Objective Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-04-2014, 02:06 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(11-04-2014 01:13 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(11-04-2014 12:58 PM)Stevil Wrote:  USA are often a war mongering country. Especially when they are run by war lords such as George Bush. George is especially remembered for his proclamation of the "axis of evil", his pre-emptive strikes and his insistence that you are "either for us or against us", also his implementation of torture "Guantanamo". They guy is a religiously fueled douche, hell bent on spreading Christian morality above Muslim morality.

I think you give Bush too much blame. Obama happily continued the same wars. 6 years after taking office Afghanistan remains a battle-zone and GTMO is still holding prisoners of war without due process. I also have serious doubts that the war was fueled by Bush's religion.
Bush left Obama holding the bag in MANY ways. Including the gulf wars, which, when he was asked what his exist strategy was, he had the gall to say, "That's for the next guy".

This in addition to leaving the US economy in shambles after the Republican Rape of America, but that's another story...

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
11-04-2014, 02:32 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(11-04-2014 01:37 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(11-04-2014 01:13 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  I think you give Bush too much blame. Obama happily continued the same wars. 6 years after taking office Afghanistan remains a battle-zone and GTMO is still holding prisoners of war without due process. I also have serious doubts that the war was fueled by Bush's religion.
I think Obama and USA were in a pickle. They can't just instantly pull out of a country without stabalising it somehow. If they leave a country worse off than before the war then USA come out looking like monsters. If they leave the local freedom fighters in the lurch to be culled off then they will never get local support for their future wars.

I do however think that due to international "law" there would be a strong case to convict both Bush and Obama of war crimes, in particular, torture of captives. When you try and play a "righteous" game then you will find it very difficult to be consistent.

Two weeks after we left Iraq, the place was in violent anarchy. Have any more hypotheses?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2014, 02:41 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(11-04-2014 02:32 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(11-04-2014 01:37 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I think Obama and USA were in a pickle. They can't just instantly pull out of a country without stabalising it somehow. If they leave a country worse off than before the war then USA come out looking like monsters. If they leave the local freedom fighters in the lurch to be culled off then they will never get local support for their future wars.

I do however think that due to international "law" there would be a strong case to convict both Bush and Obama of war crimes, in particular, torture of captives. When you try and play a "righteous" game then you will find it very difficult to be consistent.

Two weeks after we left Iraq, the place was in violent anarchy. Have any more hypotheses?

I suupose you're too young to remember what happened when we tried to just up and pull out of Vietnam.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2014, 03:14 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(11-04-2014 02:32 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Two weeks after we left Iraq, the place was in violent anarchy. Have any more hypotheses?
They tried.

Unfortunately Obama couldn't climb in a time machine and assassinate Bush before he invaded Iraq.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2014, 03:48 PM (This post was last modified: 11-04-2014 03:52 PM by Artie.)
RE: Objective Morality
(11-04-2014 01:25 PM)Stevil Wrote:  No doubt there would be some vervet monkeys that don't call out and evolution would have produced those individuals as well.
If evolution produced both behaviours in those monkeys, then which behaviour is to be judged right and which is to be judged wrong?
Evolution produces two monkeys. One plays on the edge of a cliff and falls off, the other stays away from the edge. Falling off a cliff results in death = playing on the edge "wrong" behavior for monkey. Staying away from the edge = "right" behavior for monkey. Last monkey procreates. I don't know any simpler way of explaining natural selection to you.
Quote:If you maintain that evolution is the source of morality then this means that all behaviours that are produced by evolution are to be judged as right (moral).
All behaviors that led to improved chances of survival would be automatically selected for which is the same as "judged" right and others would be "judged" wrong.
Quote:If evolution dictates morality
It doesn't. We just call behavior that leads to increased chances of well-being and survival morally good because we have a survival instinct so we think surviving is good and what leads to survival is moral.

Please don't be offended, but your questions and statements are so simple to explain that if you really don't know the explanations I recommend the book http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-For-Dumm...0470117737 It is a very good beginners book.

Quote:to observe immoral behaviours we need to move away from evolution based bio-chemical entities. We can do this by developing AI robots which aren't a product of evolution. This would mean that all behaviours of an AI robot would be judged as immoral (a.k.a. not a product of evolution)
Consider
You could make a million robots programmed with a million different random behaviors such as "oil yourself regularly" or "jump off a cliff" and let them lose. After a while some robots would keep pretty well and some would be damaged or broken. After a while we would say that those robots who kept pretty well were the ones who did what is morally right behavior for robots. Nature just started off with biological robots where the programming changed itself due to many different mechanisms such as mutations etc. We are the changes that survived the automatic selection process. The vast majority didn't.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2014, 04:06 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(11-04-2014 03:48 PM)Artie Wrote:  Evolution produces two monkeys. One plays on the edge of a cliff and falls off, the other stays away from the edge. Falling off a cliff results in death = playing on the edge "wrong" behavior for monkey.
OK, so we are getting a clearer picture of your own definition of morality.
You believe that behaviours which lead to procreation are good and those which ultimately lead to no procreation are bad.
Thus a person choosing to be a priest and live a celibate life is bad and a person choosing to play the field and have lots of sex is good.

If a man dresses up, learns to dance, becomes a SNAG then he is moral because he is increasing his chances of procreation.

(11-04-2014 03:48 PM)Artie Wrote:  I don't know any simpler way of explaining natural selection to you.
I am well aware of evolution, it's your ideas of morality that confuses me.

(11-04-2014 03:48 PM)Artie Wrote:  We just call behavior that leads to increased chances of well-being and survival morally good
Hang on, you have just slipped something else in there. Evolution has a survival aspect, but well being is not important. If well being is poor but does not hinder survival and procreation then well being is irrelevant.


(11-04-2014 03:48 PM)Artie Wrote:  ...what leads to survival is moral.
Your story gets quite confused on this aspect because you think of humans as if we are a generalisation. There can be times of conflict, survival of one individual vs survival of others. If an individual dies in order to save others then it has failed in its own ability to procreate, thus evolutionary wise that individual is a dead end.

(11-04-2014 03:48 PM)Artie Wrote:  Please don't be offended, but your questions and statements are so simple to explain that if you really don't know them I recommend the book http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-For-Dumm...0117737... It is a very good beginners book.
What I would like is a reference to how evolution is deemed to be the moral framework. How survival and procreation is deemed moral and how lack of procreation is deemed immoral. Are you able to provide a reference to a book on this?

(11-04-2014 03:48 PM)Artie Wrote:  After a while we would say that those robots who kept pretty well were the ones who did what is morally right behavior for robots.
Sorry, but are you saying that there can be morality without evolution? That these things are independant of each other?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
11-04-2014, 04:33 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(11-04-2014 04:06 PM)Stevil Wrote:  OK, so we are getting a clearer picture of your own definition of morality.
You believe that behaviours which lead to procreation are good and those which ultimately lead to no procreation are bad.
Thus a person choosing to be a priest and live a celibate life is bad and a person choosing to play the field and have lots of sex is good.
No. Sorry but I am so tired of answering an endless litany of simplistic questions and statements and I'm sure you have thousands more in store so instead I simply refer you to amazon.com where they now have 1,976 results under "evolution of morality". Please read them and if you still have any questions left please get back to me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2014, 05:22 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(11-04-2014 04:33 PM)Artie Wrote:  No. Sorry but I am so tired of answering an endless litany of simplistic questions and statements and I'm sure you have thousands more in store so instead I simply refer you to amazon.com where they now have 1,976 results under "evolution of morality". Please read them and if you still have any questions left please get back to me.
I'm pretty sure your opinion on morality isn't in any published books or science publications, its certainly not part of evolutionary theory. That's not to say that your opinion is incorrect, I've tried very hard to understand your view but if you are not going to answer questions then so be it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2014, 06:19 PM (This post was last modified: 11-04-2014 07:39 PM by DLJ.)
RE: Objective Morality
(11-04-2014 03:48 PM)Artie Wrote:  ...
Evolution produces two monkeys. One plays on the edge of a cliff and falls off, the other stays away from the edge. Falling off a cliff results in death = playing on the edge "wrong" behavior for monkey. Staying away from the edge = "right" behavior for monkey. Last monkey procreates. I don't know any simpler way of explaining natural selection to you.
...

If I may once again point out the non sequitur that everyone else can see but you have been repeatedly missing...

X behaviour IS right for individual and group survival. Tick, OK.
X behaviour OUGHT to be right for individual and group survival. Tick, OK... a moral code is formed.
Survival IS right for individual and groups. Says who? Those individuals and groups who have adopted that moral code.
Survival OUGHT to be right for individual and groups. Says who? The group using that moral code.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
11-04-2014, 10:30 PM (This post was last modified: 11-04-2014 11:29 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Objective Morality
(11-04-2014 03:48 PM)Artie Wrote:  Evolution produces two monkeys. One plays on the edge of a cliff and falls off, the other stays away from the edge. Falling off a cliff results in death = playing on the edge "wrong" behavior for monkey. Staying away from the edge = "right" behavior for monkey. Last monkey procreates.

Wrong again, l'il Artie.
"Right behavior" is a SUBJECTIVE (value judgement) view of the situation you describe. One monkey dies. The other goes on to procreate. There is no "right or wrong" about any of it. One is temporarily more successful in it's environment than the other. Maybe the skill at staying away from cliffs has other consequences that are bad in the long run. Maybe going near cliffs would have eventually led to survival skills in escaping predators that had no cliff skills, and this monkey was the only one with that mutation. Maybe the monkey who procreates devastates a jungle environment and many other organisms are wiped out. YOU are making a subjective value judgement in valuing a CERTAIN MONKEY'S success, at a certain (random, non-permanent) moment. Maybe that monkey kills other more peaceful monkeys. There is no "right or wrong" about Evolution. Dinosaurs died out. That left room for humans to evolve. Was that "right" for dinosaurs to die out ? Your assertions are utterly meaningless. All Evolutionary "success" is relative to what is subjectively valued at the moment. (Maybe something that should not survive has no "success"). Is it "right" that the Leukemia Virus has survived, or that Malaria survived ? Using the term "right" and "wrong" in these situation is meaningless, and ignores the FACT that YOU are making a personal SUBJECTIVE valuation, and (perversely) refusing to admit it.

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
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: