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

Objective Morality?

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 5:19:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Presumably this should go here, we have no philosophy forum so hey, anyways...

A few members have claimed that there is such a thing as objective morality. They don't often seem willing to substantiate this, or when they do they are generally arguing for something which is no objective.

Now objective = mind independent. Our interpretation that a tree's leaves are green is a subjective judgement, the mathematical definition of the spectrum of light which bounces from the leaf is objective, or as objective as we can get.

Our sense of moral outrage at Justin Bieber is a subjective call. The moral principles which we employ to judge him morally wrong must be shown to be similarly objective as mathematics or true logic in order to qualify as objective.

PS: I dont really know who Justin Bieber is.
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.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 5:51:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
A few members have claimed that there is such a thing as objective morality. They don't often seem willing to substantiate this, or when they do they are generally arguing for something which is no objective.:

Arguing for or against objective morality is the same as it is with God. You can neither prove it's existence empirically nor discount it empirically. I think people that argue against objective morality predicate it on the notion of it being not something one could prove or disprove.

And isn't it interconnected? If there is an objective then surely there would be an objective moral law giver. After all, I dare say that the (dis)belief in God is going to directly attribute to one's beliefs about objective moral laws. You kind of can't have one without the other, so that invariably atheists will argue against objective moral laws and theists for objective moral laws SOLELY on the inference of their theological persuasion... or lack thereof.

I, for one, do not claim that there are no objective moral laws or that not no objective moral law giver exists. I simply state that there is no evidence to assume it. Oh, and look at that... it corresponds so well with my agnosticism.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 6:20:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I am not convinced that an 'objective' law giver such as God is the same as an objective moralty. Law and morality are not the same thing for a start, and also an objective moral system exists outside of any of its proponents or adherents, including God.

Hmm... though an objective morality might be termed God, perhaps some sort of deistic or non-personal one...

I get what you are saying with evidence however.
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.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 7:12:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Now objective = mind independent.

Objective has a mind independent component.. Total independence of mind is called intrinsic. "That rock over there is moral." Or for a slightly less wtf example, "Killing is always wrong."

Subjective is total dependence on mind. "I think it's moral therefore it is."

Objective exists in the relation between the agent's mind and the objective facts about the action. "There are certain facts that cause certain actions in certain contexts to achieve my goals." "I should kill that man over there because he is trying to kill me, and I seek to live." "I should not kill this one here because he is not trying to kill me, but if I try to kill him, he will try to kill me."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 7:19:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/1/2010 6:20:43 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I am not convinced that an 'objective' law giver such as God is the same as an objective moralty. Law and morality are not the same thing for a start, and also an objective moral system exists outside of any of its proponents or adherents, including God.

Hmm... though an objective morality might be termed God, perhaps some sort of deistic or non-personal one...

I get what you are saying with evidence however.

Actually i am looking forward to an argument for objective morality without a God of any sort. With a God it's easy to understand and believe in objective morality - same with natural rights, but without a God? - that's the argument i want to see.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 1:35:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/1/2010 6:20:43 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I am not convinced that an 'objective' law giver such as God is the same as an objective moralty.:

Well, then who is calling the shots? Who made it absolute? Surely there is an arbiter assigning the line of demarcation. Anything less would be people arguing over opinions, which, as it stands, is the reality.

But we're dealing with hypotheticals here.

Law and morality are not the same thing for a start:

Most laws, if not all, are hinged upon some moral imperative. Think about it. Don't do _________ because _________ is "wrong" or "bad." Anything less would be an arbitrary and nonsensical laws, like, you cannot walk sideways in your kitchen for more than exactly 3.26 seconds. You'll find yourself asking what conceivable reason such a law would exist. If you look at various crimes, however, like murder, rape, arson, theft, assault, child abuse, animal abuse, etc, there is always some moral driving the law... And that spells out, "Don't do this, because it is bad."

and also an objective moral system exists outside of any of its proponents or adherents, including God.:

How do you figure?

Hmm... though an objective morality might be termed God, perhaps some sort of deistic or non-personal one...:

I'm not saying the objective moral IS itself God, but rather it makes sense that if there is an objective moral law that an objective moral law giver logically follows.

And I'm certainly not saying that either exist, only that epistemilogically that it follows.

Some laws seem universal -- like murder. Almost everyone is against murder, but you'll find people disagreeing on what constitutes murder. Heh... A very important distinction. Everything is a matter of interpretation, and as you said, is subject to personal opinion. The laws that follow the moral come from popular consensus or those in power to enact their own conscience on the rest of society.

It's the way it's always been.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 3:15:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Yessssss, I've been waiting for this thread. Or, at least, this question.

There is a such thing as objective morality, because morality is fundamentally logical. In fact, morals cannot exist without logic. Allow me to explain.

Definition of Morals

1.
of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2.
expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3.
founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.

Morals are essentially standards of conduct based on the concepts "right" and "wrong," which are synonymous with the dichotomies "correct and incorrect" as well as "true and false." Therefore, morals are the correct and true standards of conduct. More accurately, they're an approach pursuant to the best possible conduct.

Definition of Conduct

Conduct is a collection of actions that comprise daily interactions, including social. Actions are twofold: 1) they are incited, 2) for a purpose. For example. You wake up and then brush your teeth. This is incited by what you understand to be the best means toward dental hygiene, which is a characteristic the action shares with it's purpose: to promote dental hygiene. Indeed, there may be other ways to promote and maintain dental hygiene, but they are not the best way, of which there can only be one. This isn't to say that there is no conceivable way that I'm simply not aware of to better promote dental hygiene, but those are the limitations of morals, which, as something filtered through limited cognition, must have limitations. But, just as reality exists despite our limited understanding of it, morals exist even if we're not capable of conceiving them.

But, the point is that you do what you understand to be the best possible action because it is correct, as opposed to wrong, which is not the best possible action. Therefore, morals are principles formed in the interest of a collection of the best possible actions.

How to Achieve the Best Action

There are three things necessary to achieve the best possible action: 1. Logic, 2. Pragmatism, and 3. Abstract thought. Logic is necessary to arrive to a clause--for example, "doing x for y reason will produce z result." Pragmatism is necessary to apply the limitations of specific situations, for example, "out of options x, y, and z, y is the best possible action, because x and z are not possible within my means." Abstract thought is necessary to fully conceptualize the effects of actions outside of the scope of a limited exposure to reality and a temporal existence. In other words, the ability to realize that it is necessary for the world outside of your reach to maintain a degree of balance and to continue to exist after you die.

This principle is necessary for the concept of logic because logic shares this same exact process, backwards.

The Moral Argument

Morals are thus objective as a principle, but this does not mean that they can manifest standardized laws. They can conceivably produce generalized laws, such as one against stealing, because there is no conceivable situation in which you could possibly validate stealing by means of the best option methodology. However, there is no such thing as a perfect set of laws, just as there is no such thing as a perfect moral code because humanity does not possess perfect cognition, nor does humanity have knowledge of every given variable that applies to existence. Therefore, we set aside our capacitative limitations and apply ourselves to our best abilities to conceive the best possible course of action.

But, given that ethics could produce perfect morals given perfect knowledge, morals are, in fact, objective, as any other entity with the same cognitive capacities would arrive to the same conclusions.

This applies for imperfect morals, as well. People who are less intelligent are also more amoral.

Confirmed by repeated thorough mixed methods quantitative/qualitative study: http://books.google.com...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 3:18:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/1/2010 1:35:35 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 11/1/2010 6:20:43 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I am not convinced that an 'objective' law giver such as God is the same as an objective moralty.:

Well, then who is calling the shots? Who made it absolute? Surely there is an arbiter assigning the line of demarcation. Anything less would be people arguing over opinions, which, as it stands, is the reality.

But we're dealing with hypotheticals here.


Power does not make something objective. If it's Gods law to wear an orange hat then it is cosmically illegal to not wear it, it is foolish not to wear it, but what makes it morally wrong... objectively.

Law and morality are not the same thing for a start:

Most laws, if not all, are hinged upon some moral imperative. Think about it. Don't do _________ because _________ is "wrong" or "bad." Anything less would be an arbitrary and nonsensical laws, like, you cannot walk sideways in your kitchen for more than exactly 3.26 seconds. You'll find yourself asking what conceivable reason such a law would exist. If you look at various crimes, however, like murder, rape, arson, theft, assault, child abuse, animal abuse, etc, there is always some moral driving the law... And that spells out, "Don't do this, because it is bad."

The principles that guide such moral laws do not appear to be objective. Even if one were to find a universal moral imperative that all humans share, it does not mean that it is objective. This is why the claim is such a big one and why I am calling it into question!


and also an objective moral system exists outside of any of its proponents or adherents, including God.:

How do you figure?

That is the definition of objective.


Hmm... though an objective morality might be termed God, perhaps some sort of deistic or non-personal one...:

I'm not saying the objective moral IS itself God, but rather it makes sense that if there is an objective moral law that an objective moral law giver logically follows.


I am actually that the opposite is true. Objective morality meshes far better with an athiestic universe.

And I'm certainly not saying that either exist, only that epistemilogically that it follows.

Some laws seem universal -- like murder. Almost everyone is against murder, but you'll find people disagreeing on what constitutes murder. Heh... A very important distinction. Everything is a matter of interpretation, and as you said, is subject to personal opinion. The laws that follow the moral come from popular consensus or those in power to enact their own conscience on the rest of society.

It's the way it's always been.

None of that provides the basis of an argument for objective morality.
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.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2010 2:14:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
No takers then?
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.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2010 7:08:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/3/2010 2:14:03 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
No takers then?

Not taking it, because i don't see how it can work without a higher power, God, design etc. However, there was a thread on natural rights, and there were many who believed in them who do not believe in God. How different can the argument be? Help me understand the difference between the existence of natural rights and objective morality, and how different would the argument be. I found the arguments in that thread by those who defended natural rights without a deity, or any implication of a deity weak.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2010 7:14:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/3/2010 2:14:03 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
No takers then?

Hahahahahahahaha. He won't reply to the posts he can't answer.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 12:34:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/3/2010 7:08:49 AM, innomen wrote:
At 11/3/2010 2:14:03 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
No takers then?

Not taking it, because i don't see how it can work without a higher power, God, design etc. However, there was a thread on natural rights, and there were many who believed in them who do not believe in God. How different can the argument be? Help me understand the difference between the existence of natural rights and objective morality, and how different would the argument be. I found the arguments in that thread by those who defended natural rights without a deity, or any implication of a deity weak.

I can't see how there is much of a difference between objective morality and natural rights, unless we get bogged down into semantics.
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.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 2:27:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Reply to Cerebral_Narcissist

I agree that morality is not "objective" in your strict sense of the word, however this doesn't mean that certain moral ideas are any less ontologically valid and true.

Morality and truth are both values-laden concepts in the first place, they're not supposed to be "objective". I'll begin at the beginning of this seemingly contradictory thought. I hold reality to be a self-expressive creative process, i.e., I have no need for the hypothesis of a supernatural deity (although the process is not without internal intelligence and transcendence that can be portrayed as God). Reality is all about bountifully and beautifully bringing forth and crystallizing its own intrinsic potentialities and values, i.e., even without a supernatural deity it has a predisposition to affirm and actualize certain possibilities over others.

The highest, most constructive, most affirming-of-reality's-creative-nature possibilities or values constitute goodness, including moral goodness. They also constitute truth. Morality and truth aren't rigidly objective quantities engraved in stone by some spooky supreme authoritarian being, morality and truth rather are whatever affirms the fundamental creative, beautiful, and life-bestowing nature of existence.

In short, morality and truth are a matter of making a subjective choice for whatever promotes creativity, growth, and the best potentialities of life. Which is to say that truth/morality is an emotional bias not a hard-and-fast objective intellectual principle, it's a flexible feeling in our gut, in our reasoning mind, and in our whole organism for the all the fecundity, grace, and nobility of reality. To borrow an expression from the liberation theologians, truth is a matter of "making a preferential option" for the best and most brilliant manifestations of reality's power. Morality is practicing such truth.

So, although morality is not a matter of objective facts it is a matter of subjectively apprehending the right values rather than an anything-goes proposition. That is, morality is subjective but not all made-up, it involves subjectively discovering and practicing the virtues of life and the creative existence we participate.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
tigg13
Posts: 302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 10:10:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
: Morals are essentially standards of conduct based on the concepts "right" and "wrong," which are synonymous with the dichotomies "correct and incorrect" as well as "true and false." Therefore, morals are the correct and true standards of conduct. More accurately, they're an approach pursuant to the best possible conduct.

You seem to assume in your definition of morality that "right" and "wrong" are to be understood as objective terms - right from an objective view point. But, since "right" and wrong" are, themselves, subjective terms, wouldn't it be more likely that they are referring to a subjective view point? So when you refer to the "best possible conduct" that would be the best from a subjective point of view.

Conduct is a collection of actions that comprise daily interactions, including social. Actions are twofold: 1) they are incited, 2) for a purpose. For example. You wake up and then brush your teeth. This is incited by what you understand to be the best means toward dental hygiene, which is a characteristic the action shares with it's purpose: to promote dental hygiene. Indeed, there may be other ways to promote and maintain dental hygiene, but they are not the best way, of which there can only be one.

The best way according to who? You're still assuming that morality is objective without having demonstrating it. You may think brushing in the morning is best but I may feel brushing in the evening is better.

This isn't to say that there is no conceivable way that I'm simply not aware of to better promote dental hygiene, but those are the limitations of morals, which, as something filtered through limited cognition, must have limitations.

And one of those limitations would be our subjective points of view.

But, just as reality exists despite our limited understanding of it, morals exist even if we're not capable of conceiving them.

I see no justification for this statement whatsoever. Please demonstrate how an abstract concept can exist without a mind to conceive it. How can "conduct" exist without anyone to adhere to it?

But, the point is that you do what you understand to be the best possible action because it is correct, as opposed to wrong, which is not the best possible action. Therefore, morals are principles formed in the interest of a collection of the best possible actions.

Again, "best" according to who?

How to Achieve the Best Action

There are three things necessary to achieve the best possible action: 1. Logic, 2. Pragmatism, and 3. Abstract thought.


Really? What about experience, guidance, instinct (subconscious intuition), or love?
Logic, pragmatism and abstract thought may be what you rely on the most, but to assume that everyone should think as you think is not a very objective position for you to take.

: Morals are thus objective as a principle, but this does not mean that they can manifest standardized laws. They can conceivably produce generalized laws, such as one against stealing, because there is no conceivable situation in which you could possibly validate stealing by means of the best option methodology. However, there is no such thing as a perfect set of laws, just as there is no such thing as a perfect moral code because humanity does not possess perfect cognition, nor does humanity have knowledge of every given variable that applies to existence. Therefore, we set aside our capacitative limitations and apply ourselves to our best abilities to conceive the best possible course of action.

If, like the rest of us, lack the cognitive ability to know what an objective moral law is, how can you say for sure that there are any? And wouldn't the "best possible course of action" be different for each person according to their limitations?

But, given that ethics could produce perfect morals given perfect knowledge, morals are, in fact, objective, as any other entity with the same cognitive capacities would arrive to the same conclusions.

But, since we are imperfect beings with unique points of view we can never come to exactly the same conclusions. So, even if morality were objective (which you've failed to demonstrate thus far) it would ill be unknowable and, thus, irrelevant.

This applies for imperfect morals, as well. People who are less intelligent are also more amoral.

This is just out and out, bigoted bias on your part. In fact, I can think of no other statement that you could have made that would better illustrate the subjective nature of morality than this.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2010 3:25:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
You didn't put my name there, so I didn't realize that you replied. This is old, but I'll respond anyway. :)

At 12/8/2010 10:10:20 PM, tigg13 wrote:
You seem to assume in your definition of morality that "right" and "wrong" are to be understood as objective terms - right from an objective view point. But, since "right" and wrong" are, themselves, subjective terms, wouldn't it be more likely that they are referring to a subjective view point? So when you refer to the "best possible conduct" that would be the best from a subjective point of view.

Well, no. "Right" and "wrong" are not subjective. They are objective. Observe:

1 + 2 = 3 Right
1 * 2 = 3 Wrong

Conduct is a collection of actions that comprise daily interactions, including social. Actions are twofold: 1) they are incited, 2) for a purpose. For example. You wake up and then brush your teeth. This is incited by what you understand to be the best means toward dental hygiene, which is a characteristic the action shares with it's purpose: to promote dental hygiene. Indeed, there may be other ways to promote and maintain dental hygiene, but they are not the best way, of which there can only be one.

The best way according to who? You're still assuming that morality is objective without having demonstrating it.

You're replying to my "demonstration."

You may think brushing in the morning is best but I may feel brushing in the evening is better.

Well, according to dental hygienists, it's best to brush your teeth both in the morning and in the evening. At night, while you're sleeping and your mouth is closed and left undisturbed, bacteria proliferates more than any other time. This is twofold--the bacteria themselves can be harmful, but it also causes your saliva to become acidic. This process slows, but continues throughout the day, if you choose to brush your teeth only at night. This is not to mention that your breath would be rancid.

Indeed, brushing your teeth first thing in the morning is the objective best, within the scope of toothbrushing as it's most commonly performed.

This isn't to say that there is no conceivable way that I'm simply not aware of to better promote dental hygiene, but those are the limitations of morals, which, as something filtered through limited cognition, must have limitations.

And one of those limitations would be our subjective points of view.

Nope. At least, it shouldn't be, morally speaking. However, everything is subjective, due to our limited knowledge and cognition.

But, just as reality exists despite our limited understanding of it, morals exist even if we're not capable of conceiving them.

I see no justification for this statement whatsoever. Please demonstrate how an abstract concept can exist without a mind to conceive it. How can "conduct" exist without anyone to adhere to it?

Mathematics is an abstraction; however, we are yet to understand the whole of mathematics. We continue to discover new ways that numbers interact every day.

But, the point is that you do what you understand to be the best possible action because it is correct, as opposed to wrong, which is not the best possible action. Therefore, morals are principles formed in the interest of a collection of the best possible actions.

Again, "best" according to who?

Best based on the extent of our knowledge and capacity for understanding.


How to Achieve the Best Action

There are three things necessary to achieve the best possible action: 1. Logic, 2. Pragmatism, and 3. Abstract thought.


Really? What about experience, guidance, instinct (subconscious intuition), or love?
Logic, pragmatism and abstract thought may be what you rely on the most, but to assume that everyone should think as you think is not a very objective position for you to take.

prag·ma·tism   
[prag-muh-tiz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.
character or conduct that emphasizes practicality.

It's nothing personal, dude.

People who make decisions based on emotions without any regard for logic or pragmatism make the wrong decision more times than not.

It's as though you're arguing that there's no such thing as correct and incorrect, or true and false.

: Morals are thus objective as a principle, but this does not mean that they can manifest standardized laws. They can conceivably produce generalized laws, such as one against stealing, because there is no conceivable situation in which you could possibly validate stealing by means of the best option methodology. However, there is no such thing as a perfect set of laws, just as there is no such thing as a perfect moral code because humanity does not possess perfect cognition, nor does humanity have knowledge of every given variable that applies to existence. Therefore, we set aside our capacitative limitations and apply ourselves to our best abilities to conceive the best possible course of action.

If, like the rest of us, lack the cognitive ability to know what an objective moral law is, how can you say for sure that there are any? And wouldn't the "best possible course of action" be different for each person according to their limitations?

Yes, but those specific courses of action are not the tenets of morality; it's how you arrive to that course of action.

But, given that ethics could produce perfect morals given perfect knowledge, morals are, in fact, objective, as any other entity with the same cognitive capacities would arrive to the same conclusions.

But, since we are imperfect beings with unique points of view we can never come to exactly the same conclusions. So, even if morality were objective (which you've failed to demonstrate thus far) it would ill be unknowable and, thus, irrelevant.

You have made no argument that suggests my premise is wrong. You have simply conjecturally stated that there is no such thing as right and wrong. Therefore, based on your premise, my argument cannot be wrong. It's just a different point of view that's every bit as valid as yours. My means of debating is irrelevant; there is no right way to debate, and no real fact in argumentation, therefore, the way I choose to present my points is every bit as valid as yours.

This applies for imperfect morals, as well. People who are less intelligent are also more amoral.

This is just out and out, bigoted bias on your part. In fact, I can think of no other statement that you could have made that would better illustrate the subjective nature of morality than this.

What?! For this, I provided clinical proof!

Unbelievable. Take a look at my link and revisit.
tigg13
Posts: 302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2010 12:10:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2010 3:25:13 PM, Ren wrote:
You didn't put my name there, so I didn't realize that you replied. This is old, but I'll respond anyway. :)

Sorry, my mistake.

: At 12/8/2010 10:10:20 PM, tigg13 wrote:
You seem to assume in your definition of morality that "right" and "wrong" are to be understood as objective terms - right from an objective view point. But, since "right" and wrong" are, themselves, subjective terms, wouldn't it be more likely that they are referring to a subjective view point? So when you refer to the "best possible conduct" that would be the best from a subjective point of view.

Well, no. "Right" and "wrong" are not subjective. They are objective. Observe:

1 + 2 = 3 Right
1 * 2 = 3 Wrong


(Why do moral objectivists always think that they can compare morality with mathematics as though they are somehow the same?)

Is capital punishment right or wrong?
Is abortion right or wrong?
Is gay marriage right or wrong?

And since you've pointed out that we are limited -

Is a + b = 3 right or wrong?

:You may think brushing in the morning is best but I may feel brushing in the evening is better.

Well, according to dental hygienists...
,

Yes, dental hygienists have an opinion on this topic as well, and their opinion may carry more weight on this topic than either yours or mine - but it is still their opinion.

: Indeed, brushing your teeth first thing in the morning is the objective best, within the scope of toothbrushing as it's most commonly performed.


But I'm an insomniac who has a great deal of trouble getting up in the morning which means, if I tried to brush in the morning I'd never brush at all. Now, if I were perfect like you I might do everything the "best" way just like you do. But I'm not you, so I have to do things my way.

Nope. At least, it shouldn't be, morally speaking. However, everything is subjective, due to our limited knowledge and cognition.

How can everything be subjective and yet morality is not? If you're arguing for an objective morality that is not knowable, how could such a thing possibly have any relevance?

But, just as reality exists despite our limited understanding of it, morals exist even if we're not capable of conceiving them.

I see no justification for this statement whatsoever. Please demonstrate how an abstract concept can exist without a mind to conceive it. How can "conduct" exist without anyone to adhere to it?

Mathematics is an abstraction; however, we are yet to understand the whole of mathematics. We continue to discover new ways that numbers interact every day.


I'm not saying that an abstract concept can only exist if we fully understand it, I'm asking how it can exist if the is no mind to conceive it? How could the study of mathematics exist if there were no one to study it?

: :
Again, "best" according to who?

Best based on the extent of our knowledge and capacity for understanding.


Why limit this to just knowledge and understanding? Can't you see that you are imposing your own subjective ideology into your explanations and just calling them "objective"?

: People who make decisions based on emotions without any regard for logic or pragmatism make the wrong decision more times than not.
:

So we should just ban emotions from now on? Strip everyone of their feelings and their individuality just because they lead to decisions that you think are wrong? What gives you the right to dictate what other people should be allowed to think? And what happens when someone comes along who claims to be smarter than you and demands that you adhere to what they say is correct? Will you submit to their authority just because they are certain that their answers are better than yours?

: It's as though you're arguing that there's no such thing as correct and incorrect, or true and false.

As far as morality is concerned, that is exactly what I'm arguing. The "right" thing to do is relative to the person who is making the choice, so there is no one choice that is always true or correct or "best". There may be popular choices (choices that most people would make in a given situation) but popular doesn't equate to correct. There may also be better answers relative to a given moral standard (such as "logic and practicality should always be your guide"), but there is no one moral standard that everyone is obliged to follow.

: You have made no argument that suggests my premise is wrong. You have simply conjecturally stated that there is no such thing as right and wrong. Therefore, based on your premise, my argument cannot be wrong. It's just a different point of view that's every bit as valid as yours. My means of debating is irrelevant; there is no right way to debate, and no real fact in argumentation, therefore, the way I choose to present my points is every bit as valid as yours.


Basically my argument is that you are begging the question by presuming that morality is objective and reading that presumption into your premises. And, since morality involves personal ideologies and limited points of view, there is no way to objectively evaluate them.
There is nothing in my premise that says you cannot be wrong. You most certainly can be wrong...in my opinion, and possibly, in the opinions of those who read this.

: : : This applies for imperfect morals, as well. People who are less intelligent are also more amoral.

This is just out and out, bigoted bias on your part. In fact, I can think of no other statement that you could have made that would better illustrate the subjective nature of morality than this.

What?! For this, I provided clinical proof!

Unbelievable. Take a look at my link and revisit.



I'm afraid I will have to address his at a later time.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2010 4:59:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/10/2010 12:10:19 AM, tigg13
: At 12/8/2010 10:10:20 PM, tigg13 wrote:
Well, no. "Right" and "wrong" are not subjective. They are objective. Observe:

1 + 2 = 3 Right
1 * 2 = 3 Wrong


(Why do moral objectivists always think that they can compare morality with mathematics as though they are somehow the same?)

Because they're both a priori.

Is capital punishment right or wrong?

Circumstantial.

Is abortion right or wrong?

Wrong.

Is gay marriage right or wrong?

Gay marriage is. There is no right and wrong regarding gay marriage. It's such a ridiculously petty concern that it has little to no universal value at all. In other words, it's circumstantial within the scope of only the parties directly involved.

And since you've pointed out that we are limited -

Is a + b = 3 right or wrong?

Right.

Given all possible values of a and b respectively, can their sum be equal to 3? Yes, they can. Given that the clause regards two variables, the only requirement for the sum to be factual is positive potential.

:You may think brushing in the morning is best but I may feel brushing in the evening is better.

Well, according to dental hygienists...
,

Yes, dental hygienists have an opinion on this topic as well, and their opinion may carry more weight on this topic than either yours or mine - but it is still their opinion.

No, it's not.

I provided empirical proof as to why it's best to brush your teeth first thing in the morning. This is on what hygienists base their recommendations.

o·pin·ion   
[uh-pin-yuhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

You provided no means to believe that the grounds on which dental hygienists base their instructions are insufficient to garner certainty.

: Indeed, brushing your teeth first thing in the morning is the objective best, within the scope of toothbrushing as it's most commonly performed.


But I'm an insomniac who has a great deal of trouble getting up in the morning

You don't have a job?

Well, anyway, to my knowledge, insomniacs have problems sleeping, not waking up. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're gonna have some explaining to do.

which means, if I tried to brush in the morning I'd never brush at all.

Eww, are you really saying that you don't brush your teeth when you wake up/skip days?

Now, if I were perfect like you I might do everything the "best" way just like you do. But I'm not you, so I have to do things my way.

This is true. So, not only will you likely experience dental problems, you're going to experience serious health problems due to insomnia, to boot.

Nope. At least, it shouldn't be, morally speaking. However, everything is subjective, due to our limited knowledge and cognition.

How can everything be subjective and yet morality is not? If you're arguing for an objective morality that is not knowable, how could such a thing possibly have any relevance?

Morality as objective as anything can be. Please don't tell me that you're a pure relativist. That's just retarded.

But, just as reality exists despite our limited understanding of it, morals exist even if we're not capable of conceiving them.

I see no justification for this statement whatsoever. Please demonstrate how an abstract concept can exist without a mind to conceive it. How can "conduct" exist without anyone to adhere to it?

Mathematics is an abstraction; however, we are yet to understand the whole of mathematics. We continue to discover new ways that numbers interact every day.


I'm not saying that an abstract concept can only exist if we fully understand it, I'm asking how it can exist if the is no mind to conceive it? How could the study of mathematics exist if there were no one to study it?

Why are you presenting this hypothetical? You're asking me how I could validate a priori rhetoric given that it may not exist without minds to consider it?

: :
Again, "best" according to who?

Best based on the extent of our knowledge and capacity for understanding.


Why limit this to just knowledge and understanding? Can't you see that you are imposing your own subjective ideology into your explanations and just calling them "objective"?

No. Please explain how I am doing that.

I would really appreciate if you actually approached my initial points rather than just repeating yourself, over and over and over, that you find my position conjectural. Because, I provided a rational logical argument, as well as clinical proof for my assertions.

: People who make decisions based on emotions without any regard for logic or pragmatism make the wrong decision more times than not.
:

So we should just ban emotions from now on? Bla bla ba...And what happens when someone comes along who claims to be smarter than you and demands that you adhere to what they say is correct? Will you submit to their authority just because they are certain that their answers are better than yours?

Hello, that is the reality around us. We adhere to a authoritarian system comprised of a hierarchical network based on the ideas of people who claim to be smarter.

: It's as though you're arguing that there's no such thing as correct and incorrect, or true and false.

As far as morality is concerned, that is exactly what I'm arguing.

That's not what I said.

Bla bla bla...but there is no one moral standard that everyone is obliged to follow.

Why not? Are you saying that there should be no such thing as accountability, either?

: You have made no argument that suggests my premise is wrong. You have simply conjecturally stated that there is no such thing as right and wrong. Therefore, based on your premise, my argument cannot be wrong. It's just a different point of view that's every bit as valid as yours. My means of debating is irrelevant; there is no right way to debate, and no real fact in argumentation, therefore, the way I choose to present my points is every bit as valid as yours.


Basically my argument is that you are begging the question by presuming that morality is objective

Nope. Rationally extrapolated an argument defending it and provided evidence.

and reading that presumption into your premises.

What?

And, since morality involves personal ideologies and limited points of view

Personal ideologies, it does not include, but limited points of view is inherent, as it is a characteristic shared with everything that we know to exist, whether abstract or not.

there is no way to objectively evaluate them.

False.

There is nothing in my premise that says you cannot be wrong. You most certainly can be wrong...in my opinion, and possibly, in the opinions of those who read this.

If morals are subjective, then how could anything be objectively wrong?

: : : This applies for imperfect morals, as well. People who are less intelligent are also more amoral.

This is just out and out, bigoted bias on your part. In fact, I can think of no other statement that you could have made that would better illustrate the subjective nature of morality than this.

What?! For this, I provided clinical proof!

Unbelievable. Take a look at my link and revisit.



I'm afraid I will have to address his at a later time.

Figures.
tigg13
Posts: 302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2010 10:20:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/10/2010 4:59:03 AM, Ren wrote:

There's way to many tangents here so I'm going to summarize:

Yes, I am, in fact, one of those "retarded" moral relativists. I fully support the idea that there is no such thing as objective morality; all there are, are subjective moral points of view and that some people have convinced themselves that their moral beliefs are actually objectively the best.

Now, why would I want to engage someone like this in a discussion when I know going in that their point of view is as valid as my own? Because to these people I don't just hold an apposing point of view, to them anyone who does not agree with them is objectively wrong. They see people like me as being as wrong as someone who says 2+2=5. I am not a valid person anymore which means that it's ok to dehumanize me by doing things like calling me "retarded". This is the type of thinking that leads to gulags and witch burnings.

So it's no surprise , really, that that link you wanted me to look at that supposedly supported your claim that intelligent people are more moral that "retarded" people leads to a book (The Relation Between Morality and Intelligence) written by a virtual nobody (Clara F. Chassell) in 1935 and that it's only claim to fame was how well it supported the eugenics movement.

Now, do I think I'm going to convince you that you're wrong? Nope. But if I can point out that all you've done is to try and define objective morality into existence by equating "right" and "wrong" with "true" and "false" (instead of, say, "more desirable" and "less desirable") then perhaps others will realize that your argument doesn't have the legs that you say it has.

Finally, I have couple of questions for you:

If morality were objective wouldn't we be able to measure it directly instead of just measuring it's effects? Wouldn't we be able to say how many lies equals 1 assault and how many thefts are equal to 1 murder?

If someone were to approach you with empirical data that proved that the human race were in danger of extinction and the only way to maximize our ability to survive were to start euthanizing 30% of all newborn babies (which, obviously would have to be done in secret) and that the decision over which babies to euthanize would have to be based on race, ethnic background, physical or mental disability, sexual preference and (of course) intelligence to insure the health and stability of our society, would you have any problem at all jumping onto this bandwagon?

And, lastly, if you were made ruler of the world, what would be your objective solution to the problem of dealing with "retarded" people like me? Would you have me exiled? Imprisoned? Lobotomized?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2010 10:27:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/10/2010 10:20:57 PM, tigg13 wrote:

If morality were objective wouldn't we be able to measure it directly instead of just measuring it's effects? Wouldn't we be able to say how many lies equals 1 assault and how many thefts are equal to 1 murder?


You're aware that there are ton's of entities in science - or, to be pedantic, postulated entities - that can't be measured directly and are still considered 'objective' (in the sense of mind-independence), right?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2010 10:38:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
how many cars equals one elephant?

quick, no further context given. ^_^
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2010 10:39:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/10/2010 10:38:00 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
how many cars equals one elephant?

quick, no further context given. ^_^

5

http://jubal.westnet.com...
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2010 10:54:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/10/2010 10:40:11 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Objective morality, haha, yur so silly.

Insightful.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2010 10:58:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/10/2010 10:54:58 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/10/2010 10:40:11 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Objective morality, haha, yur so silly.

Insightful.

It can if you want it to be.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2010 6:37:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/10/2010 10:54:58 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/10/2010 10:40:11 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Objective morality, haha, yur so silly.

Insightful.

Do you really expect more from a solipsist? :P
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2010 8:43:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/11/2010 6:37:47 AM, Puck wrote:
At 12/10/2010 10:54:58 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/10/2010 10:40:11 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Objective morality, haha, yur so silly.

Insightful.

Do you really expect more from a solipsist? :P

I can dream, can't I? :/
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2010 9:42:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/10/2010 10:39:40 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/10/2010 10:38:00 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
how many cars equals one elephant?

quick, no further context given. ^_^

5

http://jubal.westnet.com...

NO
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2010 8:52:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/10/2010 10:20:57 PM, tigg13 wrote:
At 12/10/2010 4:59:03 AM, Ren wrote:

There's way to many tangents here so I'm going to summarize:

Yes, I am, in fact, one of those "retarded" moral relativists. I fully support the idea that there is no such thing as objective morality; all there are, are subjective moral points of view and that some people have convinced themselves that their moral beliefs are actually objectively the best.

Although this is something that I'm sure you fully believe, it is not something that you actually apply. Using the remainder of your essay, I'm going to illustrate how you actually act on a moral foundation that you consider objective. In this regard, you belie your own premise, but I understand that this is likely pursuant of a utilitarianism that you don't realize is so extreme, it can likely lead to anarchy.

Now, why would I want to engage someone like this in a discussion when I know going in that their point of view is as valid as my own?

This is an appeal to what you assume is ultimately an objectively ethical approach to communication.

Because to these people I don't just hold an apposing point of view, to them anyone who does not agree with them is objectively wrong.

That's a rather extreme and sweeping claim. Not only are my perspectives none too popular on these boards (I would assume, I don't really get very much positive feedback or attention, save for a few isolated circumstances), but most of the people here do not consider their perspectives objective truth. They simply consider their perspectives the beliefs that are more compelling to them.

They see people like me as being as wrong as someone who says 2+2=5.

"Like you"?

I am not a valid person anymore which means that it's ok to dehumanize me by doing things like calling me "retarded".

Pure relativism is pretty retarded. It basically assumes that there's no actual reality. There is simply a collection of interpretations of something else entirely. Although I doubt we conceive reality in its entirety, I'm sure we get enough to have a basic idea.

This is the type of thinking that leads to gulags and witch burnings.

Uhhh, calm down, guy. Sheesh. I take it back? My goodness, here you can have it: morals are subjective. Happy?

I can't believe that someone who's arguing in favor of subjective morality could be so sensitive.

So it's no surprise , really, that that link you wanted me to look at that supposedly supported your claim that intelligent people are more moral that "retarded" people leads to a book (The Relation Between Morality and Intelligence) written by a virtual nobody (Clara F. Chassell) in 1935 and that it's only claim to fame was how well it supported the eugenics movement.

That's a pretty funny interpretation. It's not actually book, but the manuscript of a study performed in Columbia University, an Ivy League Institution, by an accomplished scholar from there. I guess to you, in your universally subjective omniscience, considers that virtually no one, but I find it rather impressive.

Now, do I think I'm going to convince you that you're wrong? Nope. But if I can point out that all you've done is to try and define objective morality into existence by equating "right" and "wrong" with "true" and "false" (instead of, say, "more desirable" and "less desirable")

Uhm. Right and wrong are much more true and false than they are "desirable and undesirable." You're mistaking "right and wrong" for "good and bad."

then perhaps others will realize that your argument doesn't have the legs that you say it has.

Actually, I said nothing for the validity of my argument. I did have some words about the strength of yours; past that, I respectfully requested that you approach my points rather then fly off into some bickering lala land.

Finally, I have couple of questions for you:

If morality were objective wouldn't we be able to measure it directly instead of just measuring it's effects?

No. This is because morality is what leads to actions; it is not actions themselves. It's a perspective, akin to rationality, intelligence, logic, and pragmatism. Indeed, you can measure these, but only to an extent, and without a great deal of precision. The best you can do is observe the products of these characteristics and render an approximate assessment.

Wouldn't we be able to say how many lies equals 1 assault and how many thefts are equal to 1 murder?

What are these things that you speak of? Are they some ideological axioms derived from your subjective moral foundation?

If someone were to approach you with empirical data

This here is a characteristic of debate ethics that you're assuming is objective.

that proved that the human race were in danger of extinction and the only way to maximize our ability to survive were to start euthanizing 30% of all newborn babies (which, obviously would have to be done in secret)

That would seriously be the only conceivable way to save the human race? You know, rather than limiting fertility or something like that?

Alright, lets say we were in this scenario where the human race would go extinct unless you somehow violate every one of your beliefs; does that not mean that your beliefs are completely invalid?

blablabla
And, lastly, if you were made ruler of the world, what would be your objective solution to the problem of dealing with "retarded" people like me? Would you have me exiled? Imprisoned? Lobotomized?

What on earth does that have to do with morality?

Anyway, I would never want to be "ruler of the world." I could never understand why anyone would want that. But, more than that, I have no idea why anyone would ever accept any single world ruler. To be honest, I really don't understand how people accept authority at all, but it certainly isn't predicated on a perceived superior morality. People don't have enough innate accountability for that.
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2010 2:18:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/1/2010 7:19:15 AM, innomen wrote:
At 11/1/2010 6:20:43 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

Actually i am looking forward to an argument for objective morality without a God of any sort. With a God it's easy to understand and believe in objective morality - same with natural rights, but without a God? - that's the argument i want to see.

This argument is contingent mainly upon logic. If a person is aware of how suffering feels, then it is logically apparent as to how someone else might feel while suffering, which implicates the actions that cause suffering to be objectively wrong.

Objective existence -- rocks, chairs, quasars -- is present, and so is objective morality.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2010 2:28:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/12/2010 2:18:34 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 11/1/2010 7:19:15 AM, innomen wrote:
At 11/1/2010 6:20:43 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

Actually i am looking forward to an argument for objective morality without a God of any sort. With a God it's easy to understand and believe in objective morality - same with natural rights, but without a God? - that's the argument i want to see.

This argument is contingent mainly upon logic. If a person is aware of how suffering feels, then it is logically apparent as to how someone else might feel while suffering, which implicates the actions that cause suffering to be objectively wrong.

Objective existence -- rocks, chairs, quasars -- is present, and so is objective morality.

Oh snap.

Sigh. It almost brings tear to my eye.

I'm glad someone else understands.