Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Objective morality not implying obligation?

phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 3:46:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
In a debate I was in a while ago my opponent claimed that objective moral values exist, but not actions.

I've never heard anyone talke of morals in such a way. Doesn't objective morality neccessarily entail morally right/wrong acts?

I'm confused on this.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 4:03:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No. Most moral systems that are of any decent level do not confuse acts with goals. Objective morality means that I have a right thing to do, and so does everyone else: to promote pleasure, for example. This does not make any action morally right or wrong, but relative to the situation. Fletcher called it "Objective relativity": Where you have an objective rule to apply to different circumstance.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 4:26:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 3:46:21 PM, phantom wrote:
In a debate I was in a while ago my opponent claimed that objective moral values exist, but not actions.

I've never heard anyone talke of morals in such a way. Doesn't objective morality neccessarily entail morally right/wrong acts?

I'm confused on this.

The Fool: well the Good in itself is the Good in itself, and action could never be THE GOOD in itself, but it is and action. We can call and action a good, action if it infact cohers with the Good inself.

Its sounds very unintuitive to think like that. But logical soundness. Demands it.
Mind you I don't feel like getting into a full defene of it.

But big hint is that Subjectitivity and objectivity are false Dichotomies. In what what is subjective is withing objectivity. All we need to is reapropiate the "word" Universe to the original philosophical meaning of 'all that exist' not. scientific mutilation in which all that exist is (sense experience/material) and not the theologin version that 'all that exist' accept the outside.

Thus we may clam back the philosophical version and call it the ABSOLUTE universe. In which, ABSOLUTLY 'all things exist' including mind, Gods, what ideas. feeling. all possible universes, world or what ever we know and dont' know.

Thus you will see that subjectivity is in within the Absolute universe, and exist absolutly as any existence. It is now better understood how logic/math is universal, even thought we know it for better and for worse by intuitions, which create the Ideas from which we know Logic/Math. Thus the word 'objective' 'can' refer to what absolutly exist, which is everything. For what is IS. aka There is only existence. Thus it would include subjectivity. Or we can keep the word 'Objective' to refer only to sense data. The main idea is KEEPING THE MEANING OF THE TERM FROM MUTILATOIN. Most of the problem of progress is cause by these 'Language games'. For the problem was and is only caused by the variation of definitions over time within populations, which get confused for the IS of otherthings.

But here we have circumvented any problem caused by the 'word' subjectivity, for us recognizing a universal Moral Law. Thus logic can know be applied appropriatly.

But what is exactly the Form of The GooD in itself?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 4:33:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 4:26:08 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
I wrote this awhile ago. It recieved alot of hate post, so we should expect some more..
WHere objectivity depend on where we decide to use it do refer too.

Even if you disagree with my definitions it doesn't matter. For then let the words I use be F-words in the sense that if you don't agree with my version then consider it another new word. . For let's say you disagree with my definition of Rationality then call mine F-rationality. Therefore F-rationality would then be what I am talking about.

The idea here is Purpose of language is to communicate our ideas. If a word doesn't match the idea you want to communicate then it serves no purpose to you.

Creating definition is an art. The definer of a word could never be wrong about their own definition, for it is their very idea which is invested in it. But the can however, be bad definitions. The idea of a definition is to accurately describe reality. By accuracy I mean with precision. Aka vague definitions are bad.

A Fool's Reason:

P1 Rationality:
logical consistency

P2 Knowledge:
Accumulated non-contradictory useful (applicable, aka can be used as a tool) information.

e.g.: what makes explanation useful is its ability to predict.

P3 Desires/motivations:
Emotions

C1Reason:
Rationality+knowledge+emotions

A dialogue of Morality
Socrates: Everybody wants the good, it's just a matter of ignorance of how to achieve it.

Kant: So then we may say that our freedom is the ability to use your Reason.

Ike: for what?

Socrates: The Good.

David human: But how do you get and ought from an is?

The Fool: Ought IS

Socrates: That is we ought to what is good.

Ike: but what is it?

The Fool: Ought is the emotional desire. Aka Sentient Desire,We do things to satisfy our desires. e.g. eat, sleep, mate, love, live, laugh, create.

Socrates: And what we all desire is the Good.

Ike: But what is the Good?

The Fool: The Good is the satisfaction of our desires. Aka positive emotional affect. aka worth/value

Kleptin: but the good is relative to different people.

The Fool: You are conflating, that which stimulates good with the good in itself. I may enjoy a particular movie and you may not. But the good itself is not in the movie. If this was true the movie would radiate goodness outward and everybody would like the same thing. That is in us. We call a movie good when it's been associated with the goodness felt in us. But the Good is not in the movie film.

Ike: But Money has value and most people consider it good.

The Fool: But it is a logical fallacy to that the good is a physical object. Money can stimulate the good, if used properly. But the actual value is the good that come out of the use in of what you spend your money on. You could blow it all on a bad drug trip over the summer, or you may buy something that makes you and/or others feel happy for years.

Ike: But money makes me happy

The Fool: Ah!. For let's say you have 100000000000 dollars. But what you spend it on can't be used or seen. If money was worth something alone then it should still be just as valuable under these conditions.

Kant: That is your Reason will affect how well you choose what you buy to get value out of it.

Socrates: But the real value is the Good. And that straight from the grave!

The Form of the Good
The Good/Ends/value/worth: that is the good is emotional satisfaction. Aka positive affect

The Goodness in us
P1. All sentient beings have Feelings
P2. Humans are sentient being
P3. The Good/value is a Feeling
C1. All Humans have goodness/value

The deduction of equality:
P1. Good=Good
P2. All Humans have goodness
C1. The goodness/value of itself in human=the goodness/value of itself in another human

A Categorical Imperative (in a nut shell)
P1. Your positive (good) and negative (bad) affect (value) is as worthy as anyone else's
P2. Thus it is logical,(rational) that we act in accordance with this equality in mind.

Kant: Thus it is by logic a moral Law, and to break it is to contradict the value of your own worth.
That is the foundation Objective Moral Law. Straight from the Enlightenment!

The Fool: All hail the Enlightenment!

I am a defender of moral objectivism/universalism. Pls give argumentative objections only. Positive affirmations are always welcome too. Mind you I do this in hast. So I most likely will be given better, fuller and bugfree versions over the next while.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 4:35:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 4:33:37 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/16/2012 4:26:08 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
I wrote this awhile ago. It recieved alot of hate post, so we should expect some more..
WHere objectivity depend on where we decide to use it do refer too.

Even if you disagree with my definitions it doesn't matter. For then let the words I use be F-words in the sense that if you don't agree with my version then consider it another new word. . For let's say you disagree with my definition of Rationality then call mine F-rationality. Therefore F-rationality would then be what I am talking about.

The idea here is Purpose of language is to communicate our ideas. If a word doesn't match the idea you want to communicate then it serves no purpose to you.

Creating definition is an art. The definer of a word could never be wrong about their own definition, for it is their very idea which is invested in it. But the can however, be bad definitions. The idea of a definition is to accurately describe reality. By accuracy I mean with precision. Aka vague definitions are bad.

A Fool's Reason:

P1 Rationality:
logical consistency

P2 Knowledge:
Accumulated non-contradictory useful (applicable, aka can be used as a tool) information.

e.g.: what makes explanation useful is its ability to predict.

P3 Desires/motivations:
Emotions

C1Reason:
Rationality+knowledge+emotions

A dialogue of Morality
Socrates: Everybody wants the good, it's just a matter of ignorance of how to achieve it.

Kant: So then we may say that our freedom is the ability to use your Reason.

Ike: for what?

Socrates: The Good.

David human: But how do you get and ought from an is?

The Fool: Ought IS

Socrates: That is we ought to what is good.

Ike: but what is it?

The Fool: Ought is the emotional desire. Aka Sentient Desire,We do things to satisfy our desires. e.g. eat, sleep, mate, love, live, laugh, create.

Socrates: And what we all desire is the Good.

Ike: But what is the Good?

The Fool: The Good is the satisfaction of our desires. Aka positive emotional affect. aka worth/value

Kleptin: but the good is relative to different people.

The Fool: You are conflating, that which stimulates good with the good in itself. I may enjoy a particular movie and you may not. But the good itself is not in the movie. If this was true the movie would radiate goodness outward and everybody would like the same thing. That is in us. We call a movie good when it's been associated with the goodness felt in us. But the Good is not in the movie film.

Ike: But Money has value and most people consider it good.

The Fool: But it is a logical fallacy to that the good is a physical object. Money can stimulate the good, if used properly. But the actual value is the good that come out of the use in of what you spend your money on. You could blow it all on a bad drug trip over the summer, or you may buy something that makes you and/or others feel happy for years.

Ike: But money makes me happy

The Fool: Ah!. For let's say you have 100000000000 dollars. But what you spend it on can't be used or seen. If money was worth something alone then it should still be just as valuable under these conditions.

Kant: That is your Reason will affect how well you choose what you buy to get value out of it.

Socrates: But the real value is the Good. And that straight from the grave!

The Form of the Good
The Good/Ends/value/worth: that is the good is emotional satisfaction. Aka positive affect

The Goodness in us
P1. All sentient beings have Feelings
P2. Humans are sentient being
P3. The Good/value is a Feeling
C1. All Humans have goodness/value

The deduction of equality:
P1. Good=Good
P2. All Humans have goodness
C1. The goodness/value of itself in human=the goodness/value of itself in another human

A Categorical Imperative (in a nut shell)
P1. Your positive (good) and negative (bad) affect (value) is as worthy as anyone else's
P2. Thus it is logical,(rational) that we act in accordance with this equality in mind.

Kant: Thus it is by logic a moral Law, and to break it is to contradict the value of your own worth.
That is the foundation Objective Moral Law. Straight from the Enlightenment!

The Fool: All hail the Enlightenment!

I am a defender of moral objectivism/universalism. Pls give argumentative objections only. Positive affirmations are always welcome too. Mind you I do this in hast. So I most likely will be given better, fuller and bugfree versions over the next while.

You confuse hatemail with people asking why you refuse to answer their objections.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 4:39:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 4:35:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/16/2012 4:33:37 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/16/2012 4:26:08 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
I wrote this awhile ago. It recieved alot of hate post, so we should expect some more..
WHere objectivity depend on where we decide to use it do refer too.

Even if you disagree with my definitions it doesn't matter. For then let the words I use be F-words in the sense that if you don't agree with my version then consider it another new word. . For let's say you disagree with my definition of Rationality then call mine F-rationality. Therefore F-rationality would then be what I am talking about.

The idea here is Purpose of language is to communicate our ideas. If a word doesn't match the idea you want to communicate then it serves no purpose to you.

Creating definition is an art. The definer of a word could never be wrong about their own definition, for it is their very idea which is invested in it. But the can however, be bad definitions. The idea of a definition is to accurately describe reality. By accuracy I mean with precision. Aka vague definitions are bad.

A Fool's Reason:

P1 Rationality:
logical consistency

P2 Knowledge:
Accumulated non-contradictory useful (applicable, aka can be used as a tool) information.

e.g.: what makes explanation useful is its ability to predict.

P3 Desires/motivations:
Emotions

C1Reason:
Rationality+knowledge+emotions

A dialogue of Morality
Socrates: Everybody wants the good, it's just a matter of ignorance of how to achieve it.

Kant: So then we may say that our freedom is the ability to use your Reason.

Ike: for what?

Socrates: The Good.

David human: But how do you get and ought from an is?

The Fool: Ought IS

Socrates: That is we ought to what is good.

Ike: but what is it?

The Fool: Ought is the emotional desire. Aka Sentient Desire,We do things to satisfy our desires. e.g. eat, sleep, mate, love, live, laugh, create.

Socrates: And what we all desire is the Good.

Ike: But what is the Good?

The Fool: The Good is the satisfaction of our desires. Aka positive emotional affect. aka worth/value

Kleptin: but the good is relative to different people.

The Fool: You are conflating, that which stimulates good with the good in itself. I may enjoy a particular movie and you may not. But the good itself is not in the movie. If this was true the movie would radiate goodness outward and everybody would like the same thing. That is in us. We call a movie good when it's been associated with the goodness felt in us. But the Good is not in the movie film.

Ike: But Money has value and most people consider it good.

The Fool: But it is a logical fallacy to that the good is a physical object. Money can stimulate the good, if used properly. But the actual value is the good that come out of the use in of what you spend your money on. You could blow it all on a bad drug trip over the summer, or you may buy something that makes you and/or others feel happy for years.

Ike: But money makes me happy

The Fool: Ah!. For let's say you have 100000000000 dollars. But what you spend it on can't be used or seen. If money was worth something alone then it should still be just as valuable under these conditions.

Kant: That is your Reason will affect how well you choose what you buy to get value out of it.

Socrates: But the real value is the Good. And that straight from the grave!

The Form of the Good
The Good/Ends/value/worth: that is the good is emotional satisfaction. Aka positive affect

The Goodness in us
P1. All sentient beings have Feelings
P2. Humans are sentient being
P3. The Good/value is a Feeling
C1. All Humans have goodness/value

The deduction of equality:
P1. Good=Good
P2. All Humans have goodness
C1. The goodness/value of itself in human=the goodness/value of itself in another human

A Categorical Imperative (in a nut shell)
P1. Your positive (good) and negative (bad) affect (value) is as worthy as anyone else's
P2. Thus it is logical,(rational) that we act in accordance with this equality in mind.

Kant: Thus it is by logic a moral Law, and to break it is to contradict the value of your own worth.
That is the foundation Objective Moral Law. Straight from the Enlightenment!

The Fool: All hail the Enlightenment!

I am a defender of moral objectivism/universalism. Pls give argumentative objections only. Positive affirmations are always welcome too. Mind you I do this in hast. So I most likely will be given better, fuller and bugfree versions over the next while.

You confuse hatemail with people asking why you refuse to answer their objections.

The Fool: Ah right on time. MR 'language games' his self.. there may be others.
Yes. sorry about my constent confusion, I don't even know whats going on now.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 10:25:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 4:03:02 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
No. Most moral systems that are of any decent level do not confuse acts with goals. Objective morality means that I have a right thing to do, and so does everyone else: to promote pleasure, for example. This does not make any action morally right or wrong, but relative to the situation. Fletcher called it "Objective relativity": Where you have an objective rule to apply to different circumstance.

Wait, you're just claiming moral relativity. How does that alleviate morally good/bad actions?

So yes, by the principle of utility we cannot assume the act of killing someone is always bad, but that doesn't mean it can't be bad. Moral duties would still exist because actions that increase the net-happiness would be considered good actions.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 11:07:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 3:46:21 PM, phantom wrote:
In a debate I was in a while ago my opponent claimed that objective moral values exist, but not actions.

I've never heard anyone talke of morals in such a way. Doesn't objective morality neccessarily entail morally right/wrong acts?

I'm confused on this.

Because an action, in and of itself, is amoral. Morals are guidelines to help you best interact with people. It depends on context and intent, to help determine how much of a situation was manipulated by human input. Any of us could imagine a scenario where saving someone's life is bad or killing someone is good. It all depends on the circumstances. The framework to which you subscribe that determines how you interpret such actions is your morality.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 11:21:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 11:07:46 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/16/2012 3:46:21 PM, phantom wrote:
In a debate I was in a while ago my opponent claimed that objective moral values exist, but not actions.

I've never heard anyone talke of morals in such a way. Doesn't objective morality neccessarily entail morally right/wrong acts?

I'm confused on this.

Because an action, in and of itself, is amoral. Morals are guidelines to help you best interact with people. It depends on context and intent, to help determine how much of a situation was manipulated by human input. Any of us could imagine a scenario where saving someone's life is bad or killing someone is good. It all depends on the circumstances. The framework to which you subscribe that determines how you interpret such actions is your morality.

Since when has moral relitivity not posited right and wrong actions? Also, content depends on which ethical theory you hold. If you hold a purely logic based view of morality dependant on well-being than the act of committing murder is amoral. But that does not in any way prove relative or subjective morality. An action would be moral if it positively effects well being. Therefore we couldn't say murder is wrong if we held that view. We could however say the act of negatively affecting well-being is wrong. Therefore objective unchanging moral truths on actions would still completely exist.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 12:13:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 11:21:17 PM, phantom wrote:
At 6/16/2012 11:07:46 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/16/2012 3:46:21 PM, phantom wrote:
In a debate I was in a while ago my opponent claimed that objective moral values exist, but not actions.

I've never heard anyone talke of morals in such a way. Doesn't objective morality neccessarily entail morally right/wrong acts?

I'm confused on this.

Because an action, in and of itself, is amoral. Morals are guidelines to help you best interact with people. It depends on context and intent, to help determine how much of a situation was manipulated by human input. Any of us could imagine a scenario where saving someone's life is bad or killing someone is good. It all depends on the circumstances. The framework to which you subscribe that determines how you interpret such actions is your morality.

Since when has moral relitivity not posited right and wrong actions?

Hmmm...

I'm not sure I understand this question.

Also, content depends on which ethical theory you hold. If you hold a purely logic based view of morality dependant on well-being than the act of committing murder is amoral.

What?

I'm not sure I follow your logic. How could murder be amoral if your intent is to preserve well-being?

But that does not in any way prove relative or subjective morality. An action would be moral if it positively effects well being. Therefore we couldn't say murder is wrong if we held that view.

I'm still not understanding the conclusions you're drawing.

We could however say the act of negatively affecting well-being is wrong. Therefore objective unchanging moral truths on actions would still completely exist.

No, that's the presupposition of an objective truth as it pertains to an action. Which, is subjective.

One can only have an objective approach. It's impossible to define an action before it's initiated. You can't simply say "negatively affecting well-being is wrong," because, for example, that would make it wrong to put criminals in prison.

You need something more along the lines of "cooperation with society is paramount." But, that only goes so far, as well.

Thus, we need to defer to our reasoning capacity and conscience. It's why they exist, and it's what makes morals objective. We define this objective pursuit of morality with several terms, including "truth," "good," "righteous," "reasonable," and "logical." All it really comes down to is that we are reasoning the best possible answer that benefits everyone the most. That would be the functionally "correct" answer, and likewise, objectively moral.

Sigh. I've explained this like 500 times, lol.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 3:37:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 12:13:28 AM, Ren wrote:
At 6/16/2012 11:21:17 PM, phantom wrote:
At 6/16/2012 11:07:46 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/16/2012 3:46:21 PM, phantom wrote:
In a debate I was in a while ago my opponent claimed that objective moral values exist, but not actions.

I've never heard anyone talke of morals in such a way. Doesn't objective morality neccessarily entail morally right/wrong acts?

I'm confused on this.

Because an action, in and of itself, is amoral. Morals are guidelines to help you best interact with people. It depends on context and intent, to help determine how much of a situation was manipulated by human input. Any of us could imagine a scenario where saving someone's life is bad or killing someone is good. It all depends on the circumstances. The framework to which you subscribe that determines how you interpret such actions is your morality.

Since when has moral relitivity not posited right and wrong actions?

Hmmm...

I'm not sure I understand this question.

Also, content depends on which ethical theory you hold. If you hold a purely logic based view of morality dependant on well-being than the act of committing murder is amoral.

What?

I'm not sure I follow your logic. How could murder be amoral if your intent is to preserve well-being?

But that does not in any way prove relative or subjective morality. An action would be moral if it positively effects well being. Therefore we couldn't say murder is wrong if we held that view.

I'm still not understanding the conclusions you're drawing.

We could however say the act of negatively affecting well-being is wrong. Therefore objective unchanging moral truths on actions would still completely exist.

No, that's the presupposition of an objective truth as it pertains to an action. Which, is subjective.

One can only have an objective approach. It's impossible to define an action before it's initiated. You can't simply say "negatively affecting well-being is wrong," because, for example, that would make it wrong to put criminals in prison.

You need something more along the lines of "cooperation with society is paramount." But, that only goes so far, as well.

Thus, we need to defer to our reasoning capacity and conscience. It's why they exist, and it's what makes morals objective. We define this objective pursuit of morality with several terms, including "truth," "good," "righteous," "reasonable," and "logical." All it really comes down to is that we are reasoning the best possible answer that benefits everyone the most. That would be the functionally "correct" answer, and likewise, objectively moral.

Sigh. I've explained this like 500 times, lol.

The Fool: But first we need to Caliberate what we mean by objective and subjective. The line in the population is smeared all over the place. Thus we need to know that if the way we use these 'words' say what we are trying to communicate. Descarte and before, they acually meant something very different. Where subject is Physical perception, and objective is mind. (you can understand this better in understanding why math/logic are universal~objective yet they, are axioms of our minds, rather then extrated from sense experience.) Are not all experiences in the framework of Consiousness(our minds)

Kant: it is a scandal in philosophy that we must accept the existence of things outside ourselves merely as a belief, with no proof.
Martin Heidegger commented on Kant's scandal:

Martin Heidegger: The 'scandal of philosophy' is not that this proof has yet to be given, but that such proofs are expected and attempted again and again.

Remember these have never been answer, positivism has just (swept it under the RUG)

This make a big difference of how to answer the moral question(no it doesn't mean everything is subjective.)
That is subjective only makes sense if there is objective. There must be both or there is none. For one is the how we demarcate the other.

These notions objective and subjetive must be 'clear and distinct' as to not be manipulated or confused. if you mean something else then the other person when we use a 'word' you are not communicated. That is a change in definition is a change of Topic.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 4:23:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Sure, I know this very well. It is objectively morally true that you should please don't kill and rape people but if you do it's ok.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 4:53:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 10:25:47 PM, phantom wrote:
At 6/16/2012 4:03:02 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
No. Most moral systems that are of any decent level do not confuse acts with goals. Objective morality means that I have a right thing to do, and so does everyone else: to promote pleasure, for example. This does not make any action morally right or wrong, but relative to the situation. Fletcher called it "Objective relativity": Where you have an objective rule to apply to different circumstance.

Wait, you're just claiming moral relativity. How does that alleviate morally good/bad actions?

So yes, by the principle of utility we cannot assume the act of killing someone is always bad, but that doesn't mean it can't be bad. Moral duties would still exist because actions that increase the net-happiness would be considered good actions.

Moral relativity means that was is good and bad depends on each person. Objective relativity is that good and bad depends on the situation, because different situations means different ends should be taken into account.

Let the system we use be Utilitarianism for a moment.

I may be killing someone, and need to apply utilitarianism. How much pain will it cause? How much pleasure will it give others? How long will the pain/pleasure last? I need to take these into account by evaluating those involved and the circumstances themselves. By doing so, I can see whether it gives what situation most pleasure or least pain.

This is an objective end, of course: maximising pleasure and minimising pain. However, this does not make objective moral laws. This is the biggest danger of ethics: people get put off simply because they think ethics must give certain laws about actions. Killing may or may not be justified depending on the scenario. Lying may or may not be justified. Torture may or may not be justified. etc. etc.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 4:56:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 11:21:17 PM, phantom wrote:
At 6/16/2012 11:07:46 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/16/2012 3:46:21 PM, phantom wrote:
In a debate I was in a while ago my opponent claimed that objective moral values exist, but not actions.

I've never heard anyone talke of morals in such a way. Doesn't objective morality neccessarily entail morally right/wrong acts?

I'm confused on this.

Because an action, in and of itself, is amoral. Morals are guidelines to help you best interact with people. It depends on context and intent, to help determine how much of a situation was manipulated by human input. Any of us could imagine a scenario where saving someone's life is bad or killing someone is good. It all depends on the circumstances. The framework to which you subscribe that determines how you interpret such actions is your morality.

Since when has moral relitivity not posited right and wrong actions? Also, content depends on which ethical theory you hold. If you hold a purely logic based view of morality dependant on well-being than the act of committing murder is amoral. But that does not in any way prove relative or subjective morality. An action would be moral if it positively effects well being. Therefore we couldn't say murder is wrong if we held that view. We could however say the act of negatively affecting well-being is wrong. Therefore objective unchanging moral truths on actions would still completely exist.

You're confusing morality. Moral systems just mean an application of a moral maxim or normative moral statement (Maximise pleasure, promote justice, promote agape etc.) and apply it to situations. Most moral systems don't create absolute moral laws governing circumstance: it wouldn't make sense. There are cases in which we know killing is the bets action by far, but moral systems dictate that we shouldn't when they are absolute. It's the ones that are not absolute that solve the most problems. The non-absolute ones are known as the relative, but the term means something different in this usage: it means that the moral maxim (or end) states different acts (or means) should be done to achieve the end. For example, you may have to kill to get the most moral result.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 6:50:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 12:13:28 AM, Ren wrote:
At 6/16/2012 11:21:17 PM, phantom wrote:
At 6/16/2012 11:07:46 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/16/2012 3:46:21 PM, phantom wrote:
In a debate I was in a while ago my opponent claimed that objective moral values exist, but not actions.

I've never heard anyone talke of morals in such a way. Doesn't objective morality neccessarily entail morally right/wrong acts?

I'm confused on this.

Because an action, in and of itself, is amoral. Morals are guidelines to help you best interact with people. It depends on context and intent, to help determine how much of a situation was manipulated by human input. Any of us could imagine a scenario where saving someone's life is bad or killing someone is good. It all depends on the circumstances. The framework to which you subscribe that determines how you interpret such actions is your morality.

Since when has moral relitivity not posited right and wrong actions?

Hmmm...

I'm not sure I understand this question.

I probably should have explained what I meant by moral values.

Also, content depends on which ethical theory you hold. If you hold a purely logic based view of morality dependant on well-being than the act of committing murder is amoral.

What?

I'm not sure I follow your logic. How could murder be amoral if your intent is to preserve well-being?

One murder can save two lives. Therefore you cannot call murder in and of itself bad holding that moral view but an ought would still exist with many acts.

But that does not in any way prove relative or subjective morality. An action would be moral if it positively effects well being. Therefore we couldn't say murder is wrong if we held that view.

I'm still not understanding the conclusions you're drawing.

I asked in the OP "Doesn't objective morality neccessarily entail morally right/wrong acts?" So far nothing has convinced my otherwise. You cut off the concluding part of that section though.

We could however say the act of negatively affecting well-being is wrong. Therefore objective unchanging moral truths on actions would still completely exist.

No, that's the presupposition of an objective truth as it pertains to an action. Which, is subjective.

Why would actions be subjective if morality is objective? Many ethical theories have a certain set structure of rules. If you hold a hedonistic type morality than the act of increasing the net-pleasure is an objective and unchanging morally good act.

One can only have an objective approach. It's impossible to define an action before it's initiated. You can't simply say "negatively affecting well-being is wrong," because, for example, that would make it wrong to put criminals in prison.

That doesn't answer it. Putting someone in prison would be a good act because generally they are bad for society. Therefore societies well being would be better off if they put the criminal in prison. Take utilitarianism for example. An act is only ever good if it increases the net-happiness. An act is only bad if it decreases the net-happiness. Therefore giving food to a beggar would be a bad act if it somehow decreased the net-happiness. And yes, putting someone in jail would also be morally bad if it decreased the net-happiness.


You need something more along the lines of "cooperation with society is paramount." But, that only goes so far, as well.

Thus, we need to defer to our reasoning capacity and conscience. It's why they exist, and it's what makes morals objective. We define this objective pursuit of morality with several terms, including "truth," "good," "righteous," "reasonable," and "logical." All it really comes down to is that we are reasoning the best possible answer that benefits everyone the most. That would be the functionally "correct" answer, and likewise, objectively moral.

Not sure what you're saying here.

Sigh. I've explained this like 500 times, lol.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 7:00:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 4:53:38 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/16/2012 10:25:47 PM, phantom wrote:
At 6/16/2012 4:03:02 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
No. Most moral systems that are of any decent level do not confuse acts with goals. Objective morality means that I have a right thing to do, and so does everyone else: to promote pleasure, for example. This does not make any action morally right or wrong, but relative to the situation. Fletcher called it "Objective relativity": Where you have an objective rule to apply to different circumstance.

Wait, you're just claiming moral relativity. How does that alleviate morally good/bad actions?

So yes, by the principle of utility we cannot assume the act of killing someone is always bad, but that doesn't mean it can't be bad. Moral duties would still exist because actions that increase the net-happiness would be considered good actions.

Moral relativity means that was is good and bad depends on each person. Objective relativity is that good and bad depends on the situation, because different situations means different ends should be taken into account.


Let the system we use be Utilitarianism for a moment.

I may be killing someone, and need to apply utilitarianism. How much pain will it cause? How much pleasure will it give others? How long will the pain/pleasure last? I need to take these into account by evaluating those involved and the circumstances themselves. By doing so, I can see whether it gives what situation most pleasure or least pain.


This is an objective end, of course: maximising pleasure and minimising pain. However, this does not make objective moral laws. This is the biggest danger of ethics: people get put off simply because they think ethics must give certain laws about actions. Killing may or may not be justified depending on the scenario. Lying may or may not be justified. Torture may or may not be justified. etc. etc.

Are you saying that goals are objective but actions not? Such as the goal to increase happiness?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 8:37:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 3:46:21 PM, phantom wrote:
In a debate I was in a while ago my opponent claimed that objective moral values exist, but not actions.

I've never heard anyone talke of morals in such a way. Doesn't objective morality neccessarily entail morally right/wrong acts?

I'm confused on this.

That depends on wether or not you are willing to entertain the idea of objective or subjective morality, based on where the morality of an act is located (sort of), and contingent upon which moral system you are going to choose to evaluate morality.

If we assume that objective morality exists, the question becomes then: can man access it? If we are talking about objectivity in the sense that the thing we are talking about is understood to be objective (adjective form) because it is independent of human experience. But, if we are talking about objective in the sense that what we are striving for is our "objective" (noun form) then the debate would naturally take an incredibly peculiar course.

Here's the difference:

Objective morality: the adjective 'objective' describes the noun 'morality' to articulate the idea that any "objective morality" existed independently of human experience, such that all moral principle was the case, was absolutely the case, and was the case no matter who agreed or disagreed with it.

Morality as objective: the noun "objective" conveys the idea that morality -a system of principles through which right and wrong may be delineated- is the purpose, goal, ambition, target (or objective).

Adjective-objective moral actions may or may not exist. There continues an ongoing debate about that even on the threads of DDO.

Noun-objective moral actions would be absurd to imagine, because the action is the means to the end. If morality -the 'good'- is the end, then the action is only the thing to be evaluated, it cannot be objective because they are subjective by the virtue that they are carried out by people (i.e. making them not independent of human experience) insomuch as those actions which we have done are themselves our experiences.

Let's say I was to make the argument that objective morality was determined by the collective goals of society.

P1) The collective goals of society are societies objectives.
P2) Morality is among the collective goals of society.
C) Objective morality is determined by the collective goals of society.

I know that the syllogism is sketchy at best, but the point is that if you fvck with the meaning of the word all sorts of bullsh!t can be achieved.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 8:41:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 7:00:43 AM, phantom wrote:
At 6/17/2012 4:53:38 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/16/2012 10:25:47 PM, phantom wrote:
At 6/16/2012 4:03:02 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
No. Most moral systems that are of any decent level do not confuse acts with goals. Objective morality means that I have a right thing to do, and so does everyone else: to promote pleasure, for example. This does not make any action morally right or wrong, but relative to the situation. Fletcher called it "Objective relativity": Where you have an objective rule to apply to different circumstance.

Wait, you're just claiming moral relativity. How does that alleviate morally good/bad actions?

So yes, by the principle of utility we cannot assume the act of killing someone is always bad, but that doesn't mean it can't be bad. Moral duties would still exist because actions that increase the net-happiness would be considered good actions.

Moral relativity means that was is good and bad depends on each person. Objective relativity is that good and bad depends on the situation, because different situations means different ends should be taken into account.


Let the system we use be Utilitarianism for a moment.

I may be killing someone, and need to apply utilitarianism. How much pain will it cause? How much pleasure will it give others? How long will the pain/pleasure last? I need to take these into account by evaluating those involved and the circumstances themselves. By doing so, I can see whether it gives what situation most pleasure or least pain.


This is an objective end, of course: maximising pleasure and minimising pain. However, this does not make objective moral laws. This is the biggest danger of ethics: people get put off simply because they think ethics must give certain laws about actions. Killing may or may not be justified depending on the scenario. Lying may or may not be justified. Torture may or may not be justified. etc. etc.

Are you saying that goals are objective but actions not? Such as the goal to increase happiness?

Precisely what consequentialism is. Yes.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 11:44:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 8:41:37 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/17/2012 7:00:43 AM, phantom wrote:
At 6/17/2012 4:53:38 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/16/2012 10:25:47 PM, phantom wrote:
At 6/16/2012 4:03:02 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
No. Most moral systems that are of any decent level do not confuse acts with goals. Objective morality means that I have a right thing to do, and so does everyone else: to promote pleasure, for example. This does not make any action morally right or wrong, but relative to the situation. Fletcher called it "Objective relativity": Where you have an objective rule to apply to different circumstance.

Wait, you're just claiming moral relativity. How does that alleviate morally good/bad actions?

So yes, by the principle of utility we cannot assume the act of killing someone is always bad, but that doesn't mean it can't be bad. Moral duties would still exist because actions that increase the net-happiness would be considered good actions.

Moral relativity means that was is good and bad depends on each person. Objective relativity is that good and bad depends on the situation, because different situations means different ends should be taken into account.


Let the system we use be Utilitarianism for a moment.

I may be killing someone, and need to apply utilitarianism. How much pain will it cause? How much pleasure will it give others? How long will the pain/pleasure last? I need to take these into account by evaluating those involved and the circumstances themselves. By doing so, I can see whether it gives what situation most pleasure or least pain.


This is an objective end, of course: maximising pleasure and minimising pain. However, this does not make objective moral laws. This is the biggest danger of ethics: people get put off simply because they think ethics must give certain laws about actions. Killing may or may not be justified depending on the scenario. Lying may or may not be justified. Torture may or may not be justified. etc. etc.

Are you saying that goals are objective but actions not? Such as the goal to increase happiness?

Precisely what consequentialism is. Yes.

Alirght, allot of people, such as Kant say goals are what matter in morality but it is the goal of the action you commit. I understand though. Thanks
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 11:48:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 4:23:44 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Sure, I know this very well. It is objectively morally true that you should please don't kill and rape people but if you do it's ok.

The Fool: did you read my argument? at the beginning. ?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 2:00:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 11:44:11 AM, phantom wrote:
At 6/17/2012 8:41:37 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/17/2012 7:00:43 AM, phantom wrote:
At 6/17/2012 4:53:38 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/16/2012 10:25:47 PM, phantom wrote:
At 6/16/2012 4:03:02 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
No. Most moral systems that are of any decent level do not confuse acts with goals. Objective morality means that I have a right thing to do, and so does everyone else: to promote pleasure, for example. This does not make any action morally right or wrong, but relative to the situation. Fletcher called it "Objective relativity": Where you have an objective rule to apply to different circumstance.

Wait, you're just claiming moral relativity. How does that alleviate morally good/bad actions?

So yes, by the principle of utility we cannot assume the act of killing someone is always bad, but that doesn't mean it can't be bad. Moral duties would still exist because actions that increase the net-happiness would be considered good actions.

Moral relativity means that was is good and bad depends on each person. Objective relativity is that good and bad depends on the situation, because different situations means different ends should be taken into account.


Let the system we use be Utilitarianism for a moment.

I may be killing someone, and need to apply utilitarianism. How much pain will it cause? How much pleasure will it give others? How long will the pain/pleasure last? I need to take these into account by evaluating those involved and the circumstances themselves. By doing so, I can see whether it gives what situation most pleasure or least pain.


This is an objective end, of course: maximising pleasure and minimising pain. However, this does not make objective moral laws. This is the biggest danger of ethics: people get put off simply because they think ethics must give certain laws about actions. Killing may or may not be justified depending on the scenario. Lying may or may not be justified. Torture may or may not be justified. etc. etc.

Are you saying that goals are objective but actions not? Such as the goal to increase happiness?

Precisely what consequentialism is. Yes.

Alirght, allot of people, such as Kant say goals are what matter in morality but it is the goal of the action you commit. I understand though. Thanks

Kant doesn't: he's a moral categoricist (or however you spell it, but essentially values actions not goals), but whatever.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...