Objective Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-04-2014, 01:38 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(10-04-2014 07:23 AM)living thing Wrote:  you cannot logically use survival as a basis for an objective morality any more than other people use some god’s commandments.
Let me ask you:

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, 01:53 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(10-04-2014 01:24 PM)Stevil Wrote:  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.
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, 01:58 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(10-04-2014 07:40 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(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?

I wouldn't go anywhere... I know the answer.

Both are right and both are wrong. It's situational, contextual, culturally relative and ... what's the word I'm looking for? Ah, yes... subjective.

Guitar Nut again has made a point that I was going to ask you:

If evolution's reward to us for our moral behaviour is survival... why do we die?

Consider

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
10-04-2014, 02:03 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(10-04-2014 01:53 PM)Artie Wrote:  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?
I have my own opinions but no moral beliefs.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2014, 02:12 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(10-04-2014 01:58 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(10-04-2014 07:40 AM)Artie Wrote:  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?
Quote:Both are right and both are wrong. It's situational, contextual, culturally relative and ... what's the word I'm looking for? Ah, yes... subjective.

1. The definition of subjective is: "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions." There's no mention of "situational, contextual or culturally relative". So murdering you can be both right or wrong based on the murderers "personal feelings, tastes, or opinions".
2. Name one situation where murdering you would be morally correct.
Quote:Guitar Nut again has made a point that I was going to ask you:

If evolution's reward to us for our moral behaviour is survival... why do we die?

Consider
The point is to survive and reproduce. Individuals die because resources are limited and there has to be a balance between births and deaths.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2014, 02:17 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(10-04-2014 02:03 PM)Stevil Wrote:  [quote='Artie' pid='544866' dateline='1397159605']
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?
Quote:I have my own opinions but no moral beliefs.
What are your opinions based on?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2014, 02:48 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(10-04-2014 02:12 PM)Artie Wrote:  The point is to survive and reproduce. Individuals die because resources are limited and there has to be a balance between births and deaths.

The current observed process is to replicate. There is no point. Individuals die because of sickness and mutations that make survival and reproduction impossible. If there was a 'rule or point,' this would not happen as evolution would be in conflict with itself. If there was a standard that existed outside of evolution that specifically stated the goal of life was to reproduce, then this could be a valid argument. There is no such standard, only an observed process.

An easy exercise to demonstrate this is to apply it to other observations and then attempt to make these processes 'rules' or 'purposes.'

1. The purpose of the sun is to melt snow;
2. The purpose of wind is to blow leaves;
3. The purpose of planets is to orbit a star;
4. The purpose of evolution is to survive and reproduce;

Now, if you believe in a creator or designer, this perspective changes, because things are 'made':

1. The purpose of a tire is to spin;
2. The purpose of a toaster is to make toast;
3. The purpose of a spoon is to scoop cereal;
4. The purpose of evolution is to survive and reproduce;

I'm not saying Artie is a theist. I'm just not sure why it's so important that evolution have objective morality and be a process with purpose, to the point of attributing 'intent' to completely random events. The events aren't consistent. I'll repeat: there is a lot of death and failure observed in evolution. Massive amounts, if you believe the claim that over 90% of species have gone extinct. A 10% success rate doesn't scream 'this is what's supposed to happen' to me.

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
[+] 4 users Like guitar_nut's post
10-04-2014, 03:20 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(10-04-2014 02:17 PM)Artie Wrote:  What are your opinions based on?
My needs, my wants, my upbringing, my conditioning, my culture, my health, my emotions, my empathy, my environment, my sanity.

Me, me, me...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2014, 04:45 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(10-04-2014 03:20 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(10-04-2014 02:17 PM)Artie Wrote:  What are your opinions based on?
My needs, my wants, my upbringing, my conditioning, my culture, my health, my emotions, my empathy, my environment, my sanity.

Me, me, me...
OK. I'm trying to figure this out. Moral beliefs are defined as "your individual definition of right and wrong." http://www.ehow.com/info_8587149_moral-beliefs.html
But as you say you have "no moral beliefs" so you have no individual definition of right and wrong. You haven't defined any act as right or wrong. I have the moral belief that going around murdering people is wrong. But you don't have that. Am I correct?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2014, 05:43 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(10-04-2014 04:45 PM)Artie Wrote:  OK. I'm trying to figure this out. Moral beliefs are defined as "your individual definition of right and wrong." http://www.ehow.com/info_8587149_moral-beliefs.html
But as you say you have "no moral beliefs" so you have no individual definition of right and wrong. You haven't defined any act as right or wrong. I have the moral belief that going around murdering people is wrong. But you don't have that. Am I correct?
Yes correct, I have no concept of "right" and "wrong".

This is not to say that I can't foresee the impact or consequences of my own actions.
I understand that if I kill someone it may make some people very sad, distraught, angry etc. I also understand it may make people view me as a dangerous threat and motivate them to remove the danger (a.k.a. me) from society.

I think simplifying this reasoning and thinking process (into the framework and language of morality) offers no value but instead is confusing because each person thinks differently, has different values, different experiences, different goals.

a.k.a. If I say "X is wrong" then people know I see X as being more negative that positive but they don't know why I think this way. They don't know what negatives I have considered or what positives I have considered. They don't know the degree to which I am opposed to X, whether it is something that I wouldn't do or whether it is something I think others shouldn't do. They don't know whether I would be motivated enough to forcibly stop others from doing X. They don't know what is the basis of my assessment of "wrong" vs "right", whether it is based on a belief in a god's law, a belief in the sacredness of human life, my own emotive responses to things, my instance to live life by someone's moral framework e.g. Kant or Harris.

I recognise and respect that people are different from each other. How can I insist what others ought or should do? I think that "oughts" and "shoulds" are for dreamers. The reality is that individual animals within each species (humans included) behave in an assortment of different ways. They do what they do regardless of what others think they ought to do.

I have no ambition to control people. Other people aren't the same as me. They do what they do and I just need to deal with that rather than insist they conform to my personal opinions.

This isn't to say that I advocate an anarchy society. I don't. I want to live within a society of humans. In order to do that I want some laws to protect me and to influence a society that I can feel safe within. But I put some strong balances and checks onto those laws. I don't want them to be merely on personal opinions of right and wrong. Not even based on my own opinions. I want laws to be firmly grounded in what makes society safe and stable rather than moral.

Let's say that I find it repugnant that a brother and sister fall in love and make babies together. This does not make society dangerous so I feel that we don't need laws against it, even though I personally don't like the idea. Lets also say that I don't like late term abortion (let's assume I have seen images of late term fetus and it looks very baby like and I find it emotionally repugnant to kill such a fetus), however since this doesn't make society dangerous then I feel we don't need laws against it.

So to summarise my personal position:
I don't want a moral society, what I want is a safe and stable society.
I don't want to control people unnecessarily.
I don't want my government and police controlling people unnecessarily.

I don't believe that moral facts can be known.
I don't believe in moral obligation.
I don't make moral judgements on other people.
I don't believe in moral justice.
I don't egotistically inflate my own opinions to be moral shoulds and oughts that other people are to adhere to.

I value freedom, tolerance and diversity so why would I invoke morality which is a belief system which includes aspects of control, intolerance and conformity?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stevil's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: