morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-02-2013, 08:29 PM
morality
is morality objective or not.. im thinkin it aint. what do you think?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2013, 09:00 AM
RE: morality
Hey, Druid.

Nope.

If we look at the millions of organisms of the world, we see that they all obtain nutrients in order to maintain their metabolic pathways. But then there's, aerobes, anaerobes, autotrophs, heterotrophs, photoautortrophs, chemolithoautotrophs, chemotrophs, phototrophs, chemoautortrophs, chemoheterotrophs, photoautotrophs, photoheterotrophs, then there's omnivores, carnivores, herbivores, sanguinvores, then there's predators, prey, scavengers, then there's mouths, beaks, probosci... The number of ways that organisms obtain nutrients is staggering. Each strategy/trait combination came into being through the evolutionary process. There is no one right way to obtain nutrients and no one way is better than another.

If we look at the thousands of human cultures in the world, we see that they all have culture and they all have morality. But then we see thousands of cultures with thousands of moral codes. Each culture/morality combination came into being through the evolutionary process. There is no one right moral code and no moral code is better than another.

When we judge other moral codes we have two options:
1 - We can understand it in its own terms
2 - We can understand it in our own terms

The first way is useful for understanding how other people view the world. It doesn't make value judgments, it just seeks to understand. When moral codes are looked at in this way, it's easy to catalog traits. That allows us to compare and contrast differences between cultures in an objective manner. This practice is essentially what led to the realisation that culture is relative.

The second way forces us to judge other cultures in comparison to our own. It typically leads to ethnocentric judgments of other cultures. It's not without its merits, but it does allow for the assumption that A - morality is objective and that B - we (we being any given observing culture) have it. It allows people to assume that not only is there one right morality, but we have it.

So we know why morality is relative and we know why people incorrectly assume that it is objective.

But morality is evolved and relative.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2013, 09:05 AM
RE: morality
(07-02-2013 06:59 AM)Vosur Wrote:  No.

You can certainly use objective tools to find out whether an action is morally good or bad, but the parameters that you have to set up before doing so remain a subjective choice. One person may choose human suffering/human happiness as a parameter for determining morality, another person may choose his own well-being as a parameter and a third person may choose a religious scripture as his parameter. In the end, it all comes down to personal preference.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2013, 09:07 AM
RE: morality
(24-02-2013 09:00 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Druid.

Nope.

If we look at the millions of organisms of the world, we see that they all obtain nutrients in order to maintain their metabolic pathways. But then there's, aerobes, anaerobes, autotrophs, heterotrophs, photoautortrophs, chemolithoautotrophs, chemotrophs, phototrophs, chemoautortrophs, chemoheterotrophs, photoautotrophs, photoheterotrophs, then there's omnivores, carnivores, herbivores, sanguinvores, then there's predators, prey, scavengers, then there's mouths, beaks, probosci... The number of ways that organisms obtain nutrients is staggering. Each strategy/trait combination came into being through the evolutionary process. There is no one right way to obtain nutrients and no one way is better than another.

If we look at the thousands of human cultures in the world, we see that they all have culture and they all have morality. But then we see thousands of cultures with thousands of moral codes. Each culture/morality combination came into being through the evolutionary process. There is no one right moral code and no moral code is better than another.

When we judge other moral codes we have two options:
1 - We can understand it in its own terms
2 - We can understand it in our own terms

The first way is useful for understanding how other people view the world. It doesn't make value judgments, it just seeks to understand. When moral codes are looked at in this way, it's easy to catalog traits. That allows us to compare and contrast differences between cultures in an objective manner. This practice is essentially what led to the realisation that culture is relative.

The second way forces us to judge other cultures in comparison to our own. It typically leads to ethnocentric judgments of other cultures. It's not without its merits, but it does allow for the assumption that A - morality is objective and that B - we (we being any given observing culture) have it. It allows people to assume that not only is there one right morality, but we have it.

So we know why morality is relative and we know why people incorrectly assume that it is objective.

But morality is evolved and relative.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt


Studies have shown that there is a shared base moral sense across cultures. This seems to be a basis for people to interpret this as an objective morality, though as you point out, it is just our common evolution.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2013, 09:19 AM
RE: morality
Every person who claims an objective morality conveniently forgets their "what have you done for me lately" attitude. :/

[Image: 10289811_592837817482059_8815379025397103823_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
24-02-2013, 09:42 AM (This post was last modified: 24-02-2013 09:45 AM by Vosur.)
RE: morality
(24-02-2013 09:19 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Every person who claims an objective morality conveniently forgets their "what have you done for me lately" attitude. :/
Gwynnie's prophet is back! Bowing

Welcome home, buddy.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
24-02-2013, 09:44 AM
RE: morality
(24-02-2013 09:19 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Every person who claims an objective morality conveniently forgets their "what have you done for me lately" attitude. :/
Well, looks like this thread is gonna be fucked.

Welcome back, Johnny. I've missed you. [Image: sadcryface2.gif]

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cheapthrillseaker's post
24-02-2013, 10:48 AM
RE: morality
Hey, Chas.

Quote:Studies have shown that there is a shared base moral sense across cultures.

Not being a douche over here, but I'm genuinely curious about what study you're referring to and what the base morality is.

I'm curious because one thing that struck me is that memetic drift accounts for the very different traits in moral codes within the various cultures of the world. But drift implies commonality at one point; otherwise moral codes developed independently of one another, which would be an incredible discovery in its own right. But, we know, from mitochondrial DNA testing, that all humans alive today descend from about 150 humans that migrated out of Africa 55 000 years ago. We know that 55 000 years ago, these people were fully modern humans with full syntactical language and culture. Thus, it seems obvious to me, any similarities in cultures existing today, including this "base moral sense", can be traced back to the cultural practices of that original group of humans and that any differences can be explained neatly by memetic drift; furthermore, any similarities between cultures that are not held by all cultures can be explained neatly by meme flow.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2013, 10:51 AM
morality
I like this video about the topic:

http://youtu.be/7iRCexvcDS8

I Heart Qualia Soup
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2013, 10:53 AM (This post was last modified: 24-02-2013 10:56 AM by TrulyX.)
RE: morality
It's not inherent.

Asking if it is objective is a tricky question.

If people cherry-pick out of there asses different irrational foundations, then in that sense, it wouldn't be very objective, by choice. Same as if I chose not to follow the order of operations in mathematics, changed the meaning of mathematical terms and symbols, or decided that the word atheist describes people who like to eat babies.

It should be objective. The basis can be very objective and widely agreed upon. My senses, personally, give me the necessary data of interactions between human being, off which, and along with my ability to reason, I can properly base morality and apply a theory in a clearly objective manner.

If other people can't do that and/or agree with me, fine. They can deny any thing exists, also.

So, to answer: the foundations of constructs, up to and including mathematics, will always be arbitrary and subjective, in some sense; however, from there on it can and should be objective, but that wouldn't rule out people picking a basis and then not being objective, even, from that point.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Moral Relativism Vs. Absolute Morality, and Does morality evolve? godofskeptic 48 7,684 13-08-2014 01:48 PM
Last Post: phil.a
  Perfection and Morality Mr. Slave 25 471 03-08-2014 12:22 PM
Last Post: Airportkid
  Governance excluding morality Stevil 10 330 11-02-2014 11:53 PM
Last Post: Stevil
  Morality - seeking consistency via qualifying criteria Stevil 23 676 03-02-2014 12:15 PM
Last Post: Stevil
  My views on Morality Krabman 38 961 23-01-2014 10:04 PM
Last Post: Vosur
  Morality on a desert island natachan 24 772 29-12-2013 04:10 PM
Last Post: Stevil
  POW right in the kisser. Morality on old TV I and I 9 417 27-09-2013 04:18 AM
Last Post: I and I
Forum Jump: