Total Posts:58|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Moral Objectivism defended.

izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 8:43:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Since my debate is not really me putting out the burden of Proof I figured I would defend the position here. First lets look at moral objectivism: Moral objectivism may refer to:

Robust moral realism, the meta-ethical position that ethical sentences express factual propositions about robust or mind-independent features of the world, and that some such propositions are true.
Moral universalism (also called minimal or moderate moral realism), the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics or morality is universally valid, without any further semantic or metaphysical claim

In other words it means there are absolute true "rights" and "wrongs." Now, firstly I will say I am defending the position of belief in objective morality, not the position of absolute certainty.

I am going to go into detail now into the type of objective morality I believe in. I believe in objective rights and wrongs over the totality of the entire circumstances. So, for me a statement like murder is wrong, is a statement about the probability, not that every murder is wrong. There are other circumstances that go into murder.

This actually is where a lot of people get hung up. People think that since they have proven that murder is wrong is situational, that there is no objective rights or wrongs. I am going to contend that this is incorrect. Murder is a descriptor for a certain type of situation. So, any morality that includes murder is wrong, would be situational morality as murder is a situation.

There are 2 types of situations: Labeled situations and Unlabeled situations. Examples of labeled situations would be murder( having intent to kill someone and then actually killing someone0 and stealing( intending to take something and then taking something). Both are situational, and I will focus on stealing here for the sake of an easy example, because they have to meet certain requirements. I fail to see how saying well what about this situation: Stealing a gun to stop a nazi, is that morally wrong. It misrepresents what I mean by stealing is wrong, stealing is most likely wrong is the actual meaning of that statement. To further clarify this would it make it objective if I merely labeled that unlabeled situation as nazling(stealing to prevent the nazi's). No, it would not. It is non-sequitur that labeled situations have anything to do with absolute rights and absolute wrongs. What I mean by something is absolutely wrong and objectively immoral, is that if the exact same set of circumstances play out again it would be wrong, every time this exact event plays out the same result would occur right or wrong.

This brings me to another common misunderstanding. People often conflate our beliefs about what is right and wrong, with actual rights and wrongs. For instance, someone might cite a situation from ancient times where the culture sacrificed someone and say they didn't view it as immoral. This conflates this cultures understanding of the absolute rights and absolute wrongs, with the actual absolute rights and absolute wrongs. Therefore, this argument is non-sequitur as well. It is important that we don't let ourselves get caught up in beliefs about rights and wrongs and explore whether there is evidence that there are actual rights and wrongs.

With the common criticisms and misunderstandings out of the way lets present some reasons for belief in absolute rights and absolute wrongs. Throughout, history different societies as they have developed have shown similar moral system advances. Many things like murder, rape, and stealing have universally been universally believed to be wrong. While other things like charity and the golden rule have universally sprung up as right. Its also interesting to note that the more educated about how the world works the more likely these conclusions are to be drawn. While, yes, quite clearly certain societies have gone astray, there will be certain societies that haven't grasp the truth of certain things. Morals is no difference. Does a society not believing in gravity, disprove gravity? With the data that we have about more educated societies coming to certain conclusions about moral issues. It appears clear that if we started over, we would come to the same conclusions. This indicates that there is a good chance of an underlying truth value to such claims as murder is wrong(in most cases) or stealing is wrong(also in most cases).

So,where do we get this truth value? Well, it appears to have a lot to do with actions that benefit societal health( length of life and health, and just overall that societies ability to survive as a society). These things have the possibility to be measured. This does not mean we have the ability to do so completely accurately right now. This explains why different people make different judgments on what is right. They are trying to determine what is right based on a limited set of data, which when exposed to the whole set may be overturned. This again goes back to conflating belief with actual rights and wrongs.

Also, based on functionality, where one of members has been exposed too( he hasn't grasped it) people must function as if there is an objective moral standard. In order to work together we must assume it is right to tell the truth and work together. This goes back to benefit to society, but even if you don't accept that. This functional need to adapt it would be enough to make it reasonable to adapt Objective morality as a properly basic belief. The person who does not accept this, is stuck in a world where the other person has no reason what so ever to go along with any ideas of rights and wrongs. That was the point of the debate where said member complained about my obligation to set up a fair debate. He had to function as if there was a standard, fairness that I ought to follow.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 8:47:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 8:43:28 PM, izbo10 wrote:
Since my debate is not really me putting out the burden of Proof I figured I would defend the position here. First lets look at moral objectivism: Moral objectivism may refer to:

Robust moral realism, the meta-ethical position that ethical sentences express factual propositions about robust or mind-independent features of the world, and that some such propositions are true.
Moral universalism (also called minimal or moderate moral realism), the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics or morality is universally valid, without any further semantic or metaphysical claim

In other words it means there are absolute true "rights" and "wrongs." Now, firstly I will say I am defending the position of belief in objective morality, not the position of absolute certainty.

I am going to go into detail now into the type of objective morality I believe in. I believe in objective rights and wrongs over the totality of the entire circumstances. So, for me a statement like murder is wrong, is a statement about the probability, not that every murder is wrong. There are other circumstances that go into murder.

This actually is where a lot of people get hung up. People think that since they have proven that murder is wrong is situational, that there is no objective rights or wrongs. I am going to contend that this is incorrect. Murder is a descriptor for a certain type of situation. So, any morality that includes murder is wrong, would be situational morality as murder is a situation.

There are 2 types of situations: Labeled situations and Unlabeled situations. Examples of labeled situations would be murder( having intent to kill someone and then actually killing someone0 and stealing( intending to take something and then taking something). Both are situational, and I will focus on stealing here for the sake of an easy example, because they have to meet certain requirements. I fail to see how saying well what about this situation: Stealing a gun to stop a nazi, is that morally wrong. It misrepresents what I mean by stealing is wrong, stealing is most likely wrong is the actual meaning of that statement. To further clarify this would it make it objective if I merely labeled that unlabeled situation as nazling(stealing to prevent the nazi's). No, it would not. It is non-sequitur that labeled situations have anything to do with absolute rights and absolute wrongs. What I mean by something is absolutely wrong and objectively immoral, is that if the exact same set of circumstances play out again it would be wrong, every time this exact event plays out the same result would occur right or wrong.

This brings me to another common misunderstanding. People often conflate our beliefs about what is right and wrong, with actual rights and wrongs. For instance, someone might cite a situation from ancient times where the culture sacrificed someone and say they didn't view it as immoral. This conflates this cultures understanding of the absolute rights and absolute wrongs, with the actual absolute rights and absolute wrongs. Therefore, this argument is non-sequitur as well. It is important that we don't let ourselves get caught up in beliefs about rights and wrongs and explore whether there is evidence that there are actual rights and wrongs.

With the common criticisms and misunderstandings out of the way lets present some reasons for belief in absolute rights and absolute wrongs. Throughout, history different societies as they have developed have shown similar moral system advances. Many things like murder, rape, and stealing have universally been universally believed to be wrong. While other things like charity and the golden rule have universally sprung up as right. Its also interesting to note that the more educated about how the world works the more likely these conclusions are to be drawn. While, yes, quite clearly certain societies have gone astray, there will be certain societies that haven't grasp the truth of certain things. Morals is no difference. Does a society not believing in gravity, disprove gravity? With the data that we have about more educated societies coming to certain conclusions about moral issues. It appears clear that if we started over, we would come to the same conclusions. This indicates that there is a good chance of an underlying truth value to such claims as murder is wrong(in most cases) or stealing is wrong(also in most cases).

So,where do we get this truth value? Well, it appears to have a lot to do with actions that benefit societal health( length of life and health, and just overall that societies ability to survive as a society). These things have the possibility to be measured. This does not mean we have the ability to do so completely accurately right now. This explains why different people make different judgments on what is right. They are trying to determine what is right based on a limited set of data, which when exposed to the whole set may be overturned. This again goes back to conflating belief with actual rights and wrongs.

Also, based on functionality, where one of members has been exposed too( he hasn't grasped it) people must function as if there is an objective moral standard. In order to work together we must assume it is right to tell the truth and work together. This goes back to benefit to society, but even if you don't accept that. This functional need to adapt it would be enough to make it reasonable to adapt Objective morality as a properly basic belief.

Logical Fallacies 101: Argument from Consequences

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The person who does not accept this, is stuck in a world where the other person has no reason what so ever to go along with any ideas of rights and wrongs. That was the point of the debate where said member complained about my obligation to set up a fair debate. He had to function as if there was a standard, fairness that I ought to follow.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 8:51:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 8:47:52 PM, seraine wrote:
At 9/13/2011 8:43:28 PM, izbo10 wrote:
Since my debate is not really me putting out the burden of Proof I figured I would defend the position here. First lets look at moral objectivism: Moral objectivism may refer to:

Robust moral realism, the meta-ethical position that ethical sentences express factual propositions about robust or mind-independent features of the world, and that some such propositions are true.
Moral universalism (also called minimal or moderate moral realism), the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics or morality is universally valid, without any further semantic or metaphysical claim

In other words it means there are absolute true "rights" and "wrongs." Now, firstly I will say I am defending the position of belief in objective morality, not the position of absolute certainty.

I am going to go into detail now into the type of objective morality I believe in. I believe in objective rights and wrongs over the totality of the entire circumstances. So, for me a statement like murder is wrong, is a statement about the probability, not that every murder is wrong. There are other circumstances that go into murder.

This actually is where a lot of people get hung up. People think that since they have proven that murder is wrong is situational, that there is no objective rights or wrongs. I am going to contend that this is incorrect. Murder is a descriptor for a certain type of situation. So, any morality that includes murder is wrong, would be situational morality as murder is a situation.

There are 2 types of situations: Labeled situations and Unlabeled situations. Examples of labeled situations would be murder( having intent to kill someone and then actually killing someone0 and stealing( intending to take something and then taking something). Both are situational, and I will focus on stealing here for the sake of an easy example, because they have to meet certain requirements. I fail to see how saying well what about this situation: Stealing a gun to stop a nazi, is that morally wrong. It misrepresents what I mean by stealing is wrong, stealing is most likely wrong is the actual meaning of that statement. To further clarify this would it make it objective if I merely labeled that unlabeled situation as nazling(stealing to prevent the nazi's). No, it would not. It is non-sequitur that labeled situations have anything to do with absolute rights and absolute wrongs. What I mean by something is absolutely wrong and objectively immoral, is that if the exact same set of circumstances play out again it would be wrong, every time this exact event plays out the same result would occur right or wrong.

This brings me to another common misunderstanding. People often conflate our beliefs about what is right and wrong, with actual rights and wrongs. For instance, someone might cite a situation from ancient times where the culture sacrificed someone and say they didn't view it as immoral. This conflates this cultures understanding of the absolute rights and absolute wrongs, with the actual absolute rights and absolute wrongs. Therefore, this argument is non-sequitur as well. It is important that we don't let ourselves get caught up in beliefs about rights and wrongs and explore whether there is evidence that there are actual rights and wrongs.

With the common criticisms and misunderstandings out of the way lets present some reasons for belief in absolute rights and absolute wrongs. Throughout, history different societies as they have developed have shown similar moral system advances. Many things like murder, rape, and stealing have universally been universally believed to be wrong. While other things like charity and the golden rule have universally sprung up as right. Its also interesting to note that the more educated about how the world works the more likely these conclusions are to be drawn. While, yes, quite clearly certain societies have gone astray, there will be certain societies that haven't grasp the truth of certain things. Morals is no difference. Does a society not believing in gravity, disprove gravity? With the data that we have about more educated societies coming to certain conclusions about moral issues. It appears clear that if we started over, we would come to the same conclusions. This indicates that there is a good chance of an underlying truth value to such claims as murder is wrong(in most cases) or stealing is wrong(also in most cases).

So,where do we get this truth value? Well, it appears to have a lot to do with actions that benefit societal health( length of life and health, and just overall that societies ability to survive as a society). These things have the possibility to be measured. This does not mean we have the ability to do so completely accurately right now. This explains why different people make different judgments on what is right. They are trying to determine what is right based on a limited set of data, which when exposed to the whole set may be overturned. This again goes back to conflating belief with actual rights and wrongs.

Also, based on functionality, where one of members has been exposed too( he hasn't grasped it) people must function as if there is an objective moral standard. In order to work together we must assume it is right to tell the truth and work together. This goes back to benefit to society, but even if you don't accept that. This functional need to adapt it would be enough to make it reasonable to adapt Objective morality as a properly basic belief.

Logical Fallacies 101: Argument from Consequences

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The person who does not accept this, is stuck in a world where the other person has no reason what so ever to go along with any ideas of rights and wrongs. That was the point of the debate where said member complained about my obligation to set up a fair debate. He had to function as if there was a standard, fairness that I ought to follow.

Yes, but with that said, i have presented other reasons, and logic is properly basic because we need it to function. There is no other proof of logic that is not begging the question.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 8:53:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 8:47:52 PM, seraine wrote:
At 9/13/2011 8:43:28 PM, izbo10 wrote:
Since my debate is not really me putting out the burden of Proof I figured I would defend the position here. First lets look at moral objectivism: Moral objectivism may refer to:

Robust moral realism, the meta-ethical position that ethical sentences express factual propositions about robust or mind-independent features of the world, and that some such propositions are true.
Moral universalism (also called minimal or moderate moral realism), the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics or morality is universally valid, without any further semantic or metaphysical claim

In other words it means there are absolute true "rights" and "wrongs." Now, firstly I will say I am defending the position of belief in objective morality, not the position of absolute certainty.

I am going to go into detail now into the type of objective morality I believe in. I believe in objective rights and wrongs over the totality of the entire circumstances. So, for me a statement like murder is wrong, is a statement about the probability, not that every murder is wrong. There are other circumstances that go into murder.

This actually is where a lot of people get hung up. People think that since they have proven that murder is wrong is situational, that there is no objective rights or wrongs. I am going to contend that this is incorrect. Murder is a descriptor for a certain type of situation. So, any morality that includes murder is wrong, would be situational morality as murder is a situation.

There are 2 types of situations: Labeled situations and Unlabeled situations. Examples of labeled situations would be murder( having intent to kill someone and then actually killing someone0 and stealing( intending to take something and then taking something). Both are situational, and I will focus on stealing here for the sake of an easy example, because they have to meet certain requirements. I fail to see how saying well what about this situation: Stealing a gun to stop a nazi, is that morally wrong. It misrepresents what I mean by stealing is wrong, stealing is most likely wrong is the actual meaning of that statement. To further clarify this would it make it objective if I merely labeled that unlabeled situation as nazling(stealing to prevent the nazi's). No, it would not. It is non-sequitur that labeled situations have anything to do with absolute rights and absolute wrongs. What I mean by something is absolutely wrong and objectively immoral, is that if the exact same set of circumstances play out again it would be wrong, every time this exact event plays out the same result would occur right or wrong.

This brings me to another common misunderstanding. People often conflate our beliefs about what is right and wrong, with actual rights and wrongs. For instance, someone might cite a situation from ancient times where the culture sacrificed someone and say they didn't view it as immoral. This conflates this cultures understanding of the absolute rights and absolute wrongs, with the actual absolute rights and absolute wrongs. Therefore, this argument is non-sequitur as well. It is important that we don't let ourselves get caught up in beliefs about rights and wrongs and explore whether there is evidence that there are actual rights and wrongs.

With the common criticisms and misunderstandings out of the way lets present some reasons for belief in absolute rights and absolute wrongs. Throughout, history different societies as they have developed have shown similar moral system advances. Many things like murder, rape, and stealing have universally been universally believed to be wrong. While other things like charity and the golden rule have universally sprung up as right. Its also interesting to note that the more educated about how the world works the more likely these conclusions are to be drawn. While, yes, quite clearly certain societies have gone astray, there will be certain societies that haven't grasp the truth of certain things. Morals is no difference. Does a society not believing in gravity, disprove gravity? With the data that we have about more educated societies coming to certain conclusions about moral issues. It appears clear that if we started over, we would come to the same conclusions. This indicates that there is a good chance of an underlying truth value to such claims as murder is wrong(in most cases) or stealing is wrong(also in most cases).

So,where do we get this truth value? Well, it appears to have a lot to do with actions that benefit societal health( length of life and health, and just overall that societies ability to survive as a society). These things have the possibility to be measured. This does not mean we have the ability to do so completely accurately right now. This explains why different people make different judgments on what is right. They are trying to determine what is right based on a limited set of data, which when exposed to the whole set may be overturned. This again goes back to conflating belief with actual rights and wrongs.

Also, based on functionality, where one of members has been exposed too( he hasn't grasped it) people must function as if there is an objective moral standard. In order to work together we must assume it is right to tell the truth and work together. This goes back to benefit to society, but even if you don't accept that. This functional need to adapt it would be enough to make it reasonable to adapt Objective morality as a properly basic belief.

Logical Fallacies 101: Argument from Consequences

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The person who does not accept this, is stuck in a world where the other person has no reason what so ever to go along with any ideas of rights and wrongs. That was the point of the debate where said member complained about my obligation to set up a fair debate. He had to function as if there was a standard, fairness that I ought to follow.

all true properly basics come down to that fallacy, we fail to be able to function without them, so therefore we must accept them to move forward.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 9:35:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I am not going to read some random crap you have copied and pasted from another website. If you didn't know what objective morality was (and you didn't) you should have admitted that before throwing your toys out of the pram.

This is the troll line people anyone who posts anything after it is either trolling or feeding a troll which in itself trolling. (Yea I know it's never worked before).
_________________________________________________________________
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 9:36:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 9:35:14 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I am not going to read some random crap you have copied and pasted from another website. If you didn't know what objective morality was (and you didn't) you should have admitted that before throwing your toys out of the pram.

This is the troll line people anyone who posts anything after it is either trolling or feeding a troll which in itself trolling. (Yea I know it's never worked before).
_________________________________________________________________

lol I only copied and pasted the objective morality definition from wiki, other then that its all me, scared.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 9:37:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 9:35:14 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I am not going to read some random crap you have copied and pasted from another website. If you didn't know what objective morality was (and you didn't) you should have admitted that before throwing your toys out of the pram.

This is the troll line people anyone who posts anything after it is either trolling or feeding a troll which in itself trolling. (Yea I know it's never worked before).
_________________________________________________________________

by, the way you're the idiot who didnt know what it is. You are also the one refusing to defend your position.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 12:16:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 8:43:28 PM, izbo10 wrote:

I am going to go into detail now into the type of objective morality I believe in. I believe in objective rights and wrongs over the totality of the entire circumstances. So, for me a statement like murder is wrong, is a statement about the probability, not that every murder is wrong. There are other circumstances that go into murder.

But this hardly seems objective... if, as you admit further down, you are examining probabilistic statements like "stealing is likely wrong," then by definition, you are asserting that while you don't believe it to be the case, there is a nonzero likelihood that stealing may in fact be morally upright.

I understand the distinction you are making by attempting to reject objective rule-based morality, but that leaves you with an unsavory alternative. You must either defend the position that there are infinite objective rules to to cover every situation (and thus not in fact reject objective rules) or admit that consequentialism is the key to moral judgments.

If it is the case that there are infinite objective moral rules, I ask you how you propose that people engage in moral reasoning? Surely we cannot know all these rules a priori, so we must somehow discern them ad hoc. Not only that, but where does one discern them from in the first place?

If it is the case that consequentialism is the key to moral judgments, then in order to engage in moral reasoning, one must make a determination of the contrast between good and evil. I suppose you could have objective consequentialism if there was an objective definition of what good is, but we run into the same wall. From whence does one discern this objective definition of good?

The fundamental problem I see with objective morality is that it requires some vehicle by which we become aware of the objective moral principles. Theories like non-cognitivism, convergence, and constructivism don't run into this barrier.

Let me ask you this - if you think action X was moral, and I think it was immoral, is there a scenario in which we simply disagree? Or is it always the case that one of us is right and one of us is wrong? What if it's not a "core" moral issue (i.e. etiquette, victimless crimes, religious morals)?
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 12:19:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 12:16:29 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 9/13/2011 8:43:28 PM, izbo10 wrote:

I am going to go into detail now into the type of objective morality I believe in. I believe in objective rights and wrongs over the totality of the entire circumstances. So, for me a statement like murder is wrong, is a statement about the probability, not that every murder is wrong. There are other circumstances that go into murder.

But this hardly seems objective... if, as you admit further down, you are examining probabilistic statements like "stealing is likely wrong," then by definition, you are asserting that while you don't believe it to be the case, there is a nonzero likelihood that stealing may in fact be morally upright.

Go back and read, I addressed this, that we are not to conflate our beliefs on what is morally right, with the actual moral right. till you take the time to comprehend that, I go no further with you. Here is a little clue on this, thousands of years ago people believed the earth was flat, that had jack and $hit to do with the earth being objectively round.

I understand the distinction you are making by attempting to reject objective rule-based morality, but that leaves you with an unsavory alternative. You must either defend the position that there are infinite objective rules to to cover every situation (and thus not in fact reject objective rules) or admit that consequentialism is the key to moral judgments.

If it is the case that there are infinite objective moral rules, I ask you how you propose that people engage in moral reasoning? Surely we cannot know all these rules a priori, so we must somehow discern them ad hoc. Not only that, but where does one discern them from in the first place?

If it is the case that consequentialism is the key to moral judgments, then in order to engage in moral reasoning, one must make a determination of the contrast between good and evil. I suppose you could have objective consequentialism if there was an objective definition of what good is, but we run into the same wall. From whence does one discern this objective definition of good?

The fundamental problem I see with objective morality is that it requires some vehicle by which we become aware of the objective moral principles. Theories like non-cognitivism, convergence, and constructivism don't run into this barrier.

Let me ask you this - if you think action X was moral, and I think it was immoral, is there a scenario in which we simply disagree? Or is it always the case that one of us is right and one of us is wrong? What if it's not a "core" moral issue (i.e. etiquette, victimless crimes, religious morals)?
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 12:43:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 12:16:29 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 9/13/2011 8:43:28 PM, izbo10 wrote:

I am going to go into detail now into the type of objective morality I believe in. I believe in objective rights and wrongs over the totality of the entire circumstances. So, for me a statement like murder is wrong, is a statement about the probability, not that every murder is wrong. There are other circumstances that go into murder.

But this hardly seems objective... if, as you admit further down, you are examining probabilistic statements like "stealing is likely wrong," then by definition, you are asserting that while you don't believe it to be the case, there is a nonzero likelihood that stealing may in fact be morally upright.

I understand the distinction you are making by attempting to reject objective rule-based morality, but that leaves you with an unsavory alternative. You must either defend the position that there are infinite objective rules to to cover every situation (and thus not in fact reject objective rules) or admit that consequentialism is the key to moral judgments.

If it is the case that there are infinite objective moral rules, I ask you how you propose that people engage in moral reasoning? Surely we cannot know all these rules a priori, so we must somehow discern them ad hoc. Not only that, but where does one discern them from in the first place?

If it is the case that consequentialism is the key to moral judgments, then in order to engage in moral reasoning, one must make a determination of the contrast between good and evil. I suppose you could have objective consequentialism if there was an objective definition of what good is, but we run into the same wall. From whence does one discern this objective definition of good?

The fundamental problem I see with objective morality is that it requires some vehicle by which we become aware of the objective moral principles. Theories like non-cognitivism, convergence, and constructivism don't run into this barrier.

Let me ask you this - if you think action X was moral, and I think it was immoral, is there a scenario in which we simply disagree? Or is it always the case that one of us is right and one of us is wrong? What if it's not a "core" moral issue (i.e. etiquette, victimless crimes, religious morals)?

It is always the case that one of us is right and one of us is wrong, we may not have the information and the full circumstances to make the distinction in that situation, so we may have to agree to disagree unitl further evidence becomes available, this is also why societies agree on many things like murder or stealing(again these 2 things are almost always wrong) yet when it comes to conclusions on abortion or things of that nature even the educated are split.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 1:40:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 12:19:33 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/14/2011 12:16:29 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 9/13/2011 8:43:28 PM, izbo10 wrote:

I am going to go into detail now into the type of objective morality I believe in. I believe in objective rights and wrongs over the totality of the entire circumstances. So, for me a statement like murder is wrong, is a statement about the probability, not that every murder is wrong. There are other circumstances that go into murder.

But this hardly seems objective... if, as you admit further down, you are examining probabilistic statements like "stealing is likely wrong," then by definition, you are asserting that while you don't believe it to be the case, there is a nonzero likelihood that stealing may in fact be morally upright.

Go back and read, I addressed this, that we are not to conflate our beliefs on what is morally right, with the actual moral right. till you take the time to comprehend that, I go no further with you. Here is a little clue on this, thousands of years ago people believed the earth was flat, that had jack and $hit to do with the earth being objectively round.

I know - I read what you said. Perhaps you are misunderstanding me. When you say that you are adopting a probabilistic stance, and when you say "...stealing is most likely wrong is the actual meaning of that statement," you are telling me that in future circumstances, stealing will likely be wrong, but if the exact same circumstances occur again, stealing will certainly be wrong.

But since the exact same circumstance can never occur again (barring, of course, time travel), we are left with a problem. Certainly, highly similar circumstances may occur again, but that only increases the likelihood that stealing will be wrong in that instance. In other words, the logical conclusion of your position is that there is an objective moral description for current events, and for future events, the more closely they comport with the current situation, the more likely it is that the moral description is the same.

But we are still left with the fact that there is a nonzero probability that the moral description will not be the same. This is not a conflation of belief about the description - you may believe you know the description, but perhaps you don't know all the circumstances... in which case, your belief about the event and the description of the event turned out not to be the same. I'm talking strictly about the moral description.

Perhaps you were thrown off when I said, "while you don't believe it to be the case, there is a nonzero likelihood..." I don't mean that you have a belief about the moral description - I mean you have a belief about the probability - a belief that might change if given more information, as you clearly admit below.


I understand the distinction you are making by attempting to reject objective rule-based morality, but that leaves you with an unsavory alternative. You must either defend the position that there are infinite objective rules to to cover every situation (and thus not in fact reject objective rules) or admit that consequentialism is the key to moral judgments.

If it is the case that there are infinite objective moral rules, I ask you how you propose that people engage in moral reasoning? Surely we cannot know all these rules a priori, so we must somehow discern them ad hoc. Not only that, but where does one discern them from in the first place?

If it is the case that consequentialism is the key to moral judgments, then in order to engage in moral reasoning, one must make a determination of the contrast between good and evil. I suppose you could have objective consequentialism if there was an objective definition of what good is, but we run into the same wall. From whence does one discern this objective definition of good?

The fundamental problem I see with objective morality is that it requires some vehicle by which we become aware of the objective moral principles. Theories like non-cognitivism, convergence, and constructivism don't run into this barrier.

Let me ask you this - if you think action X was moral, and I think it was immoral, is there a scenario in which we simply disagree? Or is it always the case that one of us is right and one of us is wrong? What if it's not a "core" moral issue (i.e. etiquette, victimless crimes, religious morals)?

It is always the case that one of us is right and one of us is wrong, we may not have the information and the full circumstances to make the distinction in that situation, so we may have to agree to disagree unitl further evidence becomes available, this is also why societies agree on many things like murder or stealing(again these 2 things are almost always wrong) yet when it comes to conclusions on abortion or things of that nature even the educated are split.

Ok... but this is starting to sound an awful like like Firth's Ideal Observer... which if I recall is constructivism. And this still doesn't respond to the objection of how we are to determine what the moral rules are...
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 7:05:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 1:40:46 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 9/14/2011 12:19:33 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/14/2011 12:16:29 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 9/13/2011 8:43:28 PM, izbo10 wrote:

I am going to go into detail now into the type of objective morality I believe in. I believe in objective rights and wrongs over the totality of the entire circumstances. So, for me a statement like murder is wrong, is a statement about the probability, not that every murder is wrong. There are other circumstances that go into murder.

But this hardly seems objective... if, as you admit further down, you are examining probabilistic statements like "stealing is likely wrong," then by definition, you are asserting that while you don't believe it to be the case, there is a nonzero likelihood that stealing may in fact be morally upright.

Go back and read, I addressed this, that we are not to conflate our beliefs on what is morally right, with the actual moral right. till you take the time to comprehend that, I go no further with you. Here is a little clue on this, thousands of years ago people believed the earth was flat, that had jack and $hit to do with the earth being objectively round.

I know - I read what you said. Perhaps you are misunderstanding me. When you say that you are adopting a probabilistic stance, and when you say "...stealing is most likely wrong is the actual meaning of that statement," you are telling me that in future circumstances, stealing will likely be wrong, but if the exact same circumstances occur again, stealing will certainly be wrong.

But since the exact same circumstance can never occur again (barring, of course, time travel), we are left with a problem. Certainly, highly similar circumstances may occur again, but that only increases the likelihood that stealing will be wrong in that instance. In other words, the logical conclusion of your position is that there is an objective moral description for current events, and for future events, the more closely they comport with the current situation, the more likely it is that the moral description is the same.

But we are still left with the fact that there is a nonzero probability that the moral description will not be the same. This is not a conflation of belief about the description - you may believe you know the description, but perhaps you don't know all the circumstances... in which case, your belief about the event and the description of the event turned out not to be the same. I'm talking strictly about the moral description.

Perhaps you were thrown off when I said, "while you don't believe it to be the case, there is a nonzero likelihood..." I don't mean that you have a belief about the moral description - I mean you have a belief about the probability - a belief that might change if given more information, as you clearly admit below.


I understand the distinction you are making by attempting to reject objective rule-based morality, but that leaves you with an unsavory alternative. You must either defend the position that there are infinite objective rules to to cover every situation (and thus not in fact reject objective rules) or admit that consequentialism is the key to moral judgments.

If it is the case that there are infinite objective moral rules, I ask you how you propose that people engage in moral reasoning? Surely we cannot know all these rules a priori, so we must somehow discern them ad hoc. Not only that, but where does one discern them from in the first place?

If it is the case that consequentialism is the key to moral judgments, then in order to engage in moral reasoning, one must make a determination of the contrast between good and evil. I suppose you could have objective consequentialism if there was an objective definition of what good is, but we run into the same wall. From whence does one discern this objective definition of good?

The fundamental problem I see with objective morality is that it requires some vehicle by which we become aware of the objective moral principles. Theories like non-cognitivism, convergence, and constructivism don't run into this barrier.

Let me ask you this - if you think action X was moral, and I think it was immoral, is there a scenario in which we simply disagree? Or is it always the case that one of us is right and one of us is wrong? What if it's not a "core" moral issue (i.e. etiquette, victimless crimes, religious morals)?

It is always the case that one of us is right and one of us is wrong, we may not have the information and the full circumstances to make the distinction in that situation, so we may have to agree to disagree unitl further evidence becomes available, this is also why societies agree on many things like murder or stealing(again these 2 things are almost always wrong) yet when it comes to conclusions on abortion or things of that nature even the educated are split.

Ok... but this is starting to sound an awful like like Firth's Ideal Observer... which if I recall is constructivism. And this still doesn't respond to the objection of how we are to determine what the moral rules are...

Much like everything else in life we judge by the best evidence we have on the effects that account has.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 7:21:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
If there is a turd in the box the first 99 times you look, is it rational to assume that on the 100th attempt it will be chocolate?

In short, why did you bother Tarzan?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 8:24:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 1:40:46 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 9/14/2011 12:19:33 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/14/2011 12:16:29 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 9/13/2011 8:43:28 PM, izbo10 wrote:

I am going to go into detail now into the type of objective morality I believe in. I believe in objective rights and wrongs over the totality of the entire circumstances. So, for me a statement like murder is wrong, is a statement about the probability, not that every murder is wrong. There are other circumstances that go into murder.

But this hardly seems objective... if, as you admit further down, you are examining probabilistic statements like "stealing is likely wrong," then by definition, you are asserting that while you don't believe it to be the case, there is a nonzero likelihood that stealing may in fact be morally upright.

Go back and read, I addressed this, that we are not to conflate our beliefs on what is morally right, with the actual moral right. till you take the time to comprehend that, I go no further with you. Here is a little clue on this, thousands of years ago people believed the earth was flat, that had jack and $hit to do with the earth being objectively round.

I know - I read what you said. Perhaps you are misunderstanding me. When you say that you are adopting a probabilistic stance, and when you say "...stealing is most likely wrong is the actual meaning of that statement," you are telling me that in future circumstances, stealing will likely be wrong, but if the exact same circumstances occur again, stealing will certainly be wrong.

But since the exact same circumstance can never occur again (barring, of course, time travel), we are left with a problem. Certainly, highly similar circumstances may occur again, but that only increases the likelihood that stealing will be wrong in that instance. In other words, the logical conclusion of your position is that there is an objective moral description for current events, and for future events, the more closely they comport with the current situation, the more likely it is that the moral description is the same.

But we are still left with the fact that there is a nonzero probability that the moral description will not be the same. This is not a conflation of belief about the description - you may believe you know the description, but perhaps you don't know all the circumstances... in which case, your belief about the event and the description of the event turned out not to be the same. I'm talking strictly about the moral description.

Perhaps you were thrown off when I said, "while you don't believe it to be the case, there is a nonzero likelihood..." I don't mean that you have a belief about the moral description - I mean you have a belief about the probability - a belief that might change if given more information, as you clearly admit below.


I understand the distinction you are making by attempting to reject objective rule-based morality, but that leaves you with an unsavory alternative. You must either defend the position that there are infinite objective rules to to cover every situation (and thus not in fact reject objective rules) or admit that consequentialism is the key to moral judgments.

If it is the case that there are infinite objective moral rules, I ask you how you propose that people engage in moral reasoning? Surely we cannot know all these rules a priori, so we must somehow discern them ad hoc. Not only that, but where does one discern them from in the first place?

If it is the case that consequentialism is the key to moral judgments, then in order to engage in moral reasoning, one must make a determination of the contrast between good and evil. I suppose you could have objective consequentialism if there was an objective definition of what good is, but we run into the same wall. From whence does one discern this objective definition of good?

The fundamental problem I see with objective morality is that it requires some vehicle by which we become aware of the objective moral principles. Theories like non-cognitivism, convergence, and constructivism don't run into this barrier.

Let me ask you this - if you think action X was moral, and I think it was immoral, is there a scenario in which we simply disagree? Or is it always the case that one of us is right and one of us is wrong? What if it's not a "core" moral issue (i.e. etiquette, victimless crimes, religious morals)?

It is always the case that one of us is right and one of us is wrong, we may not have the information and the full circumstances to make the distinction in that situation, so we may have to agree to disagree unitl further evidence becomes available, this is also why societies agree on many things like murder or stealing(again these 2 things are almost always wrong) yet when it comes to conclusions on abortion or things of that nature even the educated are split.

Ok... but this is starting to sound an awful like like Firth's Ideal Observer... which if I recall is constructivism. And this still doesn't respond to the objection of how we are to determine what the moral rules are...

I agree with you that as a person we do not have all the evidence so our personal views of logic are not perfect, that says nothing about the actual morality. Cerebral for instance knows nothing whatsoever about basic logic, it does not mean logic does not exist. It means he lacks the knowledge to make judgements about logic.

I think you are also confusing what I meant about stealing is wrong. What i mean is that in 99 out of 100 cases(not actual statistic, but used for illustration purposes) that we can be reasonably certain(never absolutely certain on anything) that stealing is wrong. It was more of a way of saying, that we admit there are certain circumstances that you can add to stealing that would make it ok or right. Yet that is another moral situation altogether.

Another problem you cited was that this creates a infinite number of moral rules, well it all comes back to the basics of benefit to society and some other factors. You also don't seem to have a problem with infinite number of possible situations, so why then does it become a problem if the set of moral possibilities matches this?
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 9:07:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
If Izbo became a Christian.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 9:12:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 9:07:25 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
If Izbo became a Christian.


Actually you were the christian in the video, remember it is you who seriously asked to prove rape and murder are wrong. Giving those retarded examples, not me. I was the atheist in the video. Saying it is wrong independent of what a person thinks. So, you fail epicly again.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 9:14:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 9:12:18 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/14/2011 9:07:25 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
If Izbo became a Christian.


Actually you were the christian in the video, remember it is you who seriously asked to prove rape and murder are wrong. Giving those retarded examples, not me. I was the atheist in the video. Saying it is wrong independent of what a person thinks. So, you fail epicly again.

I am very much situational morality. But if the exact same situation happened one billion times, it would be either right or wrong every single time independent of your opinion or my opinion is my position. Stop straw manning me.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 9:17:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 9:14:42 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/14/2011 9:12:18 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/14/2011 9:07:25 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
If Izbo became a Christian.


Actually you were the christian in the video, remember it is you who seriously asked to prove rape and murder are wrong. Giving those retarded examples, not me. I was the atheist in the video. Saying it is wrong independent of what a person thinks. So, you fail epicly again.


I am very much situational morality. But if the exact same situation happened one billion times, it would be either right or wrong every single time independent of your opinion or my opinion is my position. Stop straw manning me.

The funny part is you could make the christian look bad by saying, you would let the whole world die, man woman and child including the girl you were going to have to rape, instead of just hurting one person. He framed the question one way you ask the same question in another framing he is made to look terrible.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 9:23:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 9:17:21 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/14/2011 9:14:42 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/14/2011 9:12:18 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/14/2011 9:07:25 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
If Izbo became a Christian.


Actually you were the christian in the video, remember it is you who seriously asked to prove rape and murder are wrong. Giving those retarded examples, not me. I was the atheist in the video. Saying it is wrong independent of what a person thinks. So, you fail epicly again.


I am very much situational morality. But if the exact same situation happened one billion times, it would be either right or wrong every single time independent of your opinion or my opinion is my position. Stop straw manning me.


The funny part is you could make the christian look bad by saying, you would let the whole world die, man woman and child including the girl you were going to have to rape, instead of just hurting one person. He framed the question one way you ask the same question in another framing he is made to look terrible.

Another irony, is that you would be forced to say that you have no standard to judge either side right or wrong and can only give your personal opinion. It could be moral to let society get destroyed, or it could be moral to rape a girl just for the fun of it. You can take them and seperate them and you have no grounds to judge them.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 11:45:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 9:07:25 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
If Izbo became a Christian.


The more you talk, the more it shows you don't understand the position you claim to hold, nor do you understand my position. Please, try to educate yourself, you are embarrassing yourself.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 11:56:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I've not posted anything to this thread in two hours, who are you nattering away to? Do I really need to even be here?

Tell you what if you want to defend your position then challenge me to a debate... now there is an idea. There is like a whole debate site attached to these trolling forums.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 12:18:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 11:56:31 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I've not posted anything to this thread in two hours, who are you nattering away to? Do I really need to even be here?

Tell you what if you want to defend your position then challenge me to a debate... now there is an idea. There is like a whole debate site attached to these trolling forums.

hmm funny it is saying you are not accepting debate challenges at this time, could be the way my work computer views the site, i will try again when i get home.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 12:26:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 12:18:13 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/14/2011 11:56:31 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I've not posted anything to this thread in two hours, who are you nattering away to? Do I really need to even be here?

Tell you what if you want to defend your position then challenge me to a debate... now there is an idea. There is like a whole debate site attached to these trolling forums.

hmm funny it is saying you are not accepting debate challenges at this time, could be the way my work computer views the site, i will try again when i get home.

You are unblocked, I'll take any sensible challenge from you.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 2:32:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 8:24:27 AM, izbo10 wrote:

I think you are also confusing what I meant about stealing is wrong. What i mean is that in 99 out of 100 cases(not actual statistic, but used for illustration purposes) that we can be reasonably certain(never absolutely certain on anything) that stealing is wrong. It was more of a way of saying, that we admit there are certain circumstances that you can add to stealing that would make it ok or right. Yet that is another moral situation altogether.

Yes, this is exactly as I understand it... I'm concerned with the objections I raised to this...

Another problem you cited was that this creates a infinite number of moral rules, well it all comes back to the basics of benefit to society and some other factors. You also don't seem to have a problem with infinite number of possible situations, so why then does it become a problem if the set of moral possibilities matches this?

Because if there are an infinite number of moral rules, then clearly we cannot be expected to know them all. And if you are willing to base the rules on the benefit to society and "some other factors" then why bother with objective morality at all? Because clearly people can disagree about what "benefit to society" means, so if they can disagree on the criteria by which you make your objective rules, doesn't that indicate that the objective rules are subject to disagreement?

That, or you have to defend the proposition that "benefit to society" is an objective term as well.

I'm still curious by what mechanism people become aware of this infinite set of objective moral rules?
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 3:56:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 2:32:55 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 9/14/2011 8:24:27 AM, izbo10 wrote:

I think you are also confusing what I meant about stealing is wrong. What i mean is that in 99 out of 100 cases(not actual statistic, but used for illustration purposes) that we can be reasonably certain(never absolutely certain on anything) that stealing is wrong. It was more of a way of saying, that we admit there are certain circumstances that you can add to stealing that would make it ok or right. Yet that is another moral situation altogether.

Yes, this is exactly as I understand it... I'm concerned with the objections I raised to this...

Another problem you cited was that this creates a infinite number of moral rules, well it all comes back to the basics of benefit to society and some other factors. You also don't seem to have a problem with infinite number of possible situations, so why then does it become a problem if the set of moral possibilities matches this?

Because if there are an infinite number of moral rules, then clearly we cannot be expected to know them all. And if you are willing to base the rules on the benefit to society and "some other factors" then why bother with objective morality at all? Because clearly people can disagree about what "benefit to society" means, so if they can disagree on the criteria by which you make your objective rules, doesn't that indicate that the objective rules are subject to disagreement?

That, or you have to defend the proposition that "benefit to society" is an objective term as well.

I'm still curious by what mechanism people become aware of this infinite set of objective moral rules?

It is an objective term, societies that have higher societal health and live longer work better. You don't seem to be getting it, we make our decisions based on our knowledge of the situation, this may not always be the right decision persay.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 7:03:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 3:56:29 PM, izbo10 wrote:

It [benefit to society] is an objective term, societies that have higher societal health and live longer work better.

See, now we have a real problem. If you are going to tell me that "benefit to society" is an objective term, that means that different societies that value different things aren't merely in disagreement about value systems, one of those societies is wrong.

Take for example, as you seem fond of using, theft. Clearly, there is societal difference concerning the moral import of theft. Stealing a horse in New York isn't considered as bad as stealing a horse in Colorado. In either of those locations, you would get a fine. But in Saudi Arabia, you might lose a hand. So there is clearly a wide variety of valuation of social norms and their moral import. Which suggests that "benefit to society" is anything but objective - it is entirely constructivist.

But let's pretend for a moment that it is in fact objective. Among the developed democracies of the world, there are clear differences in societal values (take, for example, the US, the UK, Finland, and Japan). If "benefit to society" is objective, these countries are not simply disagreeing when they value libertarianism, state-sponsored health care, or honor in business dealings... one of them may be correct, and the others are incorrect! That sounds extraordinarily silly (and arrogant) to state that while they all may have good societal health, live longer, or work better than other countries, that their success notwithstanding, they are incorrect about what they think "benefit to society" means.

Also, since we are still pretending this term is objective... where does the standard arise from? What source can define "benefit to society" better than the members of the society itself?

And now we also have the additional problem of determining the mechanism by which people become aware of the objective rules that let them determine the objective rules of morality.

It's quite obvious that this hypothesis of objective benefit to society is simply ridiculous. Nobody seriously conceptualizes their society in that manner.

You don't seem to be getting it, we make our decisions based on our knowledge of the situation, this may not always be the right decision persay.

I get it perfectly fine - I'm just showing you where your own position takes you. In order to save the idea of objective morality, you've had to posit another objective source of rulemaking power that lets us determine what the objective rules of morality are. And none of this overcomes the objection of where the rules actually reside, or how we become aware of them.

In short, you're just digging your hole deeper and deeper. I suggest you go back to the beginning and simply answer the question you've been ignoring this entire time...

How do people become aware of these objective rules? Either the moral rules OR what "benefit to society" means... What is the mechanism?

The only thing I don't understand is why we need to posit infinite objective moral descriptions of infinite events, based on objective "benefit to society" that we have no interactive way of determining... when this structure diametrically opposes the way people conceptualize society and morality.

Do you honestly think that when people engage in moral reasoning that they somehow determine whether the action in question comported with some objective benefit to society, and if so, then we know that one of the infinite objective moral rules says that the action was good?? No... not at all.

Even raw intuitionalism is a more compelling theory than this.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 8:06:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 7:03:00 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 9/14/2011 3:56:29 PM, izbo10 wrote:

It [benefit to society] is an objective term, societies that have higher societal health and live longer work better.

See, now we have a real problem. If you are going to tell me that "benefit to society" is an objective term, that means that different societies that value different things aren't merely in disagreement about value systems, one of those societies is wrong.

Take for example, as you seem fond of using, theft. Clearly, there is societal difference concerning the moral import of theft. Stealing a horse in New York isn't considered as bad as stealing a horse in Colorado. In either of those locations, you would get a fine. But in Saudi Arabia, you might lose a hand. So there is clearly a wide variety of valuation of social norms and their moral import. Which suggests that "benefit to society" is anything but objective - it is entirely constructivist.

But let's pretend for a moment that it is in fact objective. Among the developed democracies of the world, there are clear differences in societal values (take, for example, the US, the UK, Finland, and Japan). If "benefit to society" is objective, these countries are not simply disagreeing when they value libertarianism, state-sponsored health care, or honor in business dealings... one of them may be correct, and the others are incorrect! That sounds extraordinarily silly (and arrogant) to state that while they all may have good societal health, live longer, or work better than other countries, that their success notwithstanding, they are incorrect about what they think "benefit to society" means.

Also, since we are still pretending this term is objective... where does the standard arise from? What source can define "benefit to society" better than the members of the society itself?

And now we also have the additional problem of determining the mechanism by which people become aware of the objective rules that let them determine the objective rules of morality.

It's quite obvious that this hypothesis of objective benefit to society is simply ridiculous. Nobody seriously conceptualizes their society in that manner.

You don't seem to be getting it, we make our decisions based on our knowledge of the situation, this may not always be the right decision persay.

I get it perfectly fine - I'm just showing you where your own position takes you. In order to save the idea of objective morality, you've had to posit another objective source of rulemaking power that lets us determine what the objective rules of morality are. And none of this overcomes the objection of where the rules actually reside, or how we become aware of them.

In short, you're just digging your hole deeper and deeper. I suggest you go back to the beginning and simply answer the question you've been ignoring this entire time...

How do people become aware of these objective rules? Either the moral rules OR what "benefit to society" means... What is the mechanism?

The only thing I don't understand is why we need to posit infinite objective moral descriptions of infinite events, based on objective "benefit to society" that we have no interactive way of determining... when this structure diametrically opposes the way people conceptualize society and morality.

Do you honestly think that when people engage in moral reasoning that they somehow determine whether the action in question comported with some objective benefit to society, and if so, then we know that one of the infinite objective moral rules says that the action was good?? No... not at all.

Even raw intuitionalism is a more compelling theory than this.

You are starting out again, failing to understand the difference between our understanding of what is objectively moral, compared to the objective moral standard. We do our best to understand. Lets take theft for example, remember I don't think that stealing is objectively wrong in all instances, its a case by case thing and the extent to which it harms society may not be known, hence the rule of thumb being made a law and different societies trying to determine the appropriate punishment. I fail to see how this rejects my version of objective morality.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 10:05:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 8:06:30 PM, izbo10 wrote:

You are starting out again, failing to understand the difference between our understanding of what is objectively moral, compared to the objective moral standard. We do our best to understand. Lets take theft for example, remember I don't think that stealing is objectively wrong in all instances, its a case by case thing and the extent to which it harms society may not be known, hence the rule of thumb being made a law and different societies trying to determine the appropriate punishment. I fail to see how this rejects my version of objective morality.

Lolwut? Care to rephrase that?
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 10:14:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 10:05:33 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 9/14/2011 8:06:30 PM, izbo10 wrote:

You are starting out again, failing to understand the difference between our understanding of what is objectively moral, compared to the objective moral standard. We do our best to understand. Lets take theft for example, remember I don't think that stealing is objectively wrong in all instances, its a case by case thing and the extent to which it harms society may not be known, hence the rule of thumb being made a law and different societies trying to determine the appropriate punishment. I fail to see how this rejects my version of objective morality.

Lolwut? Care to rephrase that?

I think that each and every specific situation has an objective right and wrong, but stealing on its own is not enough information to make an absolute decision on this. As, I said earlier you could steal a gun from a nazi to stop them, that would be moral stealing(in almost all cases, as this still does not encompass the totality of the situation). Your claim was that the fact that different societies view stealing needing different levels of punishment, meaning there is a variance in the belief about morality. Yet, I have stressed that we not conflate beliefs about what is moral, with actual morality. I agree we don't know the actual moral value of stealing and how harmful it is too society, but in most cases(barring other data that outweighs it) stealing will be wrong. We as a society are moving closer to moral truths but certainly don't have all the information to give all the answers. But, in most cases, we can be reasonable certain stealing is objectively wrong.

When rebutting, please try to notice the distinction between actual morality(what we are talking about) and peoples understanding of morality. I also think you are falling into the labeled situations vs unlabeled situation, non-sequitur argument I addressed in the opening post.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2011 1:41:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 10:14:10 PM, izbo10 wrote:

I think that each and every specific situation has an objective right and wrong, but stealing on its own is not enough information to make an absolute decision on this. As, I said earlier you could steal a gun from a nazi to stop them, that would be moral stealing(in almost all cases, as this still does not encompass the totality of the situation). Your claim was that the fact that different societies view stealing needing different levels of punishment, meaning there is a variance in the belief about morality.

You misunderstand my point concerning societal views on theft...

First, I made the objection that there was not enough information to discern the infinite set of moral rules that you said exist. You responded that we needed to look to benefit to society. To which I responded that benefit to society was only useful if it was objective, and asked if you were prepared to defend that assertion. You stated that (objective benefit) to be the case.

My point concerning societal relativism concerning the benefit of prosecuting theft is a challenge to the idea that societal benefit is an objective idea - it is not a challenge to moral beliefs concerning stealing. I'm asking how your view responds to the vast collection of cultural relativism on what "societal benefit" means - the point being that if it is indeed objective, as you say, then there is a correct answer to every question of societal benefit, which means that at some level, your view requires us to accept that the vast majority of cultures are simply incorrect about what benefits them... and on top of that, the cultures don't get to decide for themselves what benefits them.

Yet, I have stressed that we not conflate beliefs about what is moral, with actual morality. I agree we don't know the actual moral value of stealing and how harmful it is too society, but in most cases(barring other data that outweighs it) stealing will be wrong. We as a society are moving closer to moral truths but certainly don't have all the information to give all the answers. But, in most cases, we can be reasonable certain stealing is objectively wrong.

I think the root problem here is not that the objections I raise conflate the issue, but rather that you've made the issue so twisted that you're losing track of the different positions you need to defend. At no point have I raised an objection concerning beliefs about what is moral - it would be impossible for me to do so, because you have yet to posit a reliable means of determining what is moral.

What you are describing is almost exactly the Ideal Observer position - if we had all the information about a situation, we would be able to identify the moral import of a situation with certainty. This form of moral reasoning can only be objective if we allow that it describes how all the actual beings of a certain kind, or the majority of beings of a certain kind would react. The more fundamental problem with this type of morality is that it leaves us with the unsavory requirement of deeming some moral actions immoral.

Take for example a poor monkey in a cage that can be fed pellets by inserting a quarter. The monkey is obviously starving and could really use a pellet. Obviously, the moral action is to feed the poor monkey. But let us also suppose that the pellets are poisoned in some fashion so that actors encountering the monkey could never know they were poisoned. The fact that if we had access to all the information, it would be apparent that feeding the monkey was immoral does not change the fact that given what the actor knew, he did the moral thing.

In other words, this system of objective morality leads us to the odd conclusion that actors could act morally by purposely acting in a way they believed to be immoral, and vice versa. This is an illustration of the difference you identify between beliefs about an action and the action itself - but it's an example where moral confusion arises because of the unnecessary distinction.

Another powerful objection to this system is that it is entirely retrospective - i.e. a moral judgment can only be rendered after all facts are in, so to speak. So the further in advance of the action you attempt to morally reason, the less useful the moral reasoning becomes. And since a major function of engaging in moral discussion in the first place is to prospectively evaluate future action to ensure one is doing the right thing... this view is almost completely pragmatically useless.