. I understand your viewpoint and have no illusions of you ever changing even a single facet of it. Other people here will read and think for themselves and that's who I'm posting for. If having your ideas challenged bothers you, put me on ignore and stop reading my posts. Really, I shouldn't have to explain myself... Dodgy

Moving on.

tl;dr summary for the following: I disagree with Artie.

Point One

Artie asserts that the golden rule is 'the most recognized and valued moral rule on the planet.' That's a straw man, as the debate here is not whether or not it's the most valued rule on the planet (hint: a quick survey of human behavior around the world will show it's not). The debate is whether it's an objective rule that exists in evolution. Artie will assert (in convenient scenarios he creates himself) that deviation from the golden rule results in more death than if the rule is followed. He is claiming that living is evolution's reward, and death is it's punishment.

Are you familiar (not you, Artie) with any of the following?
1. People in other countries are starving. You'd want someone to help you if you're starving, but you take no action to help these people. You do not die. They die.
2. A criminal improves his life through theft. A criminal would not want to be burglarized. The criminal does not die. The criminal is not caught.
3. Country A invades Country B. Country A would not like to be invaded. Country A suffers less losses, and acquires wealth and resources from Country B, and strengthens its population.
4. A serial killer murders 11 people and is eventually put to death. 11 die because of his actions, while his death is the only repercussion. He comes out ahead at 11:1.
5. A country has high population due to successful reproduction rates. Because of the high population, disease and starvation are rampant;

In 1-4's (real) examples, going against the golden rule is beneficial to the person violating it. In example five, where life is thriving (that's the goal, eh?) there is more death. Yeah, the rule is valued world-wide all right. Weeping

Point Two

Artie asserts that anyone going against the rule of survival is 'sick.' That's subjective. What is sick, and what is not sick? Would you say that millions of people dying before the age of 40 are sick? Today, yes. 1000 years ago, you'd have thought them healthy and of old age. Subjective. The fact of the matter is, death is unavoidable regardless of the 'rules' followed. There is no rule that says 'If you live to be XX, you have lived the acceptable amount of life.' Some life forms live days. Some less. Some live a century. The only certainty is that none live forever. What's the point of the golden rule if death is unavoidable regardless of action?

Point Three

Here's the one Artie can't touch. If there is an objective rule, it cannot be debated. Why, then, do we continue to struggle with the following and change our opinions based on our culture and personal values (hint: objective things don't change with cultural perceptions)?

1. The death penalty;
2. Assisted suicide;
3. War;
4. Abortion;

Shouldn't these things be black and white if an objective rule exists to tell us the exact answer?

This whole concept reeks of confirmation bias. Using his logic, I can assert the following statements and defeat any arguments against them:

1. The sun's objective purpose is to melt snow and keep water liquid;
2. This is proven by showing that most of the world is not covered in snow or ice;
3. Sunburn doesn't matter. That's a side effect. We'd die if all the water froze and the planet was covered in snow;
4. Areas covered in snow and/or ice are sick;
5. Planets without snow or ice are irrelevant; if they had it, it would melt;
6. Planets covered in ice are 'accidents,' because sometimes things go wrong or the environment causes the planet to freeze;

See how that works?

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
[+] 7 users Like guitar_nut's post
10-04-2014, 12:31 PM (This post was last modified: 10-04-2014 12:39 PM by Artie.)
RE: Objective Morality
(10-04-2014 09:11 AM)guitar_nut Wrote:  I wasn't talking to you; why are you responding to me? Did it say "Hey Artie..." at the beginning?
I was responding to you because this is a forum and you didn't mention specifically that I wasn't supposed to respond to you. Next time state that me specifically is not allowed to respond to you.
Quote:We respectfully parted ways on our debate a few pages back, remember? Not everything is about you. I'm going to continue to attack some of your ideas because I feel they're incorrect; I'm not debating but am instead posting my ideas for all the other people in this thread to read and comment on.
I see. You can continue to attack some of my ideas but I am not allowed to comment on them on a public forum and say where you are wrong. How very convenient for you, isn't it? Well, then I'll put you on ignore and you can have your little private club within the forum with all your friends who feel the same way you do. That only shows that you are afraid to let me pick apart your points. It's a pity though because one could write essays about how they go wrong. So be it. Bye. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2014, 12:37 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(10-04-2014 09:11 AM)guitar_nut Wrote:  
(09-04-2014 11:40 PM)Artie Wrote:  If you can start a post by saying that "the golden rule doesn't appear to be a rule" when it's the most recognized and valued moral rule on the planet and it only goes down from there I give up any rational conversation with you.

I'll start a post however the fuck I want to start a post.

I wasn't talking to you; why are you responding to me? Did it say "Hey Artie..." at the beginning? We respectfully parted ways on our debate a few pages back, remember? Not everything is about you. I'm going to continue to attack some of your ideas because I feel they're incorrect; I'm not debating but am instead posting my ideas for all the other people in this thread to read and comment on. I understand your viewpoint and have no illusions of you ever changing even a single facet of it. Other people here will read and think for themselves and that's who I'm posting for. If having your ideas challenged bothers you, put me on ignore and stop reading my posts. Really, I shouldn't have to explain myself... Dodgy

Moving on.

tl;dr summary for the following: I disagree with Artie.

Point One

Artie asserts that the golden rule is 'the most recognized and valued moral rule on the planet.' That's a straw man, as the debate here is not whether or not it's the most valued rule on the planet (hint: a quick survey of human behavior around the world will show it's not). The debate is whether it's an objective rule that exists in evolution. Artie will assert (in convenient scenarios he creates himself) that deviation from the golden rule results in more death than if the rule is followed. He is claiming that living is evolution's reward, and death is it's punishment.

Are you familiar (not you, Artie) with any of the following?
1. People in other countries are starving. You'd want someone to help you if you're starving, but you take no action to help these people. You do not die. They die.
2. A criminal improves his life through theft. A criminal would not want to be burglarized. The criminal does not die. The criminal is not caught.
3. Country A invades Country B. Country A would not like to be invaded. Country A suffers less losses, and acquires wealth and resources from Country B, and strengthens its population.
4. A serial killer murders 11 people and is eventually put to death. 11 die because of his actions, while his death is the only repercussion. He comes out ahead at 11:1.
5. A country has high population due to successful reproduction rates. Because of the high population, disease and starvation are rampant;

In 1-4's (real) examples, going against the golden rule is beneficial to the person violating it. In example five, where life is thriving (that's the goal, eh?) there is more death. Yeah, the rule is valued world-wide all right. Weeping

Point Two

Artie asserts that anyone going against the rule of survival is 'sick.' That's subjective. What is sick, and what is not sick? Would you say that millions of people dying before the age of 40 are sick? Today, yes. 1000 years ago, you'd have thought them healthy and of old age. Subjective. The fact of the matter is, death is unavoidable regardless of the 'rules' followed. There is no rule that says 'If you live to be XX, you have lived the acceptable amount of life.' Some life forms live days. Some less. Some live a century. The only certainty is that none live forever. What's the point of the golden rule if death is unavoidable regardless of action?

Point Three

Here's the one Artie can't touch. If there is an objective rule, it cannot be debated. Why, then, do we continue to struggle with the following and change our opinions based on our culture and personal values (hint: objective things don't change with cultural perceptions)?

1. The death penalty;
2. Assisted suicide;
3. War;
4. Abortion;

Shouldn't these things be black and white if an objective rule exists to tell us the exact answer?

This whole concept reeks of confirmation bias. Using his logic, I can assert the following statements and defeat any arguments against them:

1. The sun's objective purpose is to melt snow and keep water liquid;
2. This is proven by showing that most of the world is not covered in snow or ice;
3. Sunburn doesn't matter. That's a side effect. We'd die if all the water froze and the planet was covered in snow;
4. Areas covered in snow and/or ice are sick;
5. Planets without snow or ice are irrelevant; if they had it, it would melt;
6. Planets covered in ice are 'accidents,' because sometimes things go wrong or the environment causes the planet to freeze;

See how that works?

[Image: pwned_cat1.jpg]

I salute you good sir!

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2014, 01:24 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(10-04-2014 06:06 AM)DLJ Wrote:  3. Evolution: Murder is. wrong (objective... nothing subjective, no opinions)

Fixt! Thumbsup

Processes have no morality.
In the beginning Evolution said "Let there be DNA" and there was DNA. Evolution saw that the DNA was good. Evolution called for replication, decent with modification. And Evolution saw that it was good. Evolution called for natural selection, survival of the fittest. And Evolution saw that it was good.

Then in the garden of Eden man devised methods to circumvent survival of the fittest. Man worked out how to get even the least fit to survive He called it The Golden Rule. Evolution saw this and banished man from the Garden.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
10-04-2014, 01:28 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(10-04-2014 12:31 PM)Artie Wrote:  I see. You can continue to attack some of my ideas but I am not allowed to comment on them on a public forum and say where you are wrong.

I didn't say you weren't allowed. I asked 'why' you decided to comment, again, on a point we've already debated on and don't agree on. You didn't provide a new counter-argument, so what was the point of responding? You've already said where I was wrong (disregarding the fact that nobody is agreeing with you). I specifically told you we were done so you could focus energy elsewhere while I revisited arguments I felt went unaddressed.

(10-04-2014 12:31 PM)Artie Wrote:  How very convenient for you, isn't it?

You are more than welcome to re-post your counter-arguments. I'll go cut and paste my responses from our earlier exchanges. Fun.

(10-04-2014 12:31 PM)Artie Wrote:  Well, then I'll put you on ignore and you can have your little private club within the forum with all your friends who feel the same way you do.

The ignore feature is for your benefit, not mine. I suggested it in earnest.

(10-04-2014 12:31 PM)Artie Wrote:  That only shows that you are afraid to let me pick apart your points.

If you believe that, then why are there pages of us picking apart each other's points? That comment makes no sense.

(10-04-2014 12:31 PM)Artie Wrote:  It's a pity though because one could write essays about how they go wrong.

You get those 'essays' peer reviewed and published and I'll give myself a blowjob right here at work in front of everyone.

(10-04-2014 12:31 PM)Artie Wrote:  So be it. Bye. Smile

Until later (today, probably).

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
[+] 1 user Likes guitar_nut's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: