Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Objective/instinctive Morality

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 3:39:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm sick of people claiming there is no evidence to support instinctive morality, when I have provided credible sources time and time again.

seriously people, google is not that hard to use.

Here is a study by the Department of Philosophy at Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China
"NI Liangkang
Moral Instinct and Moral Judgment

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag 2009
Abstract Human beings' moral life can be divided into two forms, one based
on moral instincts and the other on moral judgments. The former is carried on
without deliberation, while the latter relies upon valuations and judgments. The
two can ultimately be viewed as man's innate moral nature and acquired moral
conventions. Theoretically, preference for the former will lead to naturalism and
for the latter to culturalism, but this is the reality of man's moral life. Moreover,
there may be a parallel relation between the moral structure of human life and the
grammatical structure of human language."
http://www.europhilosophie.eu...

The University of Toronto also came to a similar conclusion in a 2009 study.

"These results shed new light on the origins of morality, suggesting that not only do complex thoughts guide our moral compass, but also more primitive instincts related to avoiding potential toxins," says Adam Anderson, principal investigator on the project and the Canada Research Chair in Affective Neuroscience.
http://www.sciencedaily.com...
http://psychcentral.com...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 3:42:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Morality being shared by people=/=It's objective. Everybody just has more or less the same subjective moral instincts due to societal indoctrination.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 3:46:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 3:42:51 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Morality being shared by people=/=It's objective. Everybody just has more or less the same subjective moral instincts due to societal indoctrination.

No, it's evolution. You are in denial, and you are choosing to remain ignorant despite the evidence presented before you. It's really disgraceful.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 4:27:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 3:46:28 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/28/2012 3:42:51 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Morality being shared by people=/=It's objective. Everybody just has more or less the same subjective moral instincts due to societal indoctrination.

No, it's evolution. You are in denial, and you are choosing to remain ignorant despite the evidence presented before you. It's really disgraceful.

Again, great argument.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 4:30:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 3:39:12 PM, DanT wrote:
I'm sick of people claiming there is no evidence to support instinctive morality, when I have provided credible sources time and time again.

seriously people, google is not that hard to use.


Here is a study by the Department of Philosophy at Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China
"NI Liangkang
Moral Instinct and Moral Judgment

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag 2009
Abstract Human beings' moral life can be divided into two forms, one based
on moral instincts and the other on moral judgments. The former is carried on
without deliberation, while the latter relies upon valuations and judgments. The
two can ultimately be viewed as man's innate moral nature and acquired moral
conventions. Theoretically, preference for the former will lead to naturalism and
for the latter to culturalism, but this is the reality of man's moral life. Moreover,
there may be a parallel relation between the moral structure of human life and the
grammatical structure of human language."
http://www.europhilosophie.eu...


The University of Toronto also came to a similar conclusion in a 2009 study.

"These results shed new light on the origins of morality, suggesting that not only do complex thoughts guide our moral compass, but also more primitive instincts related to avoiding potential toxins," says Adam Anderson, principal investigator on the project and the Canada Research Chair in Affective Neuroscience.
http://www.sciencedaily.com...
http://psychcentral.com...

You are out of your depth here, kid.

If you could find some deontological law that has been imprinted on the DNA of every human being without exception, how does that make it an objective moral law? Because no mutation has arisen which would nullify it? If mutations lead to some new moral law imprinted on DNA, would it become objective if fixated in the human gene pool?

The is-ought problem is not solved by an appeal to innate moral tendencies, especially when these innate moral tendencies lead to drastically different results.

For instance, your supposed "objective morality" can lead to opposite moral decisions in the same person by changing morally irrelevant details (ex. MRI scans during people solving the Trolley Problem). http://www.wjh.harvard.edu...

Furthermore, you completely ignore that our "innate" moral tendencies are drastically shaped by our environment. Stimulus which to one person may invoke a reaction of "I am a bad person for stealing" may invoke "He doesn't deserve to own this so I should take it" in another. Violence may be considered an emotionally and morally appropriate reaction in some cultures but not in others.

The neuroscience of morality no more leads to the derivation of normative statements than the sociology of morality.
http://www.wjh.harvard.edu...

Back to drawing board, young man.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 4:32:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 4:27:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/28/2012 3:46:28 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/28/2012 3:42:51 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Morality being shared by people=/=It's objective. Everybody just has more or less the same subjective moral instincts due to societal indoctrination.

No, it's evolution. You are in denial, and you are choosing to remain ignorant despite the evidence presented before you. It's really disgraceful.

Again, great argument.

Again, it's just as strong as yours.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 4:37:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 4:30:20 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/28/2012 3:39:12 PM, DanT wrote:
I'm sick of people claiming there is no evidence to support instinctive morality, when I have provided credible sources time and time again.

seriously people, google is not that hard to use.


Here is a study by the Department of Philosophy at Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China
"NI Liangkang
Moral Instinct and Moral Judgment

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag 2009
Abstract Human beings' moral life can be divided into two forms, one based
on moral instincts and the other on moral judgments. The former is carried on
without deliberation, while the latter relies upon valuations and judgments. The
two can ultimately be viewed as man's innate moral nature and acquired moral
conventions. Theoretically, preference for the former will lead to naturalism and
for the latter to culturalism, but this is the reality of man's moral life. Moreover,
there may be a parallel relation between the moral structure of human life and the
grammatical structure of human language."
http://www.europhilosophie.eu...


The University of Toronto also came to a similar conclusion in a 2009 study.

"These results shed new light on the origins of morality, suggesting that not only do complex thoughts guide our moral compass, but also more primitive instincts related to avoiding potential toxins," says Adam Anderson, principal investigator on the project and the Canada Research Chair in Affective Neuroscience.
http://www.sciencedaily.com...
http://psychcentral.com...

You are out of your depth here, kid.

Essentially that, but I have a different route.

What we have to say from this data is one of two things: is it more likely that the moral sense we gained has came from a cultural background, or is it from an objective source? Seeing as we have isolated tribes not affected by other cultures with masochistic whippings and cannibalism and other such actions, it makes much more sense that morality is an intersubjective description of what a community of people like and don't like, and the dominant forces enforce a moral hegemony. This makes sense looking at the pre-Christian Roman-Greek hegemonies, as well as the Christian hegemony itself.
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...
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 4:43:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Even the claim that if objective morality exists, human-beings must be necessarily aware of it, isn't proven.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 4:44:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Politics?
"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)
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 4:52:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 4:30:20 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/28/2012 3:39:12 PM, DanT wrote:
I'm sick of people claiming there is no evidence to support instinctive morality, when I have provided credible sources time and time again.

seriously people, google is not that hard to use.


Here is a study by the Department of Philosophy at Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China
"NI Liangkang
Moral Instinct and Moral Judgment

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag 2009
Abstract Human beings' moral life can be divided into two forms, one based
on moral instincts and the other on moral judgments. The former is carried on
without deliberation, while the latter relies upon valuations and judgments. The
two can ultimately be viewed as man's innate moral nature and acquired moral
conventions. Theoretically, preference for the former will lead to naturalism and
for the latter to culturalism, but this is the reality of man's moral life. Moreover,
there may be a parallel relation between the moral structure of human life and the
grammatical structure of human language."
http://www.europhilosophie.eu...


The University of Toronto also came to a similar conclusion in a 2009 study.

"These results shed new light on the origins of morality, suggesting that not only do complex thoughts guide our moral compass, but also more primitive instincts related to avoiding potential toxins," says Adam Anderson, principal investigator on the project and the Canada Research Chair in Affective Neuroscience.
http://www.sciencedaily.com...
http://psychcentral.com...

You are out of your depth here, kid.

Ad Hominen.
If you could find some deontological law that has been imprinted on the DNA of every human being without exception, how does that make it an objective moral law? Because no mutation has arisen which would nullify it? If mutations lead to some new moral law imprinted on DNA, would it become objective if fixated in the human gene pool?

It's objective because it's not something that is rationalized. If the house is on fire and a mother can either grab he kid or her ipad, she grabs her kid without thinking. I requires to thought, or rational, it's the immediate response.

The is-ought problem is not solved by an appeal to innate moral tendencies, especially when these innate moral tendencies lead to drastically different results.

There is no is-ought problem associated with natural morality, there is only an is-ought problem when someone thinks something is moral because it is natural; two completely different topics.

For instance, your supposed "objective morality" can lead to opposite moral decisions in the same person by changing morally irrelevant details (ex. MRI scans during people solving the Trolley Problem). http://www.wjh.harvard.edu...

key word there is solving. Once thought is introduced it is no longer objective.

Furthermore, you completely ignore that our "innate" moral tendencies are drastically shaped by our environment.

So you are saying we are born with set of morals because of our experiences in life? Wow interesting concept.

Stimulus which to one person may invoke a reaction of "I am a bad person for stealing" may invoke "He doesn't deserve to own this so I should take it" in another. Violence may be considered an emotionally and morally appropriate reaction in some cultures but not in others.

stealing is objectively wrong (if stealing from someone within your community). When people think about if they should or should not steal than it is no longer an objective decision, and their rationalization of their environment determines whether it is personally right or wrong.

When you put it in quotes, you are creating an internal dialog, therefore it's not natural morals, it's personal morals that you are critiquing.

The neuroscience of morality no more leads to the derivation of normative statements than the sociology of morality.
http://www.wjh.harvard.edu...

Back to drawing board, young man.

Young man? Get off your high horse, I'm 22, you are 24, 2 years is not much.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 5:03:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 3:39:12 PM, DanT wrote:
I'm sick of people claiming there is no evidence to support instinctive morality, when I have provided credible sources time and time again.


seriously people, google is not that hard to use.


Here is a study by the Department of Philosophy at Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China
"NI Liangkang
Moral Instinct and Moral Judgment

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag 2009
Abstract Human beings' moral life can be divided into two forms, one based
on moral instincts and the other on moral judgments. The former is carried on
without deliberation, while the latter relies upon valuations and judgments. The
two can ultimately be viewed as man's innate moral nature and acquired moral
conventions. Theoretically, preference for the former will lead to naturalism and
for the latter to culturalism, but this is the reality of man's moral life. Moreover,
there may be a parallel relation between the moral structure of human life and the
grammatical structure of human language."
http://www.europhilosophie.eu...



The University of Toronto also came to a similar conclusion in a 2009 study.

"These results shed new light on the origins of morality, suggesting that not only do complex thoughts guide our moral compass, but also more primitive instincts related to avoiding potential toxins," says Adam Anderson, principal investigator on the project and the Canada Research Chair in Affective Neuroscience.
http://www.sciencedaily.com...
http://psychcentral.com...

Funny. You just proved we have a moral instinct. I have yet to see where you substantiate it as objective. I find it hard to even see much of an argument.

Go back to primitive times and people had an entirely different moral instinct to what we do now. Racism and discrimination were very common-place. Slavery was not condemned until a very long time. The Myans valued pain, death and deformity. If you went to war or experienced the Jewish holocaust most likely that would shape your moral senses quite differently. We strongly perceive murder and such as wrong because of years of emotional evolution and environmental influences. Evolution is not authoritative or reliable. It's absurd to say it would give us an objective morality based on instinct. Our intuition could have been very very different if the past were. Who knows what our moral intuition will be like a 3 thousand years from now. Most certainly it will be significantly different and probably it will still be just as strong an emotion as it is now. You've accomplished nothing be establishing our strong emotional pull to morality. That affirmation does nothing to suppose objective morality.
"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)
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 5:06:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 4:52:38 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/28/2012 4:30:20 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/28/2012 3:39:12 PM, DanT wrote:
I'm sick of people claiming there is no evidence to support instinctive morality, when I have provided credible sources time and time again.

seriously people, google is not that hard to use.


Here is a study by the Department of Philosophy at Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China
"NI Liangkang
Moral Instinct and Moral Judgment

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag 2009
Abstract Human beings' moral life can be divided into two forms, one based
on moral instincts and the other on moral judgments. The former is carried on
without deliberation, while the latter relies upon valuations and judgments. The
two can ultimately be viewed as man's innate moral nature and acquired moral
conventions. Theoretically, preference for the former will lead to naturalism and
for the latter to culturalism, but this is the reality of man's moral life. Moreover,
there may be a parallel relation between the moral structure of human life and the
grammatical structure of human language."
http://www.europhilosophie.eu...


The University of Toronto also came to a similar conclusion in a 2009 study.

"These results shed new light on the origins of morality, suggesting that not only do complex thoughts guide our moral compass, but also more primitive instincts related to avoiding potential toxins," says Adam Anderson, principal investigator on the project and the Canada Research Chair in Affective Neuroscience.
http://www.sciencedaily.com...
http://psychcentral.com...

You are out of your depth here, kid.

Ad Hominen.
If you could find some deontological law that has been imprinted on the DNA of every human being without exception, how does that make it an objective moral law? Because no mutation has arisen which would nullify it? If mutations lead to some new moral law imprinted on DNA, would it become objective if fixated in the human gene pool?

It's objective because it's not something that is rationalized. If the house is on fire and a mother can either grab he kid or her ipad, she grabs her kid without thinking. I requires to thought, or rational, it's the immediate response.

The is-ought problem is not solved by an appeal to innate moral tendencies, especially when these innate moral tendencies lead to drastically different results.

There is no is-ought problem associated with natural morality, there is only an is-ought problem when someone thinks something is moral because it is natural; two completely different topics.

For instance, your supposed "objective morality" can lead to opposite moral decisions in the same person by changing morally irrelevant details (ex. MRI scans during people solving the Trolley Problem). http://www.wjh.harvard.edu...

key word there is solving. Once thought is introduced it is no longer objective.

Furthermore, you completely ignore that our "innate" moral tendencies are drastically shaped by our environment.

So you are saying we are born with set of morals because of our experiences in life? Wow interesting concept.

Stimulus which to one person may invoke a reaction of "I am a bad person for stealing" may invoke "He doesn't deserve to own this so I should take it" in another. Violence may be considered an emotionally and morally appropriate reaction in some cultures but not in others.

stealing is objectively wrong (if stealing from someone within your community). When people think about if they should or should not steal than it is no longer an objective decision, and their rationalization of their environment determines whether it is personally right or wrong.

When you put it in quotes, you are creating an internal dialog, therefore it's not natural morals, it's personal morals that you are critiquing.

The neuroscience of morality no more leads to the derivation of normative statements than the sociology of morality.
http://www.wjh.harvard.edu...

Back to drawing board, young man.

Young man? Get off your high horse, I'm 22, you are 24, 2 years is not much.

Your definition of objective is "that which is not rationalized?"

You are now completely missing the neurology of morality. The "gut intuition" [usu activation of the cingulate gyrus] you refer to is tailored by experience even though it is based in neurology. It is by no means universal that a mother will run into a burning house to save her child. The closest to "universal" moral intuitions would be our reactions to incest. Even then, incest can be become a general societal norm (ex. Egyptian/British royalty).

Morality is a more aptly described neurologically as a rheostat model. There are "dials" related to subjects like "feeling towards authority" "empathy" "reciprocity" whose setting is determined by experience (the "stickiness" of the dial in response to external stimuli is genetically influenced).

What you are trying to do is say that a specified rheostat setting is "objective" to all humans when in fact the closest thing to biological universality is the rheostats themselves. We all have some mental relation to concepts of reciprocity, but some people's "rheostat setting" will lead to opposite moral decisions than what you would consider universal.

"When people think about if they should or should not steal than it is no longer an objective decision, and their rationalization of their environment determines whether it is personally right or wrong."

You still don't seem to get it. The "moral intuition" involved in stealing can be drastically different depending on the rheostat settings. The setting is the exact analogue of the pre-cognitive "feelings" you refer to.

Again, you are saying some specific rheostat setting is universal to all humans. I am saying the rheostats themselves are universal, but the settings are unique. Two different settings can lead to exact opposite moral conclusions BEFORE cognitive consideration.

I actually had no idea what your age was when I wrote that. It's your silly, condescending attitude and ignorance of the is-ought problem that gave off the impression.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 5:09:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Btw, evolution is interested morality for the sake of survival, not for the sake of "moral purity" is some other interest. It is much more evolutionary beneficial if a human is born with the capability to morally adjust to a vast array of societies instead of being born with a fixed set of values which, if in the wrong society, lead to premature death.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 5:11:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's objective because it's not something that is rationalized.

Peculiar criteria for establishing objectivity.
"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)
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 5:24:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 5:11:45 PM, phantom wrote:
It's objective because it's not something that is rationalized.

Peculiar criteria for establishing objectivity.

That's not to say someone can't rationally examine it, only that the reasons for it are not rationalized. If something is objective it is not based on cognitive thought, but rather it undistorted by personal interpretations or bias.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 5:41:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 5:03:03 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/28/2012 3:39:12 PM, DanT wrote:
I'm sick of people claiming there is no evidence to support instinctive morality, when I have provided credible sources time and time again.


seriously people, google is not that hard to use.


Here is a study by the Department of Philosophy at Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China
"NI Liangkang
Moral Instinct and Moral Judgment

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag 2009
Abstract Human beings' moral life can be divided into two forms, one based
on moral instincts and the other on moral judgments. The former is carried on
without deliberation, while the latter relies upon valuations and judgments. The
two can ultimately be viewed as man's innate moral nature and acquired moral
conventions. Theoretically, preference for the former will lead to naturalism and
for the latter to culturalism, but this is the reality of man's moral life. Moreover,
there may be a parallel relation between the moral structure of human life and the
grammatical structure of human language."
http://www.europhilosophie.eu...



The University of Toronto also came to a similar conclusion in a 2009 study.

"These results shed new light on the origins of morality, suggesting that not only do complex thoughts guide our moral compass, but also more primitive instincts related to avoiding potential toxins," says Adam Anderson, principal investigator on the project and the Canada Research Chair in Affective Neuroscience.
http://www.sciencedaily.com...
http://psychcentral.com...

Funny. You just proved we have a moral instinct. I have yet to see where you substantiate it as objective. I find it hard to even see much of an argument.

Go back to primitive times and people had an entirely different moral instinct to what we do now. Racism and discrimination were very common-place. Slavery was not condemned until a very long time. The Myans valued pain, death and deformity. If you went to war or experienced the Jewish holocaust most likely that would shape your moral senses quite differently. We strongly perceive murder and such as wrong because of years of emotional evolution and environmental influences. Evolution is not authoritative or reliable. It's absurd to say it would give us an objective morality based on instinct. Our intuition could have been very very different if the past were. Who knows what our moral intuition will be like a 3 thousand years from now. Most certainly it will be significantly different and probably it will still be just as strong an emotion as it is now. You've accomplished nothing be establishing our strong emotional pull to morality. That affirmation does nothing to suppose objective morality.

Again, just because objective morality exists does not mean subjective morality does not also exist.

Cultural morality is influenced by both personal and natural morality. Natural morality is objective, whereas cultural and personal morality is subjective.

Personal morality is the rationalization of our experiences, and cultural morality is the combination of natural and personal morality. When a personal moral principle becomes a meme it becomes a cultural moral principle; such as political or religiousness doctrines.

People are naturally meat hunter gatherers, but that does not mean vegetarianism is non-existent. Simply because humans are objectively omnivores does not mean some people do not subjectively become herbivores.

Regarding the issue of slavery, historically slaves have not been members of the community; they have been outsiders, or outcasts. One could go even further and claim it is a product of subjective morality, because people have opposed slavery all throughout history. For example, in Rome the Populares were anti-slavery. Slavery could have arose out of the need for cheap labor, and the rationalization of the situation by the inventors of slavery.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 5:50:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What you're trying to say is "What appears in nature is objective morality", but what actually is being said is "What appears in nature is objectively moral". Both requires justification. Describing the source of morality as being neuroscientific doesn't prove anything.
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...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 9:45:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 5:50:50 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
What you're trying to say is "What appears in nature is objective morality", but what actually is being said is "What appears in nature is objectively moral". Both requires justification. Describing the source of morality as being neuroscientific doesn't prove anything.

The fact that it exists is proof enough. Do you point to a tree and say "prove to me that tree is really there", or is it self evident?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 9:51:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 9:45:18 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/28/2012 5:50:50 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
What you're trying to say is "What appears in nature is objective morality", but what actually is being said is "What appears in nature is objectively moral". Both requires justification. Describing the source of morality as being neuroscientific doesn't prove anything.

The fact that it exists is proof enough. Do you point to a tree and say "prove to me that tree is really there", or is it self evident?

Yeah, we have certain moral tendencies instilled in us through evolution but in sum those tendencies wouldn't come close to fitting most of our intuitions about what it means to be a "good person" or "live morally." You'd really just be endorsing a society where everyone is out ultimately only concerned with the survival of their own genes. Certain moral norms might be covered but not even close to all.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 9:53:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 5:11:45 PM, phantom wrote:
It's objective because it's not something that is rationalized.

Peculiar criteria for establishing objectivity.

What would be your criteria for establishing objectivity?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 9:55:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 9:45:18 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/28/2012 5:50:50 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
What you're trying to say is "What appears in nature is objective morality", but what actually is being said is "What appears in nature is objectively moral". Both requires justification. Describing the source of morality as being neuroscientific doesn't prove anything.

The fact that it exists is proof enough. Do you point to a tree and say "prove to me that tree is really there", or is it self evident?

Except you're pointing at something which is not universal, only a manifestation of what is biologically universal (i.e. you point to a rheostat setting as universal, not the rheostat itself). The same rheostats that accommodate the Dali Lama are also inherent in antisocial psychotics, so it's useless to argue that the rheostat itself is somehow an "objective morality" since different rheostat settings lead to opposite moral decisions.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 10:15:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 5:24:52 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/28/2012 5:11:45 PM, phantom wrote:
It's objective because it's not something that is rationalized.

Peculiar criteria for establishing objectivity.

That's not to say someone can't rationally examine it, only that the reasons for it are not rationalized. If something is objective it is not based on cognitive thought, but rather it undistorted by personal interpretations or bias.

Intuition brah. It's linked with senses and emotions. Those are known to often be flawed; especially if we consider its development was based on shaky, or should I say non-objective, means.

Question: is one plus one objectivity equal to two? After all, we do come about that extrapolation purely by rational means.
"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
8/28/2012 10:48:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 5:41:07 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/28/2012 5:03:03 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/28/2012 3:39:12 PM, DanT wrote:
I'm sick of people claiming there is no evidence to support instinctive morality, when I have provided credible sources time and time again.


seriously people, google is not that hard to use.


Here is a study by the Department of Philosophy at Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China
"NI Liangkang
Moral Instinct and Moral Judgment

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag 2009
Abstract Human beings' moral life can be divided into two forms, one based
on moral instincts and the other on moral judgments. The former is carried on
without deliberation, while the latter relies upon valuations and judgments. The
two can ultimately be viewed as man's innate moral nature and acquired moral
conventions. Theoretically, preference for the former will lead to naturalism and
for the latter to culturalism, but this is the reality of man's moral life. Moreover,
there may be a parallel relation between the moral structure of human life and the
grammatical structure of human language."
http://www.europhilosophie.eu...



The University of Toronto also came to a similar conclusion in a 2009 study.

"These results shed new light on the origins of morality, suggesting that not only do complex thoughts guide our moral compass, but also more primitive instincts related to avoiding potential toxins," says Adam Anderson, principal investigator on the project and the Canada Research Chair in Affective Neuroscience.
http://www.sciencedaily.com...
http://psychcentral.com...

Funny. You just proved we have a moral instinct. I have yet to see where you substantiate it as objective. I find it hard to even see much of an argument.

Go back to primitive times and people had an entirely different moral instinct to what we do now. Racism and discrimination were very common-place. Slavery was not condemned until a very long time. The Myans valued pain, death and deformity. If you went to war or experienced the Jewish holocaust most likely that would shape your moral senses quite differently. We strongly perceive murder and such as wrong because of years of emotional evolution and environmental influences. Evolution is not authoritative or reliable. It's absurd to say it would give us an objective morality based on instinct. Our intuition could have been very very different if the past were. Who knows what our moral intuition will be like a 3 thousand years from now. Most certainly it will be significantly different and probably it will still be just as strong an emotion as it is now. You've accomplished nothing be establishing our strong emotional pull to morality. That affirmation does nothing to suppose objective morality.

Again, just because objective morality exists does not mean subjective morality does not also exist.

A strangely uncommon view but I have to agree. (I assume you mean both objective and subjective moral facts existing)

Cultural morality is influenced by both personal and natural morality. Natural morality is objective,

Uh, how? I've shown the flaws in this multiple times. See bottom.

whereas cultural and personal morality is subjective.

If cultural formed morality (I assume this is what you mean) is subjective why is natural formed morality not? What's the underlining difference that makes naturalism reliable? (And please don't throw out the old "whatever is unnatural is immoral!" argument. I usually hate that contention and it wouldn't serve to answer my question anyway)

Personal morality is the rationalization of our experiences, and cultural morality is the combination of natural and personal morality. When a personal moral principle becomes a meme it becomes a cultural moral principle; such as political or religiousness doctrines.

People are naturally meat hunter gatherers, but that does not mean vegetarianism is non-existent. Simply because humans are objectively omnivores does not mean some people do not subjectively become herbivores.

I don't get what this analogy serves to do nor how humans are "objectively omnivores" or how you can apply objectivity to taste preference.

Regarding the issue of slavery, historically slaves have not been members of the community; they have been outsiders, or outcasts. One could go even further and claim it is a product of subjective morality, because people have opposed slavery all throughout history. For example, in Rome the Populares were anti-slavery. Slavery could have arose out of the need for cheap labor, and the rationalization of the situation by the inventors of slavery.

Yup, a very large number of moral difference have been fought. It just shows how different our moral senses are. If you want to establish objective morality by means of instinct, you're going to have a hard time doing it simply because instinct is something that varies drastically from person to person or group to group. Instinct is also something that was formed by evolution. Now evolution obviously produces a lot of desirable properties for us, but emotions are one of the most shaky things about human nature. People tend to put evolution on a pedestal, but it has its many crudities. You'd admit yourself that we have many undesirable emotional qualities such as selfishness, impatience anger and many more. So it's obvious that natural process is flawed in developing our emotions and intuition. And even so, it's based on subjective factors anyway. Values, preference senses...It's all subjective. It doesn't matter how well evolution could form our moral instinct, because it would remain relative. You commit a fallacious jump in assuming that it is even possible for naturalism to produce objective morality. Even if you showed you had the most superior objective moral theory to anyone else, that wouldn't mean it was correct because first you have to establish an objective ethical code before you can apply any theory to that code.

I also note you only succeeded in mentioned one point (slavery) of the multiple points I mentioned about the non-universalism of our moral intuition.
"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)
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 11:43:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 10:48:47 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/28/2012 5:41:07 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/28/2012 5:03:03 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/28/2012 3:39:12 PM, DanT wrote:
I'm sick of people claiming there is no evidence to support instinctive morality, when I have provided credible sources time and time again.


seriously people, google is not that hard to use.


Here is a study by the Department of Philosophy at Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China
"NI Liangkang
Moral Instinct and Moral Judgment

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag 2009
Abstract Human beings' moral life can be divided into two forms, one based
on moral instincts and the other on moral judgments. The former is carried on
without deliberation, while the latter relies upon valuations and judgments. The
two can ultimately be viewed as man's innate moral nature and acquired moral
conventions. Theoretically, preference for the former will lead to naturalism and
for the latter to culturalism, but this is the reality of man's moral life. Moreover,
there may be a parallel relation between the moral structure of human life and the
grammatical structure of human language."
http://www.europhilosophie.eu...



The University of Toronto also came to a similar conclusion in a 2009 study.

"These results shed new light on the origins of morality, suggesting that not only do complex thoughts guide our moral compass, but also more primitive instincts related to avoiding potential toxins," says Adam Anderson, principal investigator on the project and the Canada Research Chair in Affective Neuroscience.
http://www.sciencedaily.com...
http://psychcentral.com...

Funny. You just proved we have a moral instinct. I have yet to see where you substantiate it as objective. I find it hard to even see much of an argument.

Go back to primitive times and people had an entirely different moral instinct to what we do now. Racism and discrimination were very common-place. Slavery was not condemned until a very long time. The Myans valued pain, death and deformity. If you went to war or experienced the Jewish holocaust most likely that would shape your moral senses quite differently. We strongly perceive murder and such as wrong because of years of emotional evolution and environmental influences. Evolution is not authoritative or reliable. It's absurd to say it would give us an objective morality based on instinct. Our intuition could have been very very different if the past were. Who knows what our moral intuition will be like a 3 thousand years from now. Most certainly it will be significantly different and probably it will still be just as strong an emotion as it is now. You've accomplished nothing be establishing our strong emotional pull to morality. That affirmation does nothing to suppose objective morality.

Again, just because objective morality exists does not mean subjective morality does not also exist.

A strangely uncommon view but I have to agree. (I assume you mean both objective and subjective moral facts existing)
Yeah I know it's uncommon, just like people pit nature vs nurture against each other people pit instinctive morality vs cognitive morality against each other. Both can exist simultaneously. People's personality for example are a product of both nature and nurture.
1 of the 3 domains of morality can conflict with another, but both are right in their own way. At the same time they could also agree with each other.

Cultural morality is influenced by both personal and natural morality. Natural morality is objective,

Uh, how?
I already stated how.
I've shown the flaws in this multiple times. See bottom.

I have already responded to you arguments. More and more it seems like debating someone with opposing views on DDO is resembling debating a brick wall. People refuse to recognize a single argument from someone with opposing views, no matter how strong. I'm starting to consider taking a break from DDO because of it.

whereas cultural and personal morality is subjective.

If cultural formed morality (I assume this is what you mean) is subjective why is natural formed morality not?
Because cultural morality involves cognition.
What's the underlining difference that makes naturalism reliable? (And please don't throw out the old "whatever is unnatural is immoral!" argument. I usually hate that contention and it wouldn't serve to answer my question anyway)
It's reliable because it's unbiased; that is not to say something that is natural moral is more moral than something that is culturally moral. That would be a personal preference.

Personal morality is the rationalization of our experiences, and cultural morality is the combination of natural and personal morality. When a personal moral principle becomes a meme it becomes a cultural moral principle; such as political or religiousness doctrines.

People are naturally meat hunter gatherers, but that does not mean vegetarianism is non-existent. Simply because humans are objectively omnivores does not mean some people do not subjectively become herbivores.

I don't get what this analogy serves to do nor how humans are "objectively omnivores" or how you can apply objectivity to taste preference.
Again, I'm not saying one form of morality is inherently superior, only that it exists.

Regarding the issue of slavery, historically slaves have not been members of the community; they have been outsiders, or outcasts. One could go even further and claim it is a product of subjective morality, because people have opposed slavery all throughout history. For example, in Rome the Populares were anti-slavery. Slavery could have arose out of the need for cheap labor, and the rationalization of the situation by the inventors of slavery.

Yup, a very large number of moral difference have been fought. It just shows how different our moral senses are. If you want to establish objective morality by means of instinct, you're going to have a hard time doing it simply because instinct is something that varies drastically from person to person or group to group. Instinct is also something that was formed by evolution. Now evolution obviously produces a lot of desirable properties for us, but emotions are one of the most shaky things about human nature. People tend to put evolution on a pedestal, but it has its many crudities. You'd admit yourself that we have many undesirable emotional qualities such as selfishness, impatience anger and many more. So it's obvious that natural process is flawed in developing our emotions and intuition. And even so, it's based on subjective factors anyway. Values, preference senses...It's all subjective. It doesn't matter how well evolution could form our moral instinct, because it would remain relative. You commit a fallacious jump in assuming that it is even possible for naturalism to produce objective morality. Even if you showed you had the most superior objective moral theory to anyone else, that wouldn't mean it was correct because first you have to establish an objective ethical code before you can apply any theory to that code.

I also note you only succeeded in mentioned one point (slavery) of the multiple points I mentioned about the non-universalism of our moral intuition.

tl;dr going to bed.

Do you guys seriously think I have the time to keep up with all these responses. Pick a number, and wait for me to respond to the people who already posted, otherwise I c
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 12:26:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 11:43:23 PM, DanT wrote:

r experienced the Jewish holocaust most likely that would shape your moral senses quite differently. We strongly perceive murder and such as wrong because of years of emotional evolution and environmental influences. Evolution is not authoritative or reliable. It's absurd to say it would give us an objective morality based on instinct. Our intuition could have been very very different if the past were. Who knows what our moral intuition will be like a 3 thousand years from now. Most certainly it will be significantly different and probably it will still be just as strong an emotion as it is now. You've accomplished nothing be establishing our strong emotional pull to morality. That affirmation does nothing to suppose objective morality.

Again, just because objective morality exists does not mean subjective morality does not also exist.

A strangely uncommon view but I have to agree. (I assume you mean both objective and subjective moral facts existing)
Yeah I know it's uncommon, just like people pit nature vs nurture against each other people pit instinctive morality vs cognitive morality against each other. Both can exist simultaneously. People's personality for example are a product of both nature and nurture.
1 of the 3 domains of morality can conflict with another, but both are right in their own way. At the same time they could also agree with each other.

Cultural morality is influenced by both personal and natural morality. Natural morality is objective,

Uh, how?
I already stated how.

You haven't actually. You've barely made an argument and I easily responded to what you said.

I've shown the flaws in this multiple times. See bottom.

I have already responded to you arguments.

Getting intellectually lazy are we? You didn't even read what I said at the bottom apparently lol. Stop kidding yourself seriously.

More and more it seems like debating someone with opposing views on DDO is resembling debating a brick wall. People refuse to recognize a single argument from someone with opposing views, no matter how strong. I'm starting to consider taking a break from DDO because of it.

*Yaun* You'll find my views used to match fairly similar to your views on morality. (Though I was actually willing to back them).
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

I'm more than willing to accept your views if you post a convincing response. The fact that you imply it's like debating a brick wall honestly makes me question your open mindedness very much. It's also something I would take personally if I actually slightly valued your opinion on my intellectual honesty. If I wasn't able to recognize other peoples views than how come I've, changed from Christianity to agnosticism to Christianity again to deism, from conservative to moderate libertarian, from more than a dozen of the big issues views, from dozens of religious views while I was Christian, from empiricism to the Kantian view, from utilitarianist to a very strong contender of it, from compatibalsim to hard determinism, from moral realist to on the line between nihilist and subjectivist? I could go on all night.

Don't question my respect to belief. I may have plenty of flaws but I value open-mindedness very highly and you haven't exhibited a whole lot of it yourself. I simply find your arguments extremely unconvincing.

whereas cultural and personal morality is subjective.

If cultural formed morality (I assume this is what you mean) is subjective why is natural formed morality not?
Because cultural morality involves cognition.

What's the underlining difference that makes naturalism reliable? (And please don't throw out the old "whatever is unnatural is immoral!" argument. I usually hate that contention and it wouldn't serve to answer my question anyway)
It's reliable because it's unbiased; that is not to say something that is natural moral is more moral than something that is culturally moral. That would be a personal preference.

Oh lordy. Not everything that is unbiased is objective.

Personal morality is the rationalization of our experiences, and cultural morality is the combination of natural and personal morality. When a personal moral principle becomes a meme it becomes a cultural moral principle; such as political or religiousness doctrines.

People are naturally meat hunter gatherers, but that does not mean vegetarianism is non-existent. Simply because humans are objectively omnivores does not mean some people do not subjectively become herbivores.

I don't get what this analogy serves to do nor how humans are "objectively omnivores" or how you can apply objectivity to taste preference.
Again, I'm not saying one form of morality is inherently superior, only that it exists.

I'm still clueless about your analogy.

Regarding the issue of slavery, historically slaves have not been members of the community; they have been outsiders, or outcasts. One could go even further and claim it is a product of subjective morality, because people have opposed slavery all throughout history. For example, in Rome the Populares were anti-slavery. Slavery could have arose out of the need for cheap labor, and the rationalization of the situation by the inventors of slavery.

Yup, a very large number of moral difference have been fought. It just shows how different our moral senses are. If you want to establish objective morality by means of instinct, you're going to have a hard time doing it simply because instinct is something that varies drastically from person to person or group to group. Instinct is also something that was formed by evolution. Now evolution obviously produces a lot of desirable properties for us, but emotions are one of the most shaky things about human nature. People tend to put evolution on a pedestal, but it has its many crudities. You'd admit yourself that we have many undesirable emotional qualities such as selfishness, impatience anger and many more. So it's obvious that natural process is flawed in developing our emotions and intuition. And even so, it's based on subjective factors anyway. Values, preference senses...It's all subjective. It doesn't matter how well evolution could form our moral instinct, because it would remain relative. You commit a fallacious jump in assuming that it is even possible for naturalism to produce objective morality. Even if you showed you had the most superior objective moral theory to anyone else, that wouldn't mean it was correct because first you have to establish an objective ethical code before you can apply any theory to that code.

I also note you only succeeded in mentioned one point (slavery) of the multiple points I mentioned about the non-universalism of our moral intuition.

tl;dr going to bed.

Dude. If you're going to respond, don't leave off once you get to by far the bulk of my argument. I don't mind waiting, but it's rather annoying that you respond before even reading my whole response let alone address my main points.

Do you guys seriously think I have the time to keep up with all these responses. Pick a number, and wait for me to respond to the people who already posted, otherwise I c

Again I don't mind waiting. If you don't care to argue then you might as well shove your words in your face because questioning your opponents open-mindedness turns our to look pretty hypocritical when you end up failing to back up your position yourself.
"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)
TheWaywardSon
Posts: 58
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 12:44:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I believe in instinctive morality, I just don't think it goes very far. In the end, our biggest instinct at people is to do what's best for ourselves, not others although Maybe an exception can be made in the case of having children.