Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-11-2016, 03:48 AM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(24-11-2016 02:55 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(24-11-2016 02:46 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  That choice, whatever it is, will be subjective.

People becoming objects "is scary as fuck" to the objective psychopath in the audience. Meta scary. Evil_monster

Please, don't call me an objective psychopath, you are not (not even remotely) accurately portraiting my stance.

That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.”
-P.C. Hodgell - Seeker’s Mask - Kirien
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2016, 04:17 AM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(23-11-2016 10:04 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(23-11-2016 03:53 PM)Velvet Wrote:  Yes, what I don't accept is that looking at damage is what tells us right from wrong on any sense that it becomes more than ''just my opinion of what I like the world to be''.

No.

A damaged individual (physically and/or emotionally) is less likely to survive and is more likely to be a drain on society. In short there are measurable, demonstrable evidence that this is negative, both to society and to the individual.

The more damaged individuals, the more of a drain on society. A society that promotes causing harm and creating damaged people is going to have a greater chance of failure. This is also measurable and demonstrable.

These two items are not opinion. They are fact.

These two items alone justify in saying that slavery and child rape are wrong. Not in a cosmic sense, but in a sense that they are harmful to society and individuals.
...

Yabut... inherent in this argument is the hubristic notion that humans and societies matter.

Tongue

Harris, Dillahunty and more recently, Shermer all argue as you do that 'well-being' is the basis for morality and they have called this objectively true ... because what is a humanly-constructed framework (axiology) for morality about if not human well-being?

Fair enough (I said to Matt in a bar in Melbourne) but your choice of "well-being" for the label for your y-axis is still subjective.

This message was sponsored by:
The Brown Rat Association of Norway #Ratslivesmatter
The Virus Vigilante Group
The Cockroach Union of Alabama and
The Consortium of Bugblatter Beasts of Traal

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
24-11-2016, 04:32 AM (This post was last modified: 24-11-2016 04:43 AM by Velvet.)
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(24-11-2016 02:46 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Who or what determines that scale? By what measuring stick do we use for our objective comparisons? That choice, whatever it is, will be subjective.

Many people are fond of 'harm and suffering' as a rubric, with actions that cause more needless suffering being less moral, and actions that mitigate harm and suffering being more moral. We can make philosophical arguments for and against using 'harm and suffering' as our rubric, the potential harm and suffering caused by our actions is limited by our knowledge, and the philosophical lengths that we agree to apply causal ownership. Nothing about that debate is objective.

That's actually everything I AM saying.

The only thing I'm questioning is "giving that everything EK said and I quoted is true", why/how should we judge the next guy for having a different criteria for a choice of "measuring stick"?

Yes, we can investigate and measure if his measuring stick really reflects the value he says it does... we can predict how effective some anti-harm measures will be at avoiding harm.

And, yes, we are able to conclude that his measuring stick is or isn't effective to produce the results that he intends.

But still how can we judge him? How can we say that the results he intends are wrong? and ours are better?

Can we just assume that everyone's best interest is to increase the likelihood of survival of human species? Or that correct focus should be to aim to maximize happines? Or that increasing the knowledge and supremacy of the human specie on everything should be our goal?

What goal or value should we persue? Should we even persue any value? Why not just not give a fuck?

What I advocate on this thread is that: We cannot answer that.

If we don't have any universal moral rectitude scale (and we don't) how are we equipped to say his opinion of morality is worst than ours?

If someone says ending the human race is the most moral choice, because we inflict needless harm on the other species and ourselves, and if we are all dead we can't ever inflict harm, that the amount of harm we do just by living (indefinitely) will eventually surpass the harm of killing our own species (once).

If someone instead says that we should kill all mentally retarded or malformed babies because they will be a drain to society.

Why do we think that we those people are wrong?

What rational justification we have, to judge those moral ideas as worst than ours instead of just different?

That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.”
-P.C. Hodgell - Seeker’s Mask - Kirien
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Velvet's post
24-11-2016, 05:03 AM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(24-11-2016 04:32 AM)Velvet Wrote:  Why do we think that we those people are wrong?

What rational justification we have, to judge those moral ideas as worst than ours instead of just different?

Why're you so keen to have some kinda rational reason behind it? I have instincts bestowed on me by evolution. I don't see why I shouldn't use those. So what if someone else's morality is logically equivalent to mine? I see the benefit my way of thinking brings, I can argue for it in terms of the benefit to the most number of humans. But when it comes down to it, sure, it is my opinion and I'll fight for it. You wanna disagree? Be prepared to fight then.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like morondog's post
24-11-2016, 05:22 AM (This post was last modified: 24-11-2016 05:28 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(24-11-2016 04:32 AM)Velvet Wrote:  That's actually everything I AM saying.

The only thing I'm questioning is "giving that everything EK said and I quoted is true", why/how should we judge the next guy for having a different criteria for a choice of "measuring stick"?

Consensus. If enough people agree with you and share your measuring stick, and you either can outnumber, reason with, or otherwise marginalize the people who disagree with you.

A sociopath might not have any issues with his actions according to his own rubric, but everyone else who isn't a sociopath disagrees with them, and that matters.


(24-11-2016 04:32 AM)Velvet Wrote:  Yes, we can investigate and measure if his measuring stick really reflects the value he says it does... we can predict how effective some anti-harm measures will be at avoiding harm.

And, yes, we are able to conclude that his measuring stick is or isn't effective to produce the results that he intends.

But still how can we judge him? How can we say that the results he intends are wrong? and ours are better?

If the consensus agrees that 'harm and suffering' is a better rubric than a psychopath's own nihilism, the majority wins.

Morality is a social construct. In a universe with only 1 human alive in it, would morality matter? No, the concept would be meaningless. You need at least 2 people together who can interact with one another, before morality has any meaning. Same goes for 'rights'. Rights are not inalienable, you only have as many rights as everyone around you agrees you have. You can do things to lose your right, have them stripped away, or even gain more if you can convince enough people around you to respect a new right. But they are all social constructs. In a society of 2 people, 'might makes right' unless the weaker of the two can convince the stronger one that it is not the case.

There's nothing objective here.


(24-11-2016 04:32 AM)Velvet Wrote:  Can we just assume that everyone's best interest is to increase the likelihood of survival of human species? Or that correct focus should be to aim to maximize happines? Or that increasing the knowledge and supremacy of the human specie on everything should be our goal?

Indeed, deciding on the measuring stick or rubric to use is subjective.


(24-11-2016 04:32 AM)Velvet Wrote:  What goal or value should we persue? Should we even persue any value? Why not just not give a fuck?

What I advocate on this thread is that: We cannot answer that.

But, we can. It's a subjective answer, but that does not make it a bad or invalid answer. Indeed it's subjectivity means that it can change and adapt over time as needed. The moral rubric of the world seen in Mad Max is a far cry from that of suburban Los Angeles.


(24-11-2016 04:32 AM)Velvet Wrote:  If we don't have any universal moral rectitude scale (and we don't) how are we equipped to say his opinion of morality is worst than ours?

He's out-voted. Superiority goes to whoever can convince the group. In a small tribe, it could be enforced by the might of the leader and his cronies. In a nascent republic, it could be Enlightenment philosophy. In a crumbling monarchy, it could be a revolutionary book.


(24-11-2016 04:32 AM)Velvet Wrote:  If someone says ending the human race is the most moral choice, because we inflict needless harm on the other species and ourselves, and if we are all dead we can't ever inflict harm, that the amount of harm we do just by living (indefinitely) will eventually surpass the harm of killing our own species (once).

Life is suffering, it's the nature of world we evolved in. We are all competing, in our own ways, for the limited resources available to us.

But the whole 'the end of humanity is the best answer' is a classic trope of science fiction. Hell, it was the motivation of the antagonist Ultron in the last Avengers movie.


(24-11-2016 04:32 AM)Velvet Wrote:  If someone instead says that we should kill all mentally retarded or malformed babies because they will be a drain to society.

Yeah, you can try to make that argument. Get enough people to agree with you, and you can change the moral landscape.


(24-11-2016 04:32 AM)Velvet Wrote:  Why do we think that we those people are wrong?

I'm not sure if they would be. Short term, it is a bad look to execute people for an accident they didn't have any control over. But if the rules change and physical fitness becomes one of the most desired traits for the survival of that particular group? I could see the return of the Spartans smashing malformed babies upon rocks, accepting only the best for the continuation of their people. That was a morally acceptable act in Spartan society, according to their rubric.


(24-11-2016 04:32 AM)Velvet Wrote:  What rational justification we have, to judge those moral ideas as worst than ours instead of just different?

All the justification we need we already have. We can think and have ideas. If you can convince enough people that you are correct, you can change the moral landscape. Look as the gains made by the LGBTQ community. Those gains wouldn't have been made unless they had started to convince enough people to start to change the landscape. It's not that they are more or less correct now than they always were, it's simply that more people agree with them.

You only have the rights you can convince other people you have. For such a large society, we delegate a lot of that convincing to third parties; the Bill of Rights, the police that enforce it, the Judiciary that rule on it, and others. Not everyone agrees, and sometimes that earns you the ire of law enforcement, while at other times you can get a pass if enough people agree with you.

There is no mathematical equation that is going to determine an objective winner here. Morality is a big, grey, constantly shifting, ambiguous mess.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
24-11-2016, 05:37 AM (This post was last modified: 24-11-2016 05:49 AM by Velvet.)
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(24-11-2016 05:03 AM)morondog Wrote:  Why're you so keen to have some kinda rational reason behind it? I have instincts bestowed on me by evolution. I don't see why I shouldn't use those. So what if someone else's morality is logically equivalent to mine? I see the benefit my way of thinking brings, I can argue for it in terms of the benefit to the most number of humans. But when it comes down to it, sure, it is my opinion and I'll fight for it. You wanna disagree? Be prepared to fight then.

You agreed that everyone else's morality is logically equivalent as yours!
ClapClapClapClapClapClapClap

I'd need some kinda of rational reason behind it because I'm a skeptic, and I personally strive to be as intelectually honest as I can, with myself and others, so I would rather avoid engaging in incoherent or hypocritical behavior and/or self deception,...

I don't feel comfortable on acting upon some set of instincs bestowed on me by evolution, or at least not enought to judge the action of others who are bestowed with other set of instinct-based (but logically equivalent) notions.

That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.”
-P.C. Hodgell - Seeker’s Mask - Kirien
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2016, 06:02 AM (This post was last modified: 24-11-2016 06:45 AM by Velvet.)
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
EK I agree with most of what you said, very well written too, crystal clear.

You actually agree with me that we can't judge Ultron/Hitler/rapists as wrong or morally inferior...

By what you are saying there's nothing wrong with any act of any kind, the only thing that makes something be perceived as (currently) wrong is absence of power (either to persuade or enforce your opinion over a large number to impact on the perception of right and wrong).

But we still remain not knowing how some form of morallity would be an "improvement" or "better" than any other take on morallity... this would be just an illusion caused by the current state of consensus over this idea, consensus make it become perceived as right, not righteousness make it becomes consensus.

How could I say someone has a wrong opinion just because they are (currently) powerless to enforce or persuade others towards his opinion?

We know that having a large army or having a lot of people who agree with you has no impact on either you are right or not, otherwise earth would be forced to be flat back when everyone thought that was the case, but consensus certainly can have a power on other's perception of something.

I say I can't... or at least, I shouldn't if I want to be coherent and able to criticize people for not being rational.

That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.”
-P.C. Hodgell - Seeker’s Mask - Kirien
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2016, 06:59 AM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(24-11-2016 05:37 AM)Velvet Wrote:  
(24-11-2016 05:03 AM)morondog Wrote:  Why're you so keen to have some kinda rational reason behind it? I have instincts bestowed on me by evolution. I don't see why I shouldn't use those. So what if someone else's morality is logically equivalent to mine? I see the benefit my way of thinking brings, I can argue for it in terms of the benefit to the most number of humans. But when it comes down to it, sure, it is my opinion and I'll fight for it. You wanna disagree? Be prepared to fight then.

You agreed that everyone else's morality is logically equivalent as yours!
ClapClapClapClapClapClapClap

I'd need some kinda of rational reason behind it because I'm a skeptic, and I personally strive to be as intelectually honest as I can, with myself and others, so I would rather avoid engaging in incoherent or hypocritical behavior and/or self deception,...

I don't feel comfortable on acting upon some set of instincs bestowed on me by evolution, or at least not enought to judge the action of others who are bestowed with other set of instinct-based (but logically equivalent) notions.

If you are implying that because I admit morality is relative, and yet fight for my own morality, then I am "intellectually dishonest" or some such horseshit, then I encourage you to fuck yourself with a cactus.

You're the clown looking for some kinda logical justification for your ideas. It. Does. Not. Exist.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
24-11-2016, 07:02 AM (This post was last modified: 24-11-2016 07:14 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(24-11-2016 06:02 AM)Velvet Wrote:  EK I agree with most of what you said, very well written too, crystal clear.

You actually agree with me that we can't judge Ultron/Hitler/rapists as wrong or morally inferior...

Well, we can. We can judge their actions under any number of different rubrics, in some they'll come out ahead, in many others they'll fall woefully behind. You can use a rubric to get an objective answer in principle, even if not always in practice. But the selection and implementation of such rubrics is entirely subjective, and dependent upon group consensus; as indeed all social constructs are by their very nature.


(24-11-2016 06:02 AM)Velvet Wrote:  By what you are saying there's nothing wrong with any act of any kind, the only thing that makes something be perceived as (currently) wrong is absence of power (either to persuade or enforce your opinion over a large number to impact on the perception of right and wrong).

Indeed, if morality is subjective (as it does indeed appear to be), then things are only immoral depending on their context and perspective.


(24-11-2016 06:02 AM)Velvet Wrote:  But we still remain not knowing how some form of morallity would be an "improvement" or "better" than any other take on morallity... this would be just an illusion caused by the current state of consensus over this idea, consensus make it become perceived as right, not righteousness make it becomes consensus.

Like I said, we can have objective comparisons within our rubric. One would like to think that the rubric we use is one that most can generally agree upon, and serves the best interest of the group as a whole. It's an ideal we often fall short of by necessity. The implications of your moral judgments are by necessity limited by our knowledge. One could reasonably argue that, since we are not nor will we ever likely be capable of omniscience, that truly objective morality will always be beyond our grasp. The best we can ever do is approximate.


(24-11-2016 06:02 AM)Velvet Wrote:  How could I say someone has a wrong opinion just because they are (currently) powerless to enforce or persuade others towards his opinion?

Within the confines of social constructs, they are. A lone person who believes with his whole heart that the country belong to them by right matters not if they're the only one that agrees with them. But if enough people do agree, now they're a monarch.


(24-11-2016 06:02 AM)Velvet Wrote:  We know that having a large army or having a lot of people who agree with you has no impact on either you are right or not, otherwise earth would be forced to be flat back when everyone thought that was the case...

Bad analogy. Belief doesn't change facts. Belief won't make the world flat. But if enough people think that the idea of a flat Earth is offensive to god (and their god's representatives on Earth), then voicing such a belief (even if factual) can get you killed. Not because whether or not the Earth is flat doesn't have an objective answer (it does) and whether or not the person is correct (they are), but because enough people believe that such thoughts and words are a punishable offense.

But that's also not to say that to someone who values truth, the action of punishing someone for voicing such truths cannot be morally reprehensible; as indeed they can. If they can get enough people to agree with them, well, that's how you get the Enlightenment over the Dark Ages.


(24-11-2016 06:02 AM)Velvet Wrote:  I say I can't... or at least, I shouldn't if I want to be coherent and able to criticize people for not being rational.

I say you can. Challenge other belief systems, challenge your own. Things don't get better if people don't try. Simply reducing everything to impotent moral relativity is pointless. If you think something is immoral, question why, and sort it out. Challenge others, and see if your reasoning stacks up. If you value reason (which too is a subjective valuation of sorts), then make the case as to why rationality and reason is moral, and do your best to convince those who disagree with you. Don't cede the moral high-ground unless someone else can convince you otherwise. In a society that favors debate over bloodshed, it's the best way to make moral progress.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like EvolutionKills's post
24-11-2016, 07:11 AM (This post was last modified: 24-11-2016 07:15 AM by Velvet.)
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(24-11-2016 06:59 AM)morondog Wrote:  If you are implying that because I admit morality is relative, and yet fight for my own morality, then I am "intellectually dishonest" or some such horseshit, then I encourage you to fuck yourself with a cactus.

You're the clown looking for some kinda logical justification for your ideas. It. Does. Not. Exist.

No I'm not implying that, I saying that using everything we just agreed on I would feel intelectually dishonest if I WERE, to judge other's morals opinion as wrong (as I said).

I laughed at the cactus suggestion.

I'm a clown because I'm looking for logical justification for things before I feel comfortable in doing them? why would I be?

Yes, I also think they do not exist, that's why I'm defending that we shouldn't judge if we want to be coherent with our skeptical stance when we inquire people for their rational justification for holding their beliefs and opinions, we can do so without being hypocritical.

[Image: 56244987.jpg]

That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.”
-P.C. Hodgell - Seeker’s Mask - Kirien
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: