Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Ontological justification for objective moral

Internet
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2016 9:28:25 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Things i'v read about objective morality seem to always tie the foundation of whats right and wrong to well-being, suffering/pleasure, positive/negative mental states and the like, but Im never told how this connection is made. Is it based on evolution, and how a being with self-awareness strives for these positive states? What fact are they working off of?
keithprosser
Posts: 1,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2016 10:43:47 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
To a great extent believers in objective morality consider such things as 'suffering is bad' and 'charity is good' as axioms, that is self-evident and in no need of further justfication.
Opponents of objective morality do not usually deny that (for example) genocode is evil, but they do deny it is axiomatic that genocide is evil - hence they demand some sort of proof from objectvists, and such a proof is very hard to provide - not because it is untrue that genocide is obectively evil but because it is hard to prove an axiom!

My view is that 'genocide is evil' can be taken as objectively true (because I genuinely beleve that to be so) in 'applied ethics' and delegate the issue of proving it to 'meta-ethics'.

The only danger of that is to have based your ethics on the premise that genocide is obectively evil only to discover down the line that genocide was good all along! While that is a 'theoretical possibility', seriously it ain't gonna happen.

So I am happy to think of genocide, rape, senseless killing and so as objectively evil because they are self-evidently evil. The lack of a formal proof of that is something that vexes a certain type of pedant, but the lack of a proof that genocide is evil is no reason to deny that the evil of such things stares you in the face.
SJM
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2016 11:20:27 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/19/2016 10:43:47 AM, keithprosser wrote:
To a great extent believers in objective morality consider such things as 'suffering is bad' and 'charity is good' as axioms, that is self-evident and in no need of further justfication.
Opponents of objective morality do not usually deny that (for example) genocode is evil, but they do deny it is axiomatic that genocide is evil - hence they demand some sort of proof from objectvists, and such a proof is very hard to provide - not because it is untrue that genocide is obectively evil but because it is hard to prove an axiom!

My view is that 'genocide is evil' can be taken as objectively true (because I genuinely beleve that to be so) in 'applied ethics' and delegate the issue of proving it to 'meta-ethics'.

The only danger of that is to have based your ethics on the premise that genocide is obectively evil only to discover down the line that genocide was good all along! While that is a 'theoretical possibility', seriously it ain't gonna happen.

So I am happy to think of genocide, rape, senseless killing and so as objectively evil because they are self-evidently evil. The lack of a formal proof of that is something that vexes a certain type of pedant, but the lack of a proof that genocide is evil is no reason to deny that the evil of such things stares you in the face.

Agreed
Hitler- If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.

Stalin- Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.

Machiavelli- It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.

Ivan the Terrible- "I will not see the destruction of the Christian converts who are loyal to me, and to my last breath I will fight for the Orthodox faith
Internet
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2016 3:23:56 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/19/2016 10:43:47 AM, keithprosser wrote:
To a great extent believers in objective morality consider such things as 'suffering is bad' and 'charity is good' as axioms, that is self-evident and in no need of further justfication.
Opponents of objective morality do not usually deny that (for example) genocode is evil, but they do deny it is axiomatic that genocide is evil - hence they demand some sort of proof from objectvists, and such a proof is very hard to provide - not because it is untrue that genocide is obectively evil but because it is hard to prove an axiom!

My view is that 'genocide is evil' can be taken as objectively true (because I genuinely beleve that to be so) in 'applied ethics' and delegate the issue of proving it to 'meta-ethics'.

The only danger of that is to have based your ethics on the premise that genocide is obectively evil only to discover down the line that genocide was good all along! While that is a 'theoretical possibility', seriously it ain't gonna happen.

So I am happy to think of genocide, rape, senseless killing and so as objectively evil because they are self-evidently evil. The lack of a formal proof of that is something that vexes a certain type of pedant, but the lack of a proof that genocide is evil is no reason to deny that the evil of such things stares you in the face.

Are they axioms? I think if a utilitarian consideration was given to those phrases, they would be more like rules of thumb.

In any case, the objectivist articles i'v read doesn't view them as axioms for no reason, they ways try to give some sort of indirect proof. Without a reason, how would we identify what is moral/immoral, or whats nonmoral. It doesnt seem possible unless you follow dct or are an intuitionist
Internet
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2016 3:57:15 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/19/2016 3:46:02 PM, difference wrote:
I think this is a question for morality in general, objective or not.

Im only interested objectivist answers though.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 1:02:28 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/19/2016 10:43:47 AM, keithprosser wrote:
To a great extent believers in objective morality consider such things as 'suffering is bad' and 'charity is good' as axioms, that is self-evident and in no need of further justfication.
Opponents of objective morality do not usually deny that (for example) genocode is evil, but they do deny it is axiomatic that genocide is evil - hence they demand some sort of proof from objectvists, and such a proof is very hard to provide - not because it is untrue that genocide is obectively evil but because it is hard to prove an axiom!

My view is that 'genocide is evil' can be taken as objectively true (because I genuinely beleve that to be so) in 'applied ethics' and delegate the issue of proving it to 'meta-ethics'.

The only danger of that is to have based your ethics on the premise that genocide is obectively evil only to discover down the line that genocide was good all along! While that is a 'theoretical possibility', seriously it ain't gonna happen.

So I am happy to think of genocide, rape, senseless killing and so as objectively evil because they are self-evidently evil. The lack of a formal proof of that is something that vexes a certain type of pedant, but the lack of a proof that genocide is evil is no reason to deny that the evil of such things stares you in the face.

I agree. To me, someone arguing for nihilism is like someone arguing that the value of paper money does not intrinsically exceed the value of paper.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 5:07:02 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/18/2016 9:28:25 PM, Internet wrote:
Things i'v read about objective morality seem to always tie the foundation of whats right and wrong to well-being, suffering/pleasure, positive/negative mental states and the like, but Im never told how this connection is made. Is it based on evolution, and how a being with self-awareness strives for these positive states? What fact are they working off of?

Specifically to answer your question, I think morality's foundation is from empathy and love. The definition of a psychopath (amoral) is they feel no empathy.

Here is an article about why many scientists believe that empathy was an evolutionary adaptation. http://serendip.brynmawr.edu...

If morality comes from love and empathy, I think the real question is this:

Is there an objective value to love and empathy? We would have to deny those traits to lose our desire for morality. Does it matter if there is objective value?