Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Absolute Morality

51 replies to this topic
Criѕtian
  • Criѕtian

    2K13

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • None

#31

Posted 28 December 2013 - 02:18 PM Edited by Criѕtian, 28 December 2013 - 02:44 PM.

The kind of morality that is based on facts and reason simply isn't subjective (it's basically science, or more like a developing one). You should refer to the definitions of "objective" I posted in the previous post. Subjective in what sense? That they aren't written in stone or given as laws by the universe? Morality can be objective to us humans (we are the only known beings capable of reason), but it can include the well being of all the other creatures as well.

 

I've already addressed that type of moral ambiguity in my previous post(s). It may be possible that both freedom and safety are equally valid ways to organize society. Safety could work best in theory if you were able to fully trust the government. Freedom could work just as well if we were able to fully trust other people. Maybe one of them is better, maybe freedom will turn out to be better, or maybe both free and safe societies will continue to exist until the end of time. So, either one of them is better, both are equally good, or a combination of both would offer the best outcome for all humans. We could have societies adopting different systems based on those two principles (freedom and safety) that would be thriving equally. Where is the subjective aspect in all of this?

 

As for the equality vs inequality example (I think this is what you were getting at there), a society where everybody is equal would probably be the best provided that we had enough resources. Inequality seems to lead to outcomes that are unfair and this explains in part why good people do bad things. Just imagine a society where everybody received the same education, made the same amount of money, etc. How many good people would still be motivated to steal? If everyone had a decent life I think most of our problems would be solved. Now, it could be that we will never reach a time like that, or it's simply not possible to reach it, but there are other ways to thrive (maybe not as good) that we could arrive at by wanting to understand the world by reason and evidence and science (neuroscience, psychology, even economy, etc).

 

tl;dr Morality would be subjective if two truly opposing ideas would be equally valid in the same circumstance when examined with reason and evidence (e.g. killing gay people vs not killing them, forcing women to obey men vs giving them equal rights, etc). There might be some grey areas, but only because we don't know enough for now. We can still give objective answers to most of the important questions and by expanding our knowledge we will be able to answer more and more questions. It's the same method as the one applied in science.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#32

Posted 28 December 2013 - 03:03 PM

The problem with your argument is that there are situations in which two incompatible or contradictory ethical perspectives are both "correct". Melchoir has already alluded to one of them- the balance between individual freedoms and the right to security delivered by the state. All societies inhibit the freedom of their citizens to a lesser or to a greater degree in the pursuit of societal security, and the "healthy balance" of these two factors differs in differing societies despite there being little empirical to differentiate between. What can be applied in one set of circumstances with a great deal of success in one society will not necessarily succeed in another society even if the actual circumstances are very similar. This is what both Melchoir and I have been discussing- the fact that, in questions like "is it right to limit the freedom of an individual in order to increase security for a society", there isn't any definitive empirical answer. 

 

Don't get me wrong, empiricism has its place in discussing moral issues but some moral questions can't be answered with knowledge or empiricism. They're a product of social factors. Also, discussing hypotheticals is very, well, hypothetical. Your arguments are quite easy to apply to various ethical conundrums that have what one could perceive as definitive outcomes, but doesn't really work in the kind of nuanced ethical discussion that we're referring to here. It's also somewhat unhelpful, especially given that the statement "there is always a substantive good in a set of moral choices should one have a full understanding of the circumstances" isn't actually a great deal of practical use because, more often than not, circumstance depends on unknown unknowns and snap judgements and, unless you're a proponent of prescriptivism, you don't actually know the outcome of ethical choices until the ensuing events have unfolded.


Criѕtian
  • Criѕtian

    2K13

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • None

#33

Posted 28 December 2013 - 08:37 PM Edited by Criѕtian, 28 December 2013 - 08:40 PM.

That doesn't sound like a refutation to me because I don't see an opposition there (given that the outcomes are the same; if they are not, a system that balances freedom and security in a certain way is bound to have the best results objectively). We simply just don't know the answer yet, the same way we don't know many things in science. Let's look at it another way. Let's take slavery as an example. It took us a while to get there, but it has practically been abolished completely in the civilized world. It's possible that people back then thought the same way you do right now: "Maybe some societies need slavery, maybe some societies can live without slavery and some can't, maybe we need to balance it somehow.", but it seems perfectly clear right now that slavery is by all means bad.

 

If you accept Harris' main argument, that the worst possible misery for everyone is bad and that there's nothing worse (or that there is no positive aspect to this state), then you have to admit that everything else is objectively better, that there are objective right and wrong answers to questions about morality. I don't know if I have anything else to say on this subject. If you think that Sam Harris is wrong, then I recommend that you participate in his challenge (link in signature, but you'll have to at least watch that one hour talk I posted on the previous page). Maybe I didn't present his arguments that well, but you have a chance of winning even if you don't prove him wrong.

 

Note: I'm not advertising for the guy. I just think that this is an interesting topic\challenge and he is legit.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#34

Posted 28 December 2013 - 10:40 PM

I'm not sure whether it was intentional or not, but that was two paragraphs worth of not really addressing the point I've made. Also, what do you mean that you "don't see an opposition"? You've alluded to one in your own statements by discussing a "system that balances freedom and security"- yes, that's a given, but the metric of what quantity of which is what varies, not the basic principle.


Criѕtian
  • Criѕtian

    2K13

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • None

#35

Posted 29 December 2013 - 12:29 AM Edited by Criѕtian, 29 December 2013 - 12:49 AM.

Sorry. I spent a bit of time thinking about that point, took a little break to do something else and I somehow forgot what I wanted to say.

the metric of what quantity of which is what varies, not the basic principle.

OK. So the point is that an optimal system that balances freedom and security (which we suppose is the best, it could be something else) can work differently in different or not so different societies, which is to say that it works best in one country but not so much in another. I don't know if we have examples of this happening. My suspicion is that we don't really have countries\societies with identical systems, but even if we did, there must be causes which explain why it doesn't work in the same way. I really feel that we need to talk specifics here, because those issues are really broad and they include too many details\factors. It is possible that it doesn't work in one society because the economy is worse, or the education, and there is more corruption as a result. This doesn't seem to contradict my arguments. We simply have to address the issues that are causing this particular system not to function properly. Of course, this is easier said than done. I know that there are different proponents of freedom and security, but the way to find the best outcome(s) is possible through reason in principle. I don't see why not, and I don't see why this could not be labeled as objective morality.

 

I made this point earlier, it is true that there are many ways for societies to thrive, maybe even seemingly opposing ways. This doesn't nullify the concept of an objective morality. Objective as in "uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices" and "based on observable phenomena; presented factually" (those are dictionary definitions).

 

Edit: If I am still missing your point(s) it is only because I am genuinely confused. I don't think I have any bias in this or any reason to be dishonest. I don't currently care that much about this issue, which is too say that I'm not too invested in it (up until recently I didn't even think about it much), but I do find it interesting.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#36

Posted 29 December 2013 - 12:55 PM

I made this point earlier, it is true that there are many ways for societies to thrive, maybe even seemingly opposing ways. This doesn't nullify the concept of an objective morality. Objective as in "uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices" and "based on observable phenomena; presented factually" (those are dictionary definitions).

 

 

For one, the definition of "objective" and "objective morality" are slightly different. The fact is that objective morality is a particular school of moral theory. At a normative level, we're discussing the idea of morality being based on something factual, generally either religion or an objective theory derived from it such as the categorical imperative. It's slightly broader than "uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices" and the defining characteristic of both religious belief and the categorical imperative is that they're fundamentally contradictory- that is, they claim that all morality is objective and then fail to offer any substantive proof for this- assuming that morality is self-evident. 

 

As I said before, there's a distinction between employing the empirical and scientific method in assessing the moral value of statements or circumstances, and claiming that all morality is objective. The simple fact of the matter is that not all moral conundrums have a defined positive or negative outcome, and objective morality fails to take into account the discrepancy in moral perception between those who believe that intent is the defining characteristic of morality, and those who think outcome is. 


Criѕtian
  • Criѕtian

    2K13

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • None

#37

Posted 29 December 2013 - 04:16 PM

Is a science like chemistry objective then? To my mind, what you are saying is that since we don't have all the answers to these problems, morality can't truly be objective, that is to say we could never have a science of morality. We have already established that questions of morality relate to facts about the consciousness of humans\animals (we can't discuss about morality in a universe where consciousness doesn't exist), how is a morality that uses the scientific method different from science? You wouldn't say that chemistry, physics, or medicine are ultimately subjective because they don't have all the answers to questions about the universe or health. It's possible that we'll never have all the answers to those moral conundrums, but the same can be said about all science.

 

I think that a lack of knowledge accounts for that discrepancy and this does not mean that there isn't an objective answer to these questions. If morality relates to physical reality, to consciousness, we are talking about facts. We'll either get those answers in the future or we won't (our brains have their limits).

 

BTW, I found a twenty minute version of Sam's talk here, if you want a clearer explanation (mine was all over the place).


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#38

Posted 29 December 2013 - 05:40 PM

No, what I'm saying is that morality isn't like empirical science. It's more like philosophy. You can use empiricism to substantiate moral arguments but not all morality is empirical. It's got nothing to do with whether or not we can answer questions of morality and everything to do with the fact moral questions often don't preclude contradictory things from being substantively or empirically equal. It's closer to quantum physics than chemistry- that is, there are multiple correct answers to the same question.


Criѕtian
  • Criѕtian

    2K13

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • None

#39

Posted 29 December 2013 - 07:42 PM Edited by Criѕtian, 29 December 2013 - 07:49 PM.

It's got nothing to do with whether or not we can answer questions of morality and everything to do with the fact moral questions often don't preclude contradictory things from being substantively or empirically equal. It's closer to quantum physics than chemistry- that is, there are multiple correct answers to the same question.

I still don't think that we have clear-cut examples of contradictory things that are equally correct, or of one objective moral principle working in a society and not in another, and the explanations as to why it doesn't work in the same way.

 

Let's go back to the freedom vs security example. Imagine a society that was maximizing freedom and another one that was maximizing security, and both of them are thriving equally. Suppose the one maximizing freedom had a history of maximizing security, and it turned out to be a mistake, that it didn't work best for the people in that society. Imagine the reverse for the society which is maximizing security, that it had a history of maximizing freedom and it also turned out to be a mistake. So we have two societies with clearly opposing ideas\positions that work best the way they are (or at least to the current knowledge of the people involved). You are arguing that in principle, both of these positions are equally valid, probably even within the same society, which is possible. If those systems behave differently in those societies, then there are causes that we can study (in principle), and adopting one system for one society as opposed to adopting another is not a subjective decision. It's a decision based on the conditions provided by each society, whatever they may be. It's a decision based on facts.

 

If these positions are equally valid within the same society (this would be the more obvious problem to my arguments), then switching between those two systems could be considered subjective\arbitrary, but why would this disprove the idea of an objective morality? If both free and secure systems are equally valid ways to have prosperous societies, it should be true that both of them are inherently good\positive, so it doesn't matter which we choose, but we can get to either one of them by objective\empirical means. There could be a third or even a fourth option\system that balances those two things (freedom and security) which also lead to the same outcome, but switching between any of those systems doesn't imply that we arrived at these options by being subjective. To my mind, this seems to be a non-issue if we choose between equally valid options like these.

 

A situation where choosing between two opposing options can only be done subjectively, which is to say that there are no objective means to determine which one should be chosen, then those two options would have to be opposing beyond a shadow of a doubt (one would have to be negative, and the other positive) to disprove the idea of objective morality completely. If morality is often only subjective, then there should be plenty of clear-cut examples to illustrate that. A clear example like: "killing someone vs not killing them" would be good enough to disprove everything I said.


Melchior
  • Melchior

    Anti-Complacency League, Baby!

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • United-Nations

#40

Posted 31 December 2013 - 12:24 AM

The issue is that, objectively, you can't accept two radically different positions as both being true. While maximising security or freedom may be in the best interest of a society, the decision will still be opposed on moral grounds, whichever you pick. For instance, if we had armed police and cameras on every corner and it was an unquestionable truth that this stopped violence, we'd still decry it as an attack on freedom.

 

And further, moral positions aren't necessarily empirical. You're saying morality is objective because you can objectively decide what is "right" but what is "right" is inherently very subjective. If it was somehow irrefutably proven that legalising pot would have disastrous socioeconomic consequences, a lot of people, including myself would still argue for legalisation based on the maxim "I'm a big boy, I can make my own decisions" which doesn't make much logical sense if it's proven in this hypothetical world that we can't make our own decisions, but is somehow appealing regardless. In other words, what is "right" can have nothing at all to do with the best outcome. In fact, in my example, the worst outcome is the one that is the most moral, in my eyes.

 

Here's another example: animals. Would you kill a human to save two cows? Doubtful. Would you kill a human to save a million cows? Still, probably not. But what's the reasoning behind that besides an unempirical moral hunch that a human is somehow worth a million times more than any other lifeform?


IM_YOUR_GOD
  • IM_YOUR_GOD

    Christian Zionist Rank 9

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 May 2012

#41

Posted 31 December 2013 - 05:11 AM

What is normal to the spider is chaos to the fly.

Criѕtian
  • Criѕtian

    2K13

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • None

#42

Posted 31 December 2013 - 01:27 PM Edited by Criѕtian, 31 December 2013 - 01:33 PM.



The issue is that, objectively, you can't accept two radically different positions as both being true. While maximising security or freedom may be in the best interest of a society, the decision will still be opposed on moral grounds, whichever you pick. For instance, if we had armed police and cameras on every corner and it was an unquestionable truth that this stopped violence, we'd still decry it as an attack on freedom.

 

And further, moral positions aren't necessarily empirical. You're saying morality is objective because you can objectively decide what is "right" but what is "right" is inherently very subjective.

 

If it was somehow irrefutably proven that legalising pot would have disastrous socioeconomic consequences, a lot of people, including myself would still argue for legalisation based on the maxim "I'm a big boy, I can make my own decisions" which doesn't make much logical sense if it's proven in this hypothetical world that we can't make our own decisions, but is somehow appealing regardless. In other words, what is "right" can have nothing at all to do with the best outcome. In fact, in my example, the worst outcome is the one that is the most moral, in my eyes.

 

Here's another example: animals. Would you kill a human to save two cows? Doubtful. Would you kill a human to save a million cows? Still, probably not. But what's the reasoning behind that besides an unempirical moral hunch that a human is somehow worth a million times more than any other lifeform?

Yes, you can, if the outcome is the same. I only illustrated it that way to explain in a clearer way how they may not necessarily be in opposition. You are probably right though, a society where security is excessive will probably not have the best results, so a system that balances freedom and security would possibly be the best, although in principle, if we were able to fully trust the government somehow (if they wouldn't exploit people), such a system would work great. The same thing goes for a free society (an anarchist one if you like). Such a society would be the best for everyone if trust was possible among all people. As for your example in the secure society scenario, you have to acknowledge that the usefulness of such a system doesn't depend only on stopping violence. It also depends (like I said before) on being able to trust the government. Why do you think people are afraid of surveillance? Because they can't trust the government. If it was somehow proven that whoever was in charge of this type of surveillance can be fully trusted, then anyone who would object to it would simply be wrong. Their opinion wouldn't be fact-based. We often perceive threats where there are none, so we can be wrong about this stuff.

 

It's not subjective. The moment you accept that the worst possible misery for everyone is bad (and that there is nothing worse than that), then you inevitably have to accept that everything else is better, so there are right and wrong answers. If you think that well being is a term too loose to base an objective morality on (you are welcome to find another way to define morality), then think about the medicine analogy. What is medicine as a science all about? It's about health, and health is also something that we can't define clearly, something that is always changing (life expectancy has increased dramatically in the last few centuries, who knows how long we'll live in the future, we might even be able to regrow lost limbs, etc). This doesn't for a moment make people doubt that medicine is useful, that it is science and not just opinion (subjective).

 

Well, you're not up to the conversation in that situation then, if you argue that your freedom trumps the well being of others. It's not just about you, we're all in this together. Your opinion has to be based on facts to be (objectively) valid. If in this hypothetical world, legalizing marijuana would be detrimental to society, we would have to evaluate the risks. What makes it so dangerous? Is marijuana inherently harmful\toxic? If legalizing the sale of marijuana would make a big part of society irresponsible, if it would cause a societal decline, then the answer should be clear. It should be illegal. In this situation, arguing for the legalization of pot would be comparable to arguing for the legalization of cocaine. You could in theory do this drug (or any other truly dangerous drug) casually and still be a functioning human being, but it's not hard to imagine that legalizing it would be detrimental overall.

 

This hypothetical situation doesn't help much, because, well, it is pretty much inconceivable. The only thing that it illustrates is that it is possible to be wrong, to have a wrong "hunch". Why do we care more about hamsters than mice? Most of us have no trouble killing mice or even find them disgusting, and granted, mice are a sanitary problem and this gives us an excuse (not a justification) to kill them, but we could just as well dispose of them without killing them. We could in principle establish that the lives of a million cows are more important than one human life, but we need all the facts about the situation, we need to assess the suffering of the cows and compare it to the suffering of the man. If we knew for certain that those cows would suffer more, it would be perfectly clear to us that they should be spared. This is no different than the trolley problem. Whether we know the objective answer or not, the answer exists and it can be (in principle) found by science. We could examine the brains of the cows and find out how much they are suffering.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#43

Posted 31 December 2013 - 02:12 PM

The issue is that you can't forecast the outcomes of situations with the requisite accuracy to be able to make morally objective judgements until after the fact,especially if you judge morality on outcome rather than intent. Therefore the empirical approach you discuss is simply impractical in reality. No-one is fundamentally disagreeing with the idea that, should one be party to all salient information, they can make an empirical moral judgement. But that can only happen after the fact unless you believe in prescriptivism and reject free will or the laws of unintended consequence, so it's not really relevant to applied morality.

GunWrath
  • GunWrath

    Forum Drunk

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2012
  • United-States

#44

Posted 31 December 2013 - 02:33 PM

So a bit way off-topic here and I've talked with someone lately about morality.

 

I knew a female that got beaten by her abusive boyfriend or friend or whatever she claimed to call him. I met him about a week ago and beat him pretty good. Is that decent morality or is that something other than actual morality? I mean, morality means good intent correct? Then I was like, 'well, that's more karma or bad luck' for that f*cking guy.. but I don't think any of us here would subject a friend of ours to such things like that.

 

Honestly, I dont' care if it was morality or not.. I just seen morality in a recent post and figured I ask.. is it good morality or not morality at all?


Criѕtian
  • Criѕtian

    2K13

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • None

#45

Posted 31 December 2013 - 04:22 PM Edited by Criѕtian, 31 December 2013 - 04:28 PM.

I have already granted you that. Some situations are indeed too complex to make an objective decision (at least at the moment, in the presence of incomplete information), but I was mainly arguing that the right answers exist in principle, waiting to be discovered. So you are essentially saying that you can't get an "ought" from an "is", especially if we are talking about events that haven't occurred yet. My reply to that is that we do that sort of thing in science all the time, and more often than not we are right about our predictions, aren't we? We don't necessarily need to see the outcome to make the right decision. Also, it may be possible that things would have to get worse in order to get better (speaking from history, World War II comes to mind, or probably any other major war), which is to make a decision after the fact (like you say), but ultimately it is only possible to get to a high(er) peak of human\animal well being\happiness\harmony in a society by wanting to understand the world and by valuing evidence and reason.

 

I wouldn't say I reject free will, because that would imply that believing in it is the default position, but I do happen to not believe in it because it is an incoherent concept that can't be mapped out onto reality. I'm assuming you brought this up because prescriptivism doesn't make sense if free will exists, which is an interesting point (to say that it is imperative for people to behave in a certain way, given certain knowledge that relates to moral choices, if we don't have free will). I'm not arguing for that (maybe free will is real, although I have strong doubts that it is), but I do think that it is necessary to relinquish our biases in order to make objective moral choices.

 

@GunWrath Short answer: (objective) morality is much more than intent. Going to the police in a situation like that is likely to result in dealing with the situation in a sensible manner.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#46

Posted 31 December 2013 - 05:17 PM

Given that morality is an applied subject, and that until we can flawlessly know-not predict because that implies uncertainty but know- the future we won't have all the information required to make an objective assessment, I don't think it is fair to say that morality is objective. You've given a hypothetical example in which objective morality could be argued to exist but all other morality which is based on prediction is going to be subjective by virtue of the fact it's based on predictions-which are also subjective. Concluding based on scientific evidence isn't even entirely objective- it's still dependent on the subjectivity of personal experience and even the most dedicated of scientists acknowledge that there is a degree of subjectivism in their conclusions.

GunWrath
  • GunWrath

    Forum Drunk

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2012
  • United-States

#47

Posted 31 December 2013 - 08:13 PM Edited by GunWrath, 31 December 2013 - 08:14 PM.

God damn, I wish I could understand 98% of the things you say, Sivis.


IM_YOUR_GOD
  • IM_YOUR_GOD

    Christian Zionist Rank 9

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 May 2012

#48

Posted 31 December 2013 - 11:14 PM Edited by IM_YOUR_GOD, 01 January 2014 - 01:36 AM.

In all honestly, I doubt he even understands himself sometimes. Way too much verbiage and over thinking on some of the simplest subjects. Rambling with run on sentences with an ideal that he may sound intelligent to someone suffering from hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia.

Thanks for bring back my post!

Criѕtian
  • Criѕtian

    2K13

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • None

#49

Posted 01 January 2014 - 01:46 AM Edited by Criѕtian, 01 January 2014 - 01:47 AM.

Given that morality is an applied subject, and that until we can flawlessly know-not predict because that implies uncertainty but know- the future we won't have all the information required to make an objective assessment, I don't think it is fair to say that morality is objective. You've given a hypothetical example in which objective morality could be argued to exist but all other morality which is based on prediction is going to be subjective by virtue of the fact it's based on predictions-which are also subjective. Concluding based on scientific evidence isn't even entirely objective- it's still dependent on the subjectivity of personal experience and even the most dedicated of scientists acknowledge that there is a degree of subjectivism in their conclusions.

I'm pretty much on the same page as you, we're not objective in our evaluations most of the time, but we'll get better at it in time, especially the more we learn about the brain, and by gaining knowledge in all the other areas of science. It will lead to more accurate predictions. However, this doesn't undermine the need for a mutual agreement on an objective morality, or at least for objective answers to some of the most important questions (human rights, racism, religion-based division, or any other form of bigotry, etc). We have answers to these types of issues and I think it is imperative for the survival of the species that all societies find common ground (and this is only truly achievable by being objective). With the kind of weapons of mass destruction we have now, and the weapons that we will have in the future, how else are we going to survive?

 

I honestly don't even believe he understands himself sometimes. Way too much verbiage and over thinking on some of the simplest subjects. Rambling with run on sentences with an ideal that he may sound intelligent to someone suffering from hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia.

Also, way to go on deleting my post; your a real stand up guy despite being glue to a what is arguably a PC chair all day.

Or maybe you don't understand. I found his posts in this topic to be quite concise and easy to understand.

 

This place has stricter rules. Short posts like the one you made add nothing to the discussion.


IM_YOUR_GOD
  • IM_YOUR_GOD

    Christian Zionist Rank 9

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 May 2012

#50

Posted 01 January 2014 - 02:47 AM


Given that morality is an applied subject, and that until we can flawlessly know-not predict because that implies uncertainty but know- the future we won't have all the information required to make an objective assessment, I don't think it is fair to say that morality is objective. You've given a hypothetical example in which objective morality could be argued to exist but all other morality which is based on prediction is going to be subjective by virtue of the fact it's based on predictions-which are also subjective. Concluding based on scientific evidence isn't even entirely objective- it's still dependent on the subjectivity of personal experience and even the most dedicated of scientists acknowledge that there is a degree of subjectivism in their conclusions.

I'm pretty much on the same page as you, we're not objective in our evaluations most of the time, but we'll get better at it in time, especially the more we learn about the brain, and by gaining knowledge in all the other areas of science. It will lead to more accurate predictions. However, this doesn't undermine the need for a mutual agreement on an objective morality, or at least for objective answers to some of the most important questions (human rights, racism, religion-based division, or any other form of bigotry, etc). We have answers to these types of issues and I think it is imperative for the survival of the species that all societies find common ground (and this is only truly achievable by being objective). With the kind of weapons of mass destruction we have now, and the weapons that we will have in the future, how else are we going to survive?
 

I honestly don't even believe he understands himself sometimes. Way too much verbiage and over thinking on some of the simplest subjects. Rambling with run on sentences with an ideal that he may sound intelligent to someone suffering from hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia.

Also, way to go on deleting my post; your a real stand up guy despite being glue to a what is arguably a PC chair all day.

Or maybe you don't understand. I found his posts in this topic to be quite concise and easy to understand.
 
This place has stricter rules. Short posts like the one you made add nothing to the discussion.

Don't confused me for yourself by being subjectivity visceral. You and him were basically arguing about dictions most of the time rather than ideology.

Also, run on sentences and verbiage does not equate coherence and intelligibility.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#51

Posted 01 January 2014 - 10:58 AM

If you you want to create a debate about semantics and clarity then feel free to do so I'm another thread.

HydraulicWaRiOr
  • HydraulicWaRiOr

    I Left My Wallet In El Segundo

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2011

#52

Posted 05 January 2014 - 08:09 PM

The very idea of morality is fabricated by mankind, although we all follow a very general, narrow definition of morals such as don't kill, don't steal etc. The word that repeats is simply "don't:."Don't" this, "don't" that But in a different world, the exact opposite could be created. There really is no such thing as morals. But if you make a negative impact on something, such as inflicting pain, it usually comes back to you in a similar form such as starting a fight with someone, which is one of the basic rules of Karma, of course. I wouldn't lead myself to believe any of the crap that the bible spews because that's some of the most heinous, prejudice, sh*t I've ever gone through with my own eyes. I think religious dependency is one of the many causes of the melancholy and the insanity that is so common these days. It's quite ridiculous. Nevertheless, I think morality should be adapted from philosophies and common sense instead of the belief that doing bad things will put you down under. It seems so difficult to understand that some people simply don't feel bad about harming others.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users