Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Objective Morality

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2012 4:23:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
All our political ideologies are based off of our own perceptions of ethical duty and moral philosophy. So, as I see it, comparing an Anarchist to a Communist, or a Liberal to a Conservative is like comparing apples and oranges. We MUST establish a common board of objectives and a common standard of morality in order to carry out any sort of logical ideological discussion.

I've long since rejected the notion of objective morality, but this realization makes me think again.

Without objective morality, there will never be a correct answer. Without objective morality what value do our arguments have? Once you also through in determinism, everything becomes so variable and subjective that life really has no substance beyond how we, as individuals, perceive it.

If there is no ethical standard that applies to all human beings, then why bother bickering over ideology? Communists should make their own countries, Liberals their own, Conservatives theirs, anarchists, their territory, and live and let live, for their philosophical differences can never be resolved.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2012 4:37:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/7/2012 4:23:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
All our political ideologies are based off of our own perceptions of ethical duty and moral philosophy. So, as I see it, comparing an Anarchist to a Communist, or a Liberal to a Conservative is like comparing apples and oranges. We MUST establish a common board of objectives and a common standard of morality in order to carry out any sort of logical ideological discussion.

I've long since rejected the notion of objective morality, but this realization makes me think again.

Without objective morality, there will never be a correct answer. Without objective morality what value do our arguments have? Once you also through in determinism, everything becomes so variable and subjective that life really has no substance beyond how we, as individuals, perceive it.

If there is no ethical standard that applies to all human beings, then why bother bickering over ideology? Communists should make their own countries, Liberals their own, Conservatives theirs, anarchists, their territory, and live and let live, for their philosophical differences can never be resolved.

If only everybody lived by an ideology that is as sharply defined with no conflict with other ideologies. Most of the people just want to find somebody they can love and have a family, friends and not worry about things more complicated than what to do on Sunday.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Justin_Thiel
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2012 4:51:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/7/2012 4:23:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
All our political ideologies are based off of our own perceptions of ethical duty and moral philosophy. So, as I see it, comparing an Anarchist to a Communist, or a Liberal to a Conservative is like comparing apples and oranges. We MUST establish a common board of objectives and a common standard of morality in order to carry out any sort of logical ideological discussion.

I've long since rejected the notion of objective morality, but this realization makes me think again.

Without objective morality, there will never be a correct answer. Without objective morality what value do our arguments have? Once you also through in determinism, everything becomes so variable and subjective that life really has no substance beyond how we, as individuals, perceive it.

If there is no ethical standard that applies to all human beings, then why bother bickering over ideology? Communists should make their own countries, Liberals their own, Conservatives theirs, anarchists, their territory, and live and let live, for their philosophical differences can never be resolved.

Objective Morality is not something people can agree on. To do so wouldn't make it objective. It would make it a subjective agreement among a group in society. This concept is called a "social contract". To create, enforce, or follow a law does not make it objective. Something is objective when it's authority cannot be denied. (For example)The death of an organism's body is an objective law. All morality is based on the intentions of the decision-maker in combination with the possible results/effects of the decision in reality. The intentions and decisions themselves are subjective, but the results/effects are objective.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2012 5:52:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It is not an objective moral that is needed, only a common moral presupposition between those who wish to argue for which ideology is "superior." The common presupposition could be "do as little harm as possible" which allows for comparison between ideologies WITHOUT establishing an objective standard.
mestizomongrel
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2012 2:10:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/7/2012 4:23:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
All our political ideologies are based off of our own perceptions of ethical duty and moral philosophy. So, as I see it, comparing an Anarchist to a Communist, or a Liberal to a Conservative is like comparing apples and oranges. We MUST establish a common board of objectives and a common standard of morality in order to carry out any sort of logical ideological discussion.

I've long since rejected the notion of objective morality, but this realization makes me think again.

Without objective morality, there will never be a correct answer. Without objective morality what value do our arguments have? Once you also through in determinism, everything becomes so variable and subjective that life really has no substance beyond how we, as individuals, perceive it.

If there is no ethical standard that applies to all human beings, then why bother bickering over ideology? Communists should make their own countries, Liberals their own, Conservatives theirs, anarchists, their territory, and live and let live, for their philosophical differences can never be resolved.

What arguments have convinced you that we can find 'objective morality'?

So let's say that there is no ethical standard that applies to all human beings (I happen to believe this), that doesn't mean society can not create conventions and rules to govern our behavior. Just because there is no 'objective morality', does not mean we can not create and enforce rules (there is just nothing special about the rules, aside from the fact they are followed by the majority and enforced).
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2012 3:07:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/8/2012 2:10:36 PM, mestizomongrel wrote:
At 2/7/2012 4:23:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
All our political ideologies are based off of our own perceptions of ethical duty and moral philosophy. So, as I see it, comparing an Anarchist to a Communist, or a Liberal to a Conservative is like comparing apples and oranges. We MUST establish a common board of objectives and a common standard of morality in order to carry out any sort of logical ideological discussion.

I've long since rejected the notion of objective morality, but this realization makes me think again.

Without objective morality, there will never be a correct answer. Without objective morality what value do our arguments have? Once you also through in determinism, everything becomes so variable and subjective that life really has no substance beyond how we, as individuals, perceive it.

If there is no ethical standard that applies to all human beings, then why bother bickering over ideology? Communists should make their own countries, Liberals their own, Conservatives theirs, anarchists, their territory, and live and let live, for their philosophical differences can never be resolved.

What arguments have convinced you that we can find 'objective morality'?

So let's say that there is no ethical standard that applies to all human beings (I happen to believe this), that doesn't mean society can not create conventions and rules to govern our behavior. Just because there is no 'objective morality', does not mean we can not create and enforce rules (there is just nothing special about the rules, aside from the fact they are followed by the majority and enforced).

Sure our society can create rules, but they aren't for the reasons you are describing. Rules in society revolve around rights, which allow one group of individuals power of others (the "right" of authority). We can dress rights up any way we want... economic efficiency, religious morality, patriotism/self-defense... but these are entirely subjective and making rules to establish them only works to create authority, not the underlying idea the rule is supposed to support. After all, these rules probably would have started working by now if they ever were going to in the first place :P

I do believe in objective morality, because I have noticed the psychological motivators of human vice. The emotion of anger, for instance, creates a situation where a person is always worse off (as well as society in general) than when they started. Some people believe anger can be justified in certain situations, but I can show that in any situation where anger is employed, a non-angry response would have been more effective entirely. Even in instances of self-defense, any experienced fighter can tell you that staying calm is more effective than raging out.

Human vice is the basis for morality. One cannot deny the objectivity of immorality; if you do, then you've obviously never been raped or tortured before. I believe morality came into existence as a balance to other privileges humanity was granted. I have noticed that concepts in this universe often come in pairs: matter/antimatter, action/reaction, life/death, pain/joy, and privilege/responsibility. Just as the universe is thought to have been "born" from a balance of matter and antimatter (or you can think of it in terms of energy instead), our sentience is born with a price. The more I think about it, the more I cannot believe that we would be granted these extraordinary abilities without some negative balance. That balance is morality. The ability to do "good" is balanced by the ability to do "evil." Again, if you don't believe in these concepts, then I invite you to look up your local rapist and allow them to show you what evil is. If necessary, the answer can be tortured out of you LOL. And "good" is equally objective: I experience this every morning when I feed my daughter, quelling her screams for food with a piece of fruit or bread. You could created some dubious philisophical argument to show that her pain and my anguish (had she kept starving and died) is superficial, but once you approach this level of subjectivity, there is really nothing left to talk about. You might as well just agree the computer screen you're looking at doesn't exist and there are rainbow fish flying all around you because all discussion is off the board.
Rob
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2012 3:22:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Objective Morality

Nope.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mestizomongrel
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2012 3:32:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/8/2012 3:07:07 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 2/8/2012 2:10:36 PM, mestizomongrel wrote:
At 2/7/2012 4:23:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
All our political ideologies are based off of our own perceptions of ethical duty and moral philosophy. So, as I see it, comparing an Anarchist to a Communist, or a Liberal to a Conservative is like comparing apples and oranges. We MUST establish a common board of objectives and a common standard of morality in order to carry out any sort of logical ideological discussion.

I've long since rejected the notion of objective morality, but this realization makes me think again.

Without objective morality, there will never be a correct answer. Without objective morality what value do our arguments have? Once you also through in determinism, everything becomes so variable and subjective that life really has no substance beyond how we, as individuals, perceive it.

If there is no ethical standard that applies to all human beings, then why bother bickering over ideology? Communists should make their own countries, Liberals their own, Conservatives theirs, anarchists, their territory, and live and let live, for their philosophical differences can never be resolved.

What arguments have convinced you that we can find 'objective morality'?

So let's say that there is no ethical standard that applies to all human beings (I happen to believe this), that doesn't mean society can not create conventions and rules to govern our behavior. Just because there is no 'objective morality', does not mean we can not create and enforce rules (there is just nothing special about the rules, aside from the fact they are followed by the majority and enforced).

Sure our society can create rules, but they aren't for the reasons you are describing. Rules in society revolve around rights, which allow one group of individuals power of others (the "right" of authority). We can dress rights up any way we want... economic efficiency, religious morality, patriotism/self-defense... but these are entirely subjective and making rules to establish them only works to create authority, not the underlying idea the rule is supposed to support. After all, these rules probably would have started working by now if they ever were going to in the first place :P


I do believe rights are contingent on social acceptance and ability to enforce, but this would make 'moral rights' (objective morality) not...objective. You should establish what exactly you believe 'objective morality' is, because it sounds different than the classical conception.

I do believe in objective morality, because I have noticed the psychological motivators of human vice. The emotion of anger, for instance, creates a situation where a person is always worse off (as well as society in general) than when they started. Some people believe anger can be justified in certain situations, but I can show that in any situation where anger is employed, a non-angry response would have been more effective entirely. Even in instances of self-defense, any experienced fighter can tell you that staying calm is more effective than raging out.


Well, you can imagine an instance wherein someone derives pleasure (angry responses will not always make you worse off) from beating the crap out of somebody. I don't see how any of this relevant though.

Human vice is the basis for morality. One cannot deny the objectivity of immorality; if you do, then you've obviously never been raped or tortured before. I believe morality came into existence as a balance to other privileges humanity was granted. I have noticed that concepts in this universe often come in pairs: matter/antimatter, action/reaction, life/death, pain/joy, and privilege/responsibility. Just as the universe is thought to have been "born" from a balance of matter and antimatter (or you can think of it in terms of energy instead), our sentience is born with a price. The more I think about it, the more I cannot believe that we would be granted these extraordinary abilities without some negative balance. That balance is morality. The ability to do "good" is balanced by the ability to do "evil." Again, if you don't believe in these concepts, then I invite you to look up your local rapist and allow them to show you what evil is. If necessary, the answer can be tortured out of you LOL. And "good" is equally objective: I experience this every morning when I feed my daughter, quelling her screams for food with a piece of fruit or bread. You could created some dubious philisophical argument to show that her pain and my anguish (had she kept starving and died) is superficial, but once you approach this level of subjectivity, there is really nothing left to talk about. You might as well just agree the computer screen you're looking at doesn't exist and there are rainbow fish flying all around you because all discussion is off the board.:

I am not denying the existence of concepts like 'good' and 'evil'. I am simply stating that these concepts of morality (i.e. rules that govern behavior) are not derived from reason, but mostly from social convention.

I don't understand what you are trying to get at. The subjectivity of morality does not imply they are incoherent or meaningless.
Spawktalk
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2012 3:42:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/8/2012 3:07:07 PM, Lasagna wrote:
I do believe in objective morality, because I have noticed the psychological motivators of human vice. The emotion of anger, for instance, creates a situation where a person is always worse off (as well as society in general) than when they started. Some people believe anger can be justified in certain situations, but I can show that in any situation where anger is employed, a non-angry response would have been more effective entirely. Even in instances of self-defense, any experienced fighter can tell you that staying calm is more effective than raging out.


You need to define "Worse off". What does that mean, and why do we have an objective moral obligation to avoid it? And please, don't appeal to anecdotal revelations through rape and murder. Such is utterly compelling.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2012 4:00:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Watch this genius destroy the concept or morality and ethics, which he uses "interchangeably and synonymously."
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Brain_crazy
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2012 4:52:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/8/2012 4:00:30 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Watch this genius destroy the concept or morality and ethics, which he uses "interchangeably and synonymously."

You and JT pretty much suck the d!ck of this guy don't you? Looking at his channel I now see were you guys get all your views.
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2012 10:10:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Objective morality only lives in the minds of other people when it is happening to someone else.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%