Science can answer moral questions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-12-2013, 12:58 PM
RE: Science can answer moral questions
(10-12-2013 12:04 PM)Youkay Wrote:  I guess I need to use highlighting techniques for Stevil, too.

Killing for no good reason is bad.

I didn't say killing is bad. Thus, your whole statement falls apart.

What are you calling "a good reason"? How is your "good reason" objective and mine is not?

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
10-12-2013, 01:00 PM
RE: Science can answer moral questions
(10-12-2013 11:33 AM)Youkay Wrote:  
(10-12-2013 10:12 AM)nach_in Wrote:  I think it's not evaluated at all, how did you reach that conclusion? why is it bad?

Dictionary definition:
evaluation: the making of a judgement about the amount, number, or value of something

Killing for no good reason is bad.

"Killing for no good reason" was given the value "bad". Hence, it is an evaluation.

That's no judgement (as your definition requires) it's just a statement. How do you reach to that conclusion?
If it is just an intuition then it's subjective, thus not objective
If it's not an intuition then the conclusion should come from somewhere... where?


Quote:Why is it bad?

Do you have trouble seeing that "killing for no good reason" is bad? Or are you asking "why is it bad?" only for the sake of disagreement? If you have a proper reason why you would think "killing for no good reason" is NOT bad, then please explain. Otherwise, you will have to say that you agree that it is bad.

My opinion is irrelevant, I'm debating a position about objectivity in morality, don't drag this into a fight about who has the best moral values

Quote:Now let me repeat my question to you, highlighting the points you have missed:
Quote:Using these two definitions::
Is/are there a behavior/s, that can be described as good/bad for a fact, without involving individual biases, interpretations, feeling and imaginings in the process of evaluation?

I will now give an example of such a behavior and corresponding moral evaluation. If you think that this behavior was not evaluated objectively*, you will need to elucidate.

Killing a person for no good reason is bad.

* Definition of objective:
Dictionary definition:
Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Philosophical definition:
Objectivity: the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings.

In response to ghostexorcist: I don't want to add psychopaths and mentally defect people to our process of reasoning about morality. It is like not wanting to add the opinion of an illiterate retard to the evaluation of a scientific experimental result. It serves no good.

Save your passive/aggressive remarks for a lesser audience please. I read everything you write for me with the attention it deserves.

You say your moral statement is objective, but there's not way of telling that, because you just put it out there without any context or precedent.
If objective is something true even outside a subject's individual perception then your statement is lacking any pointer to that quality. And thus I won't accept it (or reject it) as such until you give me the right elements to evaluate.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2013, 01:14 PM (This post was last modified: 10-12-2013 01:19 PM by kim.)
RE: Science can answer moral questions
(10-12-2013 08:57 AM)Youkay Wrote:  Back to square one then. But this time from a different angle.


Question: Is there no such thing as objective morality?


Dictionary definition:
Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Philosophical definition:
Objectivity: the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings.


Dictionary definition:
morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

There may be such a thing as objective morality but it may not be universal. Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior are themselves part and parcel of belief. Last I heard, belief is subjective.

***
principle |ˈprinsəpəl|
noun
1 a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning : the basic principles of Christianity.
• (usu. principles) a rule or belief governing one's personal behavior : struggling to be true to their own principles | she resigned over a matter of principle.
• morally correct behavior and attitudes : a man of principle.
• a general scientific theorem or law that has numerous special applications across a wide field.
• a natural law forming the basis for the construction or working of a machine : these machines all operate on the same general principle.

PHRASES
in principle as a general idea or plan, although the details are not yet established or clear : the government agreed in principle to a peace plan that included a cease-fire. • used to indicate that although something is theoretically possible, it may not actually happen : in principle, the banks are entitled to withdraw these loans when necessary.
on principle because of or in order to demonstrate one's adherence to a particular belief : he refused, on principle, to pay the fine.

ORIGIN late Middle English : from Old French, from Latin principium ‘source,’ principia (plural) ‘foundations,’ from princeps, princip- ‘first, chief.’
USAGE On the confusion of principle and principal, see usage at principal .
***

(10-12-2013 08:57 AM)Youkay Wrote:  Using these two definitions::
Is/are there a behavior/s, that can be described as good/bad for a fact, without involving individual biases, interpretations, feeling and imaginings in the process of evaluation?

There might be... but they would not be universal behaviors and therefore can not be described as morally good or morally bad. Morality is subjective.

Now, if you are talking about ethics rather than morality... there might be something different to evaluate without involving individual biases, interpretations, feelings and imaginings.

I know; not enough coffee again. Drinking Beverage Sorry.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2013, 10:02 PM
RE: Science can answer moral questions
(10-12-2013 01:00 PM)nach_in Wrote:  
(10-12-2013 11:33 AM)Youkay Wrote:  Dictionary definition:
evaluation: the making of a judgement about the amount, number, or value of something

Killing for no good reason is bad.

"Killing for no good reason" was given the value "bad". Hence, it is an evaluation.

That's no judgement (as your definition requires) it's just a statement. How do you reach to that conclusion?

This! Frustrating!

evaluation: the making of a judgement about the amount, number, OR VALUE of something

"Killing for no good reason" was given the VALUE "bad". Hence, it is an evaluation.

This is no fun at all, if I alway have to rewrite what I wrote and point out which bit was not read properly.

And it is not MY definition, it's THE definition.

And if you start questioning the definition of value:

value: the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.

It is painful to always cite the dictionary, in order to avoid your all too prevalent "it depends how you define it" argument. And still, you do not pay attention to the definition and get it wrong! (see above example)

Fun "paradox": The higher the selection pressure, the slower evolution takes place.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2013, 10:06 PM (This post was last modified: 10-12-2013 11:13 PM by Youkay.)
RE: Science can answer moral questions
(10-12-2013 01:14 PM)kim Wrote:  Now if you are talking about ethics rather than morality... there might be something different to evaluate without involving individual biases, interpretations, feelings and imaginings.

Kiiiiiiiim Weeping

Dictionary definition:
ethics: 1) moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity.
synonyms: moral code, morals, morality, moral stand, moral principles, moral values
2) the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.

Also:
Quote:principle |ˈprinsəpəl|
noun
1 a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief OR behavior OR for a chain of reasoning

Does nobody understand the meaning of OR? ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN PROVIDED DICTIONARY DEFINITION, Principles don't apply to beliefs only, as you have put it.
Quote:Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior are themselves part and parcel of belief.

Fun "paradox": The higher the selection pressure, the slower evolution takes place.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Youkay's post
11-12-2013, 12:06 AM
RE: Science can answer moral questions
(10-12-2013 12:19 PM)Youkay Wrote:  Alright guys, I see that everybody is struggling very hard to agree that "killing a person for no good reason" is a bad thing. It is shameful really, to my opinion, that there is so much struggle to accept that it is a bad thing.

STRUGGLING? Bullshit artist much, PJBJ?


Quote:Is it really possible to discuss morality with people who fail to see that "killing a person for no good reason" is bad?

YOU are making an assertion about this imaginary "objective morality". Don't strawman what we say when we point out that the moral examples you propose are NOT objective, it's disingenuous and intellectually dishonest as fuck.



Quote:What is "a good reason" to kill somebody, what is "a bad reason"? Really? You REQUIRE me to specify?

YES, because YOU are claiming that there is some ABSOLUTE, OBJECTIVE morality. WE are pointing out that your example is full of holes.


Quote: I think killing somebody simply for the thrill of it is not a good reason. There are plenty bad reasons to kill somebody, as there also are plenty good reasons, and plenty reasons which are arguably good or bad.


Then that shoots the shit right out of your "objective morality", doesn't it.

Quote:If I get so much resistance with something THAT SIMPLE, I don't know if it is worth continuing this.

GREAT, because it was a stupid idea in the first place. Just don't be disingenuous and project your inability to prove an absurd claim on us and claim it's because we fail understand your amazing bullshit reasoning. It's dishonest as fuck and something a fucking theist bullshit artist on the order of BJ or PJ would pull.

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
11-12-2013, 02:45 AM (This post was last modified: 11-12-2013 02:57 AM by Youkay.)
RE: Science can answer moral questions
You need to take an anger management class

Saying that there are good and bad reasons to kill a person does not shoot the shit right out of my "objective morality". According to any morality, be it objective or subjective, there are a multitude of reasons for a certain behavior that can be evaluated on a spectrum stretching from good to bad.


I asked this simple question, open for good responses:
If you think that this behavior was not evaluated objectively, please elucidate.

"Killing a person for no good reason is bad."


What I have received so far (in chronological order):

- valuing the act of killing is based on emphaty. Humans without emphaty (psychopaths) would not think it is bad.
- It is not an evaluation at all
- why is it bad?
- what is good, what is bad?
- why the "no reason at all" qualifier?
- can someone actually kill somebody else for a bad reason?
- bad for whom? Under which circumstance? How is the act of killing related to me?

1) Answering a question with a question...
2) no explanation as to why the evaluation of the mentioned behavior is subjective or not objective
3) misuse of words according to their definition in the english language (as pointed out repeatedly)

All I tried to find is a behavior that everyone could agree on that it is a bad thing to do. In my naivity, I thought that "Killing a person for no good reason" might be a good example. But apparently it raises too many questions.

Could you please provide me with an example of a behavior, that everyone could agree on that it is bad?
I thought of a few other ones:
- Annihilating the population of a whole city based on superstition is bad.
- Sacrifycing human beings to a imaginary being is bad.
- Stoning your daughter to death for wanting to educate herself is bad.

Could you agree on any of those to be conceived as bad by people who reflect on them objectively, meaning detached from personal biases and preferences?

Fun "paradox": The higher the selection pressure, the slower evolution takes place.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2013, 06:41 AM (This post was last modified: 11-12-2013 06:52 AM by nach_in.)
RE: Science can answer moral questions
(10-12-2013 10:02 PM)Youkay Wrote:  
(10-12-2013 01:00 PM)nach_in Wrote:  That's no judgement (as your definition requires) it's just a statement. How do you reach to that conclusion?

This! Frustrating!

evaluation: the making of a judgement about the amount, number, OR VALUE of something

"Killing for no good reason" was given the VALUE "bad". Hence, it is an evaluation.

This is no fun at all, if I alway have to rewrite what I wrote and point out which bit was not read properly.

And it is not MY definition, it's THE definition.

And if you start questioning the definition of value:

value: the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.

It is painful to always cite the dictionary, in order to avoid your all too prevalent "it depends how you define it" argument. And still, you do not pay attention to the definition and get it wrong! (see above example)

No, it is not an evaluation, it's just a statement of value. Read your own definition:

Quote:The making of a judgement about the [...] VALUE of something

You have the value part alright, but the judgement part is missing, you just put a value (bad) on killing people without reason from thin air.

Again I repeat my question, why do you say killing people with no good reason is bad? HOW do you reach that conclusion (aka judgement)?

Judgement: the forming of an opinion, estimate, notion, or conclusion, as from circumstances presented to the mind.

What are the circumstances that where presented to your mind to form that conclusion about killing people?

Do you see where your argument is lacking at least? You are presenting a conclusion without any information.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes nach_in's post
11-12-2013, 09:04 AM
RE: Science can answer moral questions
So your point is saying "Killing a person for no good reason is bad." is not a judgement (an opinion/notion/conclusion as from circumstances presented to the mind)

If you insist...

How I got to this evaluation, judgement... statement? sentence? string of word? (I hardly care anymore):

The circumstances presented to my mind are these:

I reasoned that if everyone would walk around, killing people for no good reason, it would be very detrimental to the communal life of human societies, which we very much depend on for survival and welfare.

Therefore I concluded (made a conclusion), or you could say my notion was... no, my opinion is that killing people for no good reason is bad.

Fun "paradox": The higher the selection pressure, the slower evolution takes place.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2013, 10:11 AM
RE: Science can answer moral questions
(11-12-2013 09:04 AM)Youkay Wrote:  So your point is saying "Killing a person for no good reason is bad." is not a judgement (an opinion/notion/conclusion as from circumstances presented to the mind)

If you insist...

How I got to this evaluation, judgement... statement? sentence? string of word? (I hardly care anymore):

The circumstances presented to my mind are these:

I reasoned that if everyone would walk around, killing people for no good reason, it would be very detrimental to the communal life of human societies, which we very much depend on for survival and welfare.

Therefore I concluded (made a conclusion), or you could say my notion was... no, my opinion is that killing people for no good reason is bad.

In that case you're using a normative premiss: communal life of human societies ought to be protected. And that is a subjective rule. Is the same case as Harris' well-being rule.

And try to understand, I'm not saying that is morally good for people to go around killing others, I'm saying that morality is not objective.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes nach_in's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: