Science, reason and moral questions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-05-2017, 05:02 PM
RE: Science, reason and moral questions
(05-05-2017 02:46 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(05-05-2017 12:51 PM)big green mouth Wrote:  I'm afraid I don't see it. There may be many moral decisions made as one goes about the business of farming, and it's morally permissible to farm. But I don't see how farming itself is either moral or immoral. How you get to the conclusion that farming is "moral knowledge" is beyond me.

Here's another question for you. If someone needs food, and I give them some food, would that be a moral action in your view?

Kant distinguishes between moral duties, things that it would be immoral to refrain from doing [or not doing], and those things which are morally permissible and for which it would be good if you were to perform them. Giving needy people food is moral in this second sense, it's not a moral duty, but rather is permissible and a moral good. I personally would view it as morally neutral, however that may be due to having somewhat simplistic ethics. I am a subjectivist in which the information as to whether something is ethical or not is related to whether or not my subjective sense of morality is tickled or not, and how that meshes with the subjective views of my peers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes big green mouth's post
05-05-2017, 06:27 PM
RE: Science, reason and moral questions
(05-05-2017 05:02 PM)big green mouth Wrote:  
(05-05-2017 02:46 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Here's another question for you. If someone needs food, and I give them some food, would that be a moral action in your view?

Kant distinguishes between moral duties, things that it would be immoral to refrain from doing [or not doing], and those things which are morally permissible and for which it would be good if you were to perform them. Giving needy people food is moral in this second sense, it's not a moral duty, but rather is permissible and a moral good. I personally would view it as morally neutral, however that may be due to having somewhat simplistic ethics. I am a subjectivist in which the information as to whether something is ethical or not is related to whether or not my subjective sense of morality is tickled or not, and how that meshes with the subjective views of my peers.

I'm glad that you wouldn't think it was a moral duty and it is very refreshing to find someone who is so consistent. I disagree with you but I can appreciate that you aren't all over the place. Thank you very much for answering.Smile

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2017, 11:25 PM
RE: Science, reason and moral questions
I agree, your idea of what morality is bears very little resemblance to what I think it is. I have no idea what you're even asking me with some of your questions. That's the problem, it's an ill-defined concept. Anyone can set out a load of things they think morality is about, but that's only of any practical use to people who agree with them.

I laid out everything I think about morality in my videos in this thread. I try to apply as few assumptions as possible, so as not to exclude people from the discussion. If anyone would like to address any points within my videos, I'd be happy to discuss them.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2017, 05:11 AM (This post was last modified: 06-05-2017 05:14 AM by Robvalue.)
RE: Science, reason and moral questions
As for farming, if we're talking about animals, then I personally find it immoral. Most people draw a line between humans and other animals in terms of what is acceptable, while I try not to. I see owning, exploiting and killing animals as things to be avoided as much as possible.

But I'd never say it's objectively immoral, because I find that to be incoherent.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2017, 09:40 AM (This post was last modified: 06-05-2017 09:54 AM by true scotsman.)
RE: Science, reason and moral questions
(06-05-2017 05:11 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  As for farming, if we're talking about animals, then I personally find it immoral. Most people draw a line between humans and other animals in terms of what is acceptable, while I try not to. I see owning, exploiting and killing animals as things to be avoided as much as possible.

But I'd never say it's objectively immoral, because I find that to be incoherent.

I'm talking about farming as the means of producing food. You don't have to eat animals if you don't want to and you don't have to farm to be moral, but you do have to provide food for yourself, right? and that takes knowledge whether you grow it or gather it yourself or trade for it. So my point remains valid. You find the concept of "objectively immoral" incoherent because your ethics is based on the primacy of consciousness, even if you don't realize it and on the basis of the POC it is incoherent because the concept of objectivity has no meaning. This is clear from your statement that facts are evidence based knowledge. Only someone who assumes the primacy of consciousness would state this and wouldn't see the stolen concept it entails. That's what I was saying in my response to you that got lost the other day. But the primacy of consciousness view of reality is false, it's wrong, objectively. You and I disagree at the most fundamental level. Your ethics assumes the primacy of consciousness, Mine is based exclusively on the primacy of existence, hence the objective part. I'll let reality be the judge.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2017, 09:50 AM
RE: Science, reason and moral questions
(05-05-2017 11:25 PM)Robvalue Wrote:  I agree, your idea of what morality is bears very little resemblance to what I think it is. I have no idea what you're even asking me with some of your questions. That's the problem, it's an ill-defined concept. Anyone can set out a load of things they think morality is about, but that's only of any practical use to people who agree with them.

I laid out everything I think about morality in my videos in this thread. I try to apply as few assumptions as possible, so as not to exclude people from the discussion. If anyone would like to address any points within my videos, I'd be happy to discuss them.

It's not an ill-defined concept to me. What's defective about the definition I gave: A set of principles to guide one's choices and actions, the choices and actions that determine the course of one's life. This definition objectively defines morality. It hits all of the essentials. It tells us that morality is a type of knowledge, that it's purpose is life, That it's method is conceptual and therefore facts based and hence an objective method. It also includes the fact that man is volitional by nature.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2017, 10:15 PM (This post was last modified: 06-05-2017 10:31 PM by Robvalue.)
RE: Science, reason and moral questions
Are you saying there is one set of principles, or that everyone has their own principles? Because the latter is clearly the case in reality, and if you're just saying that, then we're in agreement.

I don't know if you're suggesting there is some sort of correct set of principles. This is what I find incoherent. Correctness implies an assumed specific goal, which isn't covered by the definition. Just living your life isn't a goal, unless you're just talking about survival. And any set of coherent principles can be used to make decisions. If you're not saying this, then all is well.

This definition extends to a psychopath also, I don't know if you consider that a problem.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2017, 10:38 PM (This post was last modified: 06-05-2017 10:45 PM by Robvalue.)
RE: Science, reason and moral questions
I don't know how the discussion has got so tangled, but I'll make my position simple:

There is no "correct" way to measure "the morality" of an action. Everyone will use their own values (and principles if you like) to evaluate the action, and will come up with their own judgement. None of them are right or wrong. This is what I mean by morality not being objective. To make it objective, you'd have to define it precisely so that it is becomes measurable. And then you've just projected your own subjective morlaity onto it. You could compare people's judgements with their personal goals, to see if they seem consistent. That's about as far as it goes. And of course, you can debate what goals you feel are important.

We can agree, as a society or between the people having the discussion, what the goals of morality should be. Then we can form a rough agreement about what represents moral or immoral actions. But this is just circular; if we agree, we agree.

Even if we agree on maximizing wellbeing as a goal (one I certainly aim for), there is no "correct" way to measure wellbeing either. It's an extremely vague concept.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2017, 08:44 AM (This post was last modified: 07-05-2017 10:18 AM by true scotsman.)
RE: Science, reason and moral questions
(06-05-2017 10:38 PM)Robvalue Wrote:  I don't know how the discussion has got so tangled, but I'll make my position simple:

There is no "correct" way to measure "the morality" of an action. Everyone will use their own values (and principles if you like) to evaluate the action, and will come up with their own judgement. None of them are right or wrong. This is what I mean by morality not being objective. To make it objective, you'd have to define it precisely so that it is becomes measurable. And then you've just projected your own subjective morlaity onto it. You could compare people's judgements with their personal goals, to see if they seem consistent. That's about as far as it goes. And of course, you can debate what goals you feel are important.

We can agree, as a society or between the people having the discussion, what the goals of morality should be. Then we can form a rough agreement about what represents moral or immoral actions. But this is just circular; if we agree, we agree.

Even if we agree on maximizing wellbeing as a goal (one I certainly aim for), there is no "correct" way to measure wellbeing either. It's an extremely vague concept.

Sure there is, if you care about whether what you believe is true and since when does the truth depend on anyone's agreement. Saying there's no correct way to measure the morality of an action is to say there is no standard by which to judge actions which is to say life has no relation to reality. because reality is the standard by which we judge things if we care about the truth. Yes, many, many people, the vast majority use a subjective standard to judge Human actions. Almost all do. But what some people do has no bearing on what is philosophically correct. Now I've stated that my moral code is objective. I've given the reason: it has its basis in the axioms, the primacy of existence and the objective theory of concepts. You can't get any more objective than that! Now I realize that for most people, morality is subjectiv. They base it on emotions, feelings, and frankly they base it on what everyone around them does and give it not that much thought.

If you want to say that my moral code is not objective, then you've got to show where it assumes the primacy of consciousness. If you can't do that then you can't claim, rationally, that my code is subjective. There is a rational alternative to subjectivism in morality.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2017, 09:02 AM
RE: Science, reason and moral questions
(06-05-2017 10:15 PM)Robvalue Wrote:  Are you saying there is one set of principles, or that everyone has their own principles? Because the latter is clearly the case in reality, and if you're just saying that, then we're in agreement.

I don't know if you're suggesting there is some sort of correct set of principles. This is what I find incoherent. Correctness implies an assumed specific goal, which isn't covered by the definition. Just living your life isn't a goal, unless you're just talking about survival. And any set of coherent principles can be used to make decisions. If you're not saying this, then all is well.

This definition extends to a psychopath also, I don't know if you consider that a problem.

I'm saying there is one set of principles that is objectively true, the one that corresponds to the facts relevant to man's life.

The specific goal of morality is specified in my definition. That's the job of definitions, to name the referents of a concept in terms of their essential Characteristics. Yes living is a goal, it's the goal of every action that a living organism takes, except for man. He has volition, he is capable of acting on the premise of death as his goal. This describes any person who acts irrationally. It is precisely this fact of volition that makes a moral code necessary and if you want to live it had better be a rational one.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: