@xst68 It's no better than what the theists are saying. Either you accept some basis as a brute fact and you can make an objective system of morality on top of that assumption or you question the assumption and you can never start with a groundwork for morality.
Whether you convince me of objectivism or nihilism it makes no difference to my behavior. It's all semantics to me at this point.
It is most definitely a non sequitur to say that because 1+1=3 is objectively factually wrong, lying by saying that that 1+1=3 is objectively morally wrong.
It's a pity the term 'Objectivism' has been poo'd over by Ayn Rand. Objective Morality is not the same phrase as Objectivism thanks to her hijacking of the term, including all sorts of political and sociological baggage like an emphasis on capitalism and other elements unrelated to contemplation of reality in objective terms.
@TheHigherVoltage Fair enough. But your post cited the example of a penguin, which are not self aware as far as we've been able to tell. Also, Koko was an example of a gorilla learning sign language, not self awareness. Humans are currently the only animals that are unambiguously self aware.
I looked up the definition of altruism. I also looked up the definition of god and unicorn. Merely having an entry in the dictionary probably isn't sufficient proof of concept.
Seriously, why take the time to post your garbage on here? You clearly know absolutely nothing about objectivism just like the other guy. Read introduction to objectivist epistemology. Read philosophy: who needs it. Read the virtue of selfishness. Read objectivist forums. After that you may speak like an educated person on the subject.
@Dhorpatan The debate we're having now about morality is strikingly similar, in fact almost exactly the same as, the debate between a theist and a biologist about evolution. You're playing the part of the theist. The difference is, your 'God' or your 'Jesus' is called Ayn Rand, and instead of thinking that evolution has to account for things it can't account for, or be wrong, you think objectivism has to account for things it can't account for, or be wrong.
When you invoke "what is good and right is that which promotes the life of man", you are necessarily invoking a subjectively-derived value. You can't get to an objective morality by invoking subjective values.
And you can't ontologically position the objective fact of "life" any higher than the objective fact of "death".
And exercising objective rationality on top of such subjective values still does not get you to an objective reality.
Why do you invoke "what is good and right is that which promotes the LIFE of man" rather than "what is good and right is that which promotes the DEATH of man"?
Your reason is subjective.
Thus, your underlying foundation is irreparably subjective, and no amount of objective reasoning can twist an objective construct out of your subjective foundation.
How many times do I have to tell you. Based on what I recall, you didn't say DON'T use it. You said you PREFER Epydemic. I believe I told you I don't like using the name Epydemic because I feel silly using it.
@TheHigherVoltage This isn't the kind of issue whose answer will change the more data we have on it. Morality is a human invention, therefore depedent on a human mind, therefore subjective by definition.
@rhettboy Automobiles are human inventions too, but they operate according to objective principles in reality. Does the fact that automobiles are a human invention, dependent upon a human mind, make automobiles subjective by definition? Or do automobiles exist in objective reality? If so, then why can't the same be said for ethical principles? Your argument is flawed.
@rhettboy By this logic, then, you would say that Integral Calculus is subjective? Subjective has two senses, ontological or epistemological. If you are saying ethics are subjective in an ontological sense, then I would agree, since they are conceptual. But that doesn't mean they are subjective in an epistemological sense of being merely someones opinion, made up, or fictional. Your logic is flawed.
@MagisterPridgen No, calculus is not subjective. It is not context specific. Morality is. See, when you want to try and counterargue my points, it might be good if you actually read them.
@rhettboy Calculus is not context specific? What the hell universe do you live in? Everything is context specific. Reasoning doesn't occur in a vacuum. Well, not normally. I suppose if someone's mind is vacuous it might. What body of knowledge can you point to that you can take completely out of context and have it remain meaningful? All knowledge is contextual.
@rhettboy If morality is subjective in the sense of just made up (i.e. fictional), then you have no grounds to object if someone breaks into your home, ties you up, rapes your wife in front of you, kills her, kills your family, then locks you up in a 3x3 box for the rest of your life. After all, morality is just a human invention, dependent upon a human mind, and therefore subjective by definition. See the problem with this kind of thinking?
@rhettboy You're entitled to your opinion. That's what subjective means. Perhaps you should take your own advice and read some books on Objectivist Ethics, that way your arguments aren't strawmen.
@MagisterPridgen Subjective means what subjective means. If you've deviated from that definition, YOU are the one at fault, not me. Stop being so arrogant. You don't get to make up your own meaning of words just because the actual meaning doesn't fit your worldview.
@MagisterPridgen There have been cultures and situations where all of those actions done to a person would be considered "justice." We have, as a society (over my objections) decided that it's fine to kill entire families (and visitors and neighbors) in their homes if one of them has been branded (not legally proven) to be a "terrorist." See the problem with your kind of thinking? Objective morality is like a four-sided triangle.
@rhettboy "Morality is a human invention". That depends on how you define "morality". Watch animal behavior and you will see a variety of species socially acting with altruism, sense of justice, and behavior that appears moral. There's a penguin documentary where a mother penguin's young dies; she steals a baby from a weaker neighbor; several other penguins surrounded the thief and squak and push the theif, and guide the young back to it's mother.
That's not morality, because the organisms performing those actions aren't self aware. Assigning moral worth, right and wrong, to organisms that can't know any better is just silly. Any 'altruism' or 'morality' comes from us imbuing this or that action with the moral worth it would have, if the organisms were humans instead of [insert non-human animal].
@TheHigherVoltage Fair enough. But your post cited the example of a penguin, which are not self aware as far as we've been able to tell. Also, Koko was an example of a gorilla learning sign language, not self awareness. Humans are currently the only animals that are unambiguously self aware.
I looked up the definition of altruism. I also looked up the definition of god and unicorn. Merely having an entry in the dictionary probably isn't sufficient proof of concept.
@rhettboy (1) Koko use to have a cat, and was sad when she died. Koko later on, discussed death with her trainer. If grief and self-awareness that Koko too will die one day is not self-awareness, what is?
(2) We also know animals like dolphins are self-aware. Interactions with mirrors give strong evidence of this.
(3) Altruism, as defined by the dictionary, defines all parents of every species who require nursing. Google "dog saves dog". That's altruistic behavior as well.
@TheHigherVoltage Koko's language ability is probably a better example of the power of operant conditioning than actual language ability. Also, as far as I'm aware, the 'grief' was just the trainer's interpretation of a sound that sounded like human crying. That could well be the case, but it's hardly unambiguous evidence of self awareness.
@TheHigherVoltage Also, dogs can't do things with moral worth, because they're not self aware. Any moral worth is imposed on them from the humans observing the behaviour. Technically, that can actually be said for any animal from which we can't actually gain first hand confirmation that they intended their actions to have any moral worth. Which is all of them, except humans. They may be 'moral-like', things that have moral worth to humans, but they cannot be actually moral.
@rhettboy 'intention'. How is the intention different between a human putting itself in danger to save another, and another animal species doing the same?
Also, how do you define 'self-aware'? I can recognize myself in a mirror (a primary indication of self-awareness) as do many other species (such as other primates, dolphins, elephants, etc.) We also know many other animals are capable of sitting back and reasoning out problems.
@TheHigherVoltage It's different because as far as we've been able to tell, non-human animals do it on instinct, rather than as a volitional, intentional action. Self awareness is hard to define, but it's definitely more than just looking in a mirror and being able to recognise that you are yourself. It encompasses the awareness of yourself as yourself, as well as an awareness your place in relation to the rest of the world.I'm pretty sure that's uniquely human.
@rhettboy " It's different because as far as we've been able to tell, non-human animals do it on instinct" The most primal instinct is self-preservation, altruistic animal behavior goes against instinct.
" as well as an awareness your place in relation to the rest of the world." If that's the criteria, then most humans I know don't qualify as self-aware. :/
@TheHigherVoltage I agree. Which is why I also think morality has 'devolved' into having little more than utility value these days. It's a very powerful control tool.
@rhettboy I disagree. In the Western World, less than 200 years ago slavery was deemed moral. 100 years ago treating women like shit was moral, as was child labor.
Interestingly enough, the self-proclaimed 'bastions of morality' in the Western World (Christianity) were the supporters of those 3 examples of immorality.
@TheHigherVoltage I would argue that, at least for slavery and child labor, they persisted not because they were 'moral' but because they were actually really really useful. As for treating women like shit... People treat people like shit all the time still today and don't think twice about it.
@TheHigherVoltage I wouldn't know, I wasn't around 200 years ago to gauge the moral worth of those things. I'd be interested to know, if I was around, how we'd be able to tell the difference between something that was seen as amoral and useful and something that had some moral worth and was also peripherally useful.
Just because we attach some moral worth to things in one era, it's entirely possible that there was once no moral worth attached.
@rhettboy There's plenty of political and religious arguments, dated and on record, surrounding slavery, child labor and women's rights. From Vatican edicts to political speeches. All it takes is research.
@TheHigherVoltage Individuals don't matter when we get to that scale. Natural selection works at the species level. 'Altruism' equals stupidity (from a gene's perspective), so 'altruistic' individuals are soon weeded out.
@rhettboy "Natural selection works at the species level." huh? Natural selection operates on individual procreation. When there's enough mutation/natural selection differentiation, a new species is classified.
" 'Altruism' equals stupidity (from a gene's perspective)" Agreed.
"so 'altruistic' individuals are soon weeded out." If that were true, shouldn't altruistic behavior not exist by now?
@TheHigherVoltage I've only ever seen unrepeated findings from single subject, or small group studies, that provide pretty ambiguous evidence that some animals have various subsets of the entire suite of cognitive capacities that need to all be in place in order to say that an animal is anything but 'moral-like'. Only humans have the complete package.
@TheHigherVoltage Also, as far as I'm aware there's no unambiguous evidence, observational or otherwise, that any animals other than humans are self aware. And certainly no repeated results.
@rhettboy As a sidenote, the Goethe University Frankfurt has been studying the self-awareness of birds for several years now, most notably magpies - which routinely recognize themselves in mirrors (self-aware). We know the evidence is not anecdotal, as the birds will groom themselves based on what they see in the mirror.
Does someone want to tell me why it's such a big deal that the atheist side makes up an objective basis for their morality? When a theist accuses me of not having an objective basis for my morality I say 'You're right, I don't. And nor do you. You just think you do'.
"why it's such a big deal that the atheist side makes up an objective basis for their morality"
It's because if one's position can't account for objective morality, then that position is wrong. You would not be able to logically call yourself an Atheist if you wanted to be true to logic and reality. This is because some things are really right, and some things are really wrong, and it's not simply a matter of feeling or opinion. And for that to be the case, they must be objective.
(Part 3) If you say that it is good to love and care for a child, that logically entails that this is the case independent of anyone's feelings or opinion.
Because if loving and caring for a child, being good, is only a matter of subjective opinion, then that logically entails that there is no truth to loving a child being good. Since truth is objective, not subjective. Truth cannot obtain on subjective fount.
(Part 4) If loving and caring for a child is only a matter of SUBJECTIVE OPINION, then you have no valid or logical ground from which to condemn or judge a person who feels it is good to hurt a child.
Because if what is right or wrong, good or evil, is subjective, then that makes it relative. Which means truth can be made up at whim, and that's a logical contradiction, because truth is not relative. Truth cannot be changed by subjective intentionality(I.E. wishing, feelings, desire)
(Part 6) And for that to be the case, morality must be objective. Because truth cannot obtain on subjective fount. To say there is no objective morality, is to deny rationally self evident facts of reality. All sane and rational men know that some things are really right, and some things are really wrong. That they are wrong or evil, Independent of opinions to the contrary.
There's one crucial connection you have to make Dhorpatan - according to Objectivism, the standard of value is NOT mankind as a whole, but rather, the life of the INDIVIDUAL human being who is acting. The reason Objectivism condemns murder and other such acts of force is because it upholds the principle of individual rights, and it is in the selfish interests of all individuals to uphold those rights. Furthermore, among rational, honest individuals, there are no clashes of interests.
Where in the video did I say the standard of value is mankind as a whole? The ultimate standard of value, and therefore the ontological basis for morality, is life itself. Since that is what morality is....a guide to living.
@Dhorpatan You have to stress INDIVIDUAL life, because so many people will automatically assume you're talking about "mankind" or "society", since altruism/collectivism have been drummed into them from birth.
Philosophy noob here. So, if I understand correctly, as an objectivist, one sets objective values based on their subjective values, and then therefore can argue objectively whether something is right or wrong. Is that right?
Also, if im right, is there some kind of reference to what is normally thought to be objectively right and wrong? I like this whole objectivism thing, I would like to learn more.
@mattmar826 I think you're on the right track, but your thinking is muddled and confused. To clarify, the point is that the alternatives we are currently offered, that morality comes from God or that it is a social convention, are both incorrect, i.e. a false dichotomy. Knowledge of ethics is achieved the same as knowledge of everything else, through the application of reason to reality. That's the sense in which it is objective, because it's rational, not mystical or social.
@Dhorpatan I do, of course, agree with you. But this can only be discovered by the application of reason to reality, which I'm trying to work these people up to. Otherwise they won't get to the point of being able to understand what you are saying. This is why Peikoff emphasizes that objectivity in the epistemological sense is most important, i.e. according to a rational method that discovers truths about reality and is not cut off from it ala Kant's anti-realism.
@Dhorpatan I have infinite respect for advocates of reason, which is why I sub'd and friended you. When I see people commenting who don't understand, i.e. those who haven't studied philosophy in general, or Objectivism in particular, I try as best I can to set them straight. Not because it's a contest, but because I want to make the world a better place, just as you do. Happy holidays!
@MagisterPridgen So, essentially, how do we determine what is objectively right or wrong. You talk about reason to reality, would that translate to observing that we have feelings, and working around each other's feelings? I still don't see where the objectives come from.
Objective morality means a code designed to guide one's actions in order to sustain one's life and flourish. The means to achieving that end are set forth by the objective requirements of man's life. If one chooses one doesn't want to sustain one's own life (and flourish), then one's choice is therefore to die. No one has a problem with choosing suicide, but don't pretend you can get away with valuing whatever you wish. That won't work.
@Soupflakez "I should add: no one has a problem with choosing suicide if there is no means to achieving sustenance and a flourishing life."
Most religious people claim to have a problem with ever choosing suicide - no matter how bad it gets. Personally, I find that fucktarded...but that's religion for ya.
@MagisterPridgen@Soupflakez Thanks for all the responses, but I still have a lot of questions you feel up to it ^.^ You both talk about the right of life, where does that come from? I understand how under this right and wrong can be reasoned, but why is the right to life valued? Why can't I get away with valuing whatever I wish? I find the concept of things being inherently right or wrong difficult to grasp, I guess.
@mattmar826 Unless you are alive, and rational, the concepts right and wrong don't apply. In a universe full of rocks morality is irrelevant. That's why life is the primary value. That doesn't, however, mean that you personally have to value life. It only means that if you don't then certain results will follow, such as you dying or someone killing you without any objection on your part. After all, you don't care whether you live or die, right?
@mattmar826 But we are not in a universe full of rocks. There are, in fact, living rational beings in this universe and that is the reality from which a code of ethics is derived. We could also say that in a universe full of rocks there would be no science of biology. That doesn't mean that in this universe biology is just some made up fictitious nonsense. Likewise with ethics.
@mattmar826 We don't determine it. If we did it wouldn't be objective would it? We learn about it, discover it, gain knowledge of it the same way we do anything else - by the application of reason to reality. As a simple example, people generally agree that murder is wrong. But why? If ethics is a guide to living, then the right to life is obviously the first principle of it. Murder contradicts this. This also explains why, if someone tries to murder you, it is your right to defend yourself.
@mattmar826 If someone physically attacks you they have chosen to forfeit their rights by violating yours. This is how ethical principles serve as an objective guide to making rational decisions. In both cases the principle of life guides you in what is and is not permissible in different contexts. Reason must be our guide because people are not infallible and may arrive at different conclusions. That's why moral philosophy as a guide to action is a requirement of human life.
In my assessment, the christian view of objective morality, and particularly from divine command theory, is in fact the rankest form of subjective morality: moral relativism. The subjective morality that most atheists profess, is actually much more objective than the theist perspective.
religious people seem to claim their morality is objective b/c its independent from the minds of man, by making it dependent upon another mind, that of a god.
but its still dependent upon a mind, and things dependent upon perception of minds are definitively subjective.
so they are just replacing one set of orders for another, and picking an irrelevant detail that only makes it slightly different from the morals of men.
@TheHigherVoltage "I've yet to find any example of 'objective morality' that isn't proven subjective under scrutiny."
To use Sam Harris' reasoning (as I understand it) one has to make at least one assumption about any objective reality (e.g. we have to assume we aren't in the matrix and the spoon really does exist). But that doesn't invalidate all objective reasoning built upon that core assumption.
@TheHigherVoltage If you define reason, or "scrutiny", as "subjective" then I can see why you'd believe that. By that argument physics, biology, mathematics, and every other subject is subjective.
@Dhorpatan I take it you didn't get my point. Specifically, you claim (para) that 'what promotes the life of man is good / what harms the life of man is evil'.
What promotes and what harms/destroys is largely (if not almost completely) subjective. Subjective conditions cannot be a basis for objective morality.
The standard of evaluation is objective, as it's independent of the mind, and the ontological foundation for it is also objective, since life is an objective fact. You can split hairs till the cows come home with retarded nonsense about what promotes and what harms/destroys is largely subjective. Of course it's not. Any idiot can tell what promotes life and what harms/destroys it. But people want to play devils advocate on my videos and resist what I say, so that's what they'll do.
@Dhorpatan "Any idiot can tell what promotes life and what harms/destroys it."
Let's find out :
(1) In moderation, alcohol has health and social benefits, however a shitload of people are harmed or die from alcohol related incidents each year. Is keeping alcohol legal morally good, or morally evil?
You have to employ reason and logic to come to conclusions. Objectivism stresses that in it's philosophy. That reason applied to reality is how we come to objective truth.
If reason shows that alcohol IN MODERATION, has health and social benefits, then it is good to drink alcohol if you value drinking it. If reason has shown that too much alcohol makes you drunk, and causes alcohol related incidents, then it is wrong to drink alcohol excessively. It's not hard.
@Dhorpatan I understand where you're coming from, but you deviated from my question in making it a personal issue of self control. I'm testing to see if your proposal can apply to moral issues that are not as black and white as your examples.
Is keeping alcohol legal objectively moral or objectively immoral?
Keeping alcohol legal is not a moral issue. It is a political issue as that deals with individual freedom, or the lack thereof. Now, whether it's right or wrong to drink alcohol is a moral issue.
Yes, a non ectopic abortion is morally right, if the woman does not value the fetus.
@Dhorpatan So selling alcohol is not a moral issue...but consuming alcohol is a moral issue? I'll have to think about this...something doesn't seem right...but maybe I'm wrong.
"Yes, a non ectopic abortion is morally right, if the woman does not value the fetus."
If a woman's subjective value (towards the fetus) determines if her action was morally right or wrong, then that equally applies to Aaron, and allows me to slap the shit outta him, and be morally right if I do not value him.
@Dhorpatan I'd also like to re-ask : According to the framework you propose, is non-ectopic abortion objectively moral or objectively immoral? or subjective?
@Dhorpatan (cont) Implying I'm an idiot or only playing devil's advocate when questioning and testing your system is way off the mark. If your hypothesis holds up to scrutiny - I'll adopt and promote it. If it can't, I won't. To me, that's just skeptical inquiry and common sense. I'm just not going to take anyone's word for anything - no matter how sure they are.
@TheHigherVoltage I believe in objective morals. My argument is similar to Sam Harris' Moral Landscape, that we can at least determine that some things are better than others. I also believe that each moral question has an optimum answer which is the "objective" moral for that question. However we still need a lot of thought about moral questions and debate to find the optimum answer. Just because Dhorpatan does not have every moral answer does not mean the answer is not there.
@TheHigherVoltage Do some thinking! I just argued that they are there. What would make an objective moral? For starters it has to apply to you and your god if you have one. No one rule for everyone else and a speacial one for you.
@adolthitler If you accept Harris' argument you accept subjective, not objective, morality. Harris' argument is that there are objective facts we can make moral value judgements about, which are entirely dependent on our brain states. That makes them subjective by definition.
(Part 2) If good and evil is simply a matter of opinion, then that contradicts reality and knowledge itself because there would then be no good and evil, since truth and facts cannot obtain on subjective ground. Thus to say there is no objective morality, no objective good and evil, is to deny logic and reality. Because there clearly is a good and evil in the world. What is good and evil is not simply a matter of subjective opinion, that can be wished away or denied at whim.
(Part 5) If morality was subjective, then a person would be right to say it is good to harm and abuse a child. But we know they are wrong, because there really is good and evil in the world. They are objective facts of reality.
@rhettboy Are those brains states part of reality? Can we be mistaken in those judgments, or are we omniscient/infallible? By what methods and standards do we distinguish correct from incorrect judgments? Do we just make that shit up? Or is it also part of reality? If we were infallible we wouldn't need reason, since we couldn't be mistaken about things. Does all of this, or does it not, occur in an objective reality?
@MagisterPridgen There's no such thing as objectively correct and incorrect moral judgements. There cannot be. When something is a human invention, as morality is, and is context specific, as moral judgements are, that means that they can only ever be subjectively correct or incorrect.
@adolthitler 1+1=2 regardless of whether there are brains there to think it. Our brains merely make it a meaningful fact about the world, but our brains do not make it a true fact. Lying is not morally wrong regardless of whether there are brains there to think it. Our brains make it both meaningful and true. Math is objective, morality is subjective.
Morality is objective if one has an objective standard of evaluation to judge behavior and values beyond mere social convention or emotion.
Also, morality is objective, because there are clearly some things that are really right, and some things that are really wrong, independent of subjective judgement to the contrary(I.E. independent of the mind).
@Dhorpatan You've yet to demonstrate either of those things. You think you have, but you haven't. You've just asserted them. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I demonstrated it in the video sparky. I offered robust argumentation, which you have done nothing to refute. I don't see why someone would want to refute it. It's sound, logical, and gives a fantastic objective ground for the long sought after objective morality on Atheistic ground.
@Dhorpatan You shouldn't need to sound like a used car salesman when selling your 'argument', not that there was one, in the video or elsewhere. All you've made is a bunch of assertions. I know you can't see it, but that's what you did.
An assertion is basically a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief. There's nothing wrong with that. So, you probably mean I made bare assertions, which of course, you've done nothing to prove.
You're welcome to point out where I made any bare assertions. Otherwise, you can move along, as you seem only capable of wasting my time, and being antagonistic and hostile towards me as always.
@Dhorpatan "You're welcome to point out where I made any bare assertions": 0.00-4.14
By the way, I'm not being antagonistic or hostile towards you. I am merely disagreeing with you. If I was being antagonistic or hostile towards you, trust me, you'd know about it. Disagreement is not hostility nor is it antagonism.
Do you have some mental problems Rhettboy? I said you are welcome to point out where I made any bare assertions, and you say by numbers, the whole video.
It's like you have a mental problem or something, because you are deranged enough to claim someone else is making assertions(more appropriately called bare assertions), while you yourself are doing the exact same thing. Making bare assertions, and passing it off as fact.
@Dhorpatan If it makes you feel any better, I've given your assertions more attention than the summary dismissal they deserve by having various discussions here in the comments.
I wouldn't be too butthurt if I was you. Most people just wouldn't bother. They'd just dismiss them outright, which is actually all the thought they deserve.
Do you really have mental problems, or are you really this incapable of backing up your empty declarations? What assertions did I make in the video, that was not backed up by argument/support? Which would make them therefore, BARE ASSERTIONS, and thus fallacious.
Wow. It's like I'm dealing with a mental patient. Seriously. I don't want to jump to conclusions, but you appear to have some serious mental problems Rhettboy.
Making an observation, is not arrogance sparky. And you need to learn what an Ad Hominem is. Anyway, you've wasted enough of my time with your mentally deranged circles and empty declarations.
@Dhorpatan You've said that to me about 5 different times, yet you keep replying. Interesting, that. It's like you have to say it every so often in case you forget. Nevermind. You're arrogant so you're always right by default. Be bouyed by that I guess.
@rhettboy 1+1 =3 is a lie. 1 +1 =2 and therefore lying is wrong objectively. The fact that you can choose to say the wrong thing or the right thing does not prevent the right thing from being objectively right and the wrong thing from being objectively wrong.
@adolthitler Seriously? That's probably one of the biggest non-sequiturs I've ever seen. I sincerely hope you aren't seriously advancing that as an argument.
If you're someone trying to demonstrate how silly it is to try and apply objectivism to morality, congratulations on a job welll done.
@rhettboy It is not a non sequitur it follows from your statement that 1+1=2 is objective. And the statement that "lying cannot be shown to be morally wrong". Where the comment popped up, you'll have to bitch to youtube.
I admit it is not an argument for the morality but it does argue the objectivity of lying being wrong. The morality would require more situational details. But as a general guide to you try "the boy who cried wolf".
@TheHigherVoltage That is a commendable attitude and approach, which I applaud you for, but if you are sincerely interested you should take the time and effort to do the hard work for yourself. You can't expect others to spoon feed you for your own edification and self gratification. We aren't obligated to and we exist for our own sake, not for yours.
(Part 2) The reason why we can objectively know what harms and destroys the life of man or said volitional organism, and what promotes it, is because that principle is grounded in the Law of Identity. What harms and destroys life, and what promotes it is based on the very nature of life itself. But of course we also must take into account context and as always, utilize reason and logic which Objectivism expressly articulates.
@rhettboy I dunno man, I'm hesitant to declare 'It won't be found either.' It seems almost every time we put limits on what can be done, humans have found a way to break through.
Sorry, but all you did is subjectively assign a subjective definition to morality in a way that was subjectively satisfactory for your personal use. There is no objective morality.
@DynaCatlovesme Perhaps you should study something on the subject so you won't be arguing against a strawman. I recommend The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand, The Moral Landscape by Same Harris, and Viable Values by Tara Smith. If you actually make it through those three books and remain unconvinced that ethics is objective (i.e. rational), then there is likely no convincing you. However, the fact of your not being convinced in no way alters the fact that ethics is as objective.
@MagisterPridgen It's not clear to me if you mean exactly the same thing as "morality" when you use the word "ethics" but I'll still condescend to wasting some time on you.
Is every person rational? Does every person function by a system of ethics?
@DynaCatlovesme Morality and ethics are synonymous. All things being equal, people possess a rational faculty, but they must choose to exercise that faculty and be guided by it. So in that sense people are not rational by default. Also, there is the possibility of misuse or misapplication. That is where the studies of epistemology and logic come in. There is correct and incorrect reasoning. Not everyone functions ethically, otherwise there would be no unethical people and there obviously are.
@MagisterPridgen I apologize for the snarkiness, I was "touchy" earlier for some reason, felt bad about it after for hours. Don't care to discuss further at present.
@DynaCatlovesme Apology accepted. I try not to allow rational discussions to become personal and prefer instead to focus on the relevant issues. No need to feel bad my friend. Your intellectual honesty is inspiring and praiseworthy. Such is an example of ethical integrity in action. Don't hesitate to contact me when/if you'd like to discuss it further. I'm a philosophy major with a minor in neuroscience, so this definitely interests me. Happy holidays!
1st we must properly define what we mean by morality & ethics & simply stating it is good vs bad behavior is insufficient
Once a sufficiently clear definition of morality is provided, then we can acquire objective facts that support which behaviors qualify as moral vs immoral
But everyone wants to skip step #1 & assume good vs bad behavior is apparent to all, but it isn't.
So the 1st step of definining morality is subjective in nature & that's just the way it is. To protest against this reality is like complaining that in order to see we must open our eyes & this just isn't fair
But once this is definitional effort is sufficiently done, then we do have a solid foundation upon which to objectively ground morality thru empirical facts derived from our experience of life
@LetReasonPrevail1 I say your reasoning seems sound but I'm not immediately convinced that there are "objective facts that support which behaviors qualify as moral vs immoral" that are non-situational. I am also not convinced that there are no situational moral behaviors that are, in fact, desirable, but nevertheless supported by no objective facts.
@DynaCatlovesme Being situational or contextual doesn't make them any less objective. In fact, to understand the objective meaning of ANYTHING the context ALWAYS has to be taken into account. That's why taking things out of context is a dishonest rhetorical tactic and why it leads to confusion about what is actually the case.
@MagisterPridgen You are doing a couple of things, I thnk. Firstly, you are incorrectly equating Objectivism (the Randian philosophy, I presume) with objectivity. Secondly, you are making the same error that is often made in logic whereby an argument that is internally logical is considered true. You can have an internally objective view, but it is not objective extenally by definition.
Sorry, but all you did was subjectively claim that I subjectively assigned a subjective definition to morality in a blah blah blah. When you can actually present a reasoned argument against the objective morality I offered, go ahead.
I don't know why you would want to fight the morality offered here thought, since it provides a detailed solution to the long sought after objective morality on Atheist fount. To deny objective morality is extremely dangerous and illogical.
@Dhorpatan I am not "fighting the morality offered here" as it is not relevant in it's details, I am only insisting that it is not objective. I rather agree with you that the denial of objective morality is potentially dangerous among the uneducated.
But your insistence that it is not objective, has no merit, since you are not proving it true with reason or logic, but rather simply making empty declarations.
So morality is objective IF morality is objective. Yup that really clears up the confusion genius.
xst68 1 month ago
@xst68 It's no better than what the theists are saying. Either you accept some basis as a brute fact and you can make an objective system of morality on top of that assumption or you question the assumption and you can never start with a groundwork for morality.
Whether you convince me of objectivism or nihilism it makes no difference to my behavior. It's all semantics to me at this point.
RuinSonic 2 weeks ago
It is most definitely a non sequitur to say that because 1+1=3 is objectively factually wrong, lying by saying that that 1+1=3 is objectively morally wrong.
rhettboy 1 month ago
It's a pity the term 'Objectivism' has been poo'd over by Ayn Rand. Objective Morality is not the same phrase as Objectivism thanks to her hijacking of the term, including all sorts of political and sociological baggage like an emphasis on capitalism and other elements unrelated to contemplation of reality in objective terms.
Tigranis 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheHigherVoltage Fair enough. But your post cited the example of a penguin, which are not self aware as far as we've been able to tell. Also, Koko was an example of a gorilla learning sign language, not self awareness. Humans are currently the only animals that are unambiguously self aware.
I looked up the definition of altruism. I also looked up the definition of god and unicorn. Merely having an entry in the dictionary probably isn't sufficient proof of concept.
rhettboy 1 month ago
@Dyna
Seriously, why take the time to post your garbage on here? You clearly know absolutely nothing about objectivism just like the other guy. Read introduction to objectivist epistemology. Read philosophy: who needs it. Read the virtue of selfishness. Read objectivist forums. After that you may speak like an educated person on the subject.
hypnoz123 1 month ago
Morality: An action or thought promoting health and well being while reducing or eliminating unnecessary suffering.
Immorality: An action or thought promoting unnecessary suffering while diminishing health and well being.
Under this definition the God of Abraham is very immoral.
metalsusa1 2 months ago
Great upload!
buktomsin 2 months ago
@Dhorpatan The debate we're having now about morality is strikingly similar, in fact almost exactly the same as, the debate between a theist and a biologist about evolution. You're playing the part of the theist. The difference is, your 'God' or your 'Jesus' is called Ayn Rand, and instead of thinking that evolution has to account for things it can't account for, or be wrong, you think objectivism has to account for things it can't account for, or be wrong.
rhettboy 2 months ago
When you invoke "what is good and right is that which promotes the life of man", you are necessarily invoking a subjectively-derived value. You can't get to an objective morality by invoking subjective values.
And you can't ontologically position the objective fact of "life" any higher than the objective fact of "death".
And exercising objective rationality on top of such subjective values still does not get you to an objective reality.
Your foundation remains subjective.
philstilwell 2 months ago
Why do you invoke "what is good and right is that which promotes the LIFE of man" rather than "what is good and right is that which promotes the DEATH of man"?
Your reason is subjective.
Thus, your underlying foundation is irreparably subjective, and no amount of objective reasoning can twist an objective construct out of your subjective foundation.
philstilwell 2 months ago
well worded, strait to the point, and a point that neeeds addressing. Good show sir, do you mind if I quote you?
arkmade 2 months ago
The line about slapping the snot out of that kid, I found to be hilarious!
HonestTechnoAtheist 2 months ago
You really didn't seem to grasp the whole "don't use my real name on youtube" request did you?
Epydemic2020 2 months ago 2
@Epydemic2020
How many times do I have to tell you. Based on what I recall, you didn't say DON'T use it. You said you PREFER Epydemic. I believe I told you I don't like using the name Epydemic because I feel silly using it.
Stop being so prickly and uptight.
Dhorpatan 2 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage This isn't the kind of issue whose answer will change the more data we have on it. Morality is a human invention, therefore depedent on a human mind, therefore subjective by definition.
rhettboy 2 months ago
@rhettboy Automobiles are human inventions too, but they operate according to objective principles in reality. Does the fact that automobiles are a human invention, dependent upon a human mind, make automobiles subjective by definition? Or do automobiles exist in objective reality? If so, then why can't the same be said for ethical principles? Your argument is flawed.
MagisterPridgen 2 months ago
@MagisterPridgen Because ethical principles, or anything that exists in concept only, are
1. abstract and
2. context specific.
The existence of an automobile, or any object, is concrete and not context specific.
rhettboy 2 months ago
@rhettboy By this logic, then, you would say that Integral Calculus is subjective? Subjective has two senses, ontological or epistemological. If you are saying ethics are subjective in an ontological sense, then I would agree, since they are conceptual. But that doesn't mean they are subjective in an epistemological sense of being merely someones opinion, made up, or fictional. Your logic is flawed.
MagisterPridgen 2 months ago
@MagisterPridgen No, calculus is not subjective. It is not context specific. Morality is. See, when you want to try and counterargue my points, it might be good if you actually read them.
rhettboy 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rhettboy Calculus is not context specific? What the hell universe do you live in? Everything is context specific. Reasoning doesn't occur in a vacuum. Well, not normally. I suppose if someone's mind is vacuous it might. What body of knowledge can you point to that you can take completely out of context and have it remain meaningful? All knowledge is contextual.
MagisterPridgen 2 months ago
@rhettboy If morality is subjective in the sense of just made up (i.e. fictional), then you have no grounds to object if someone breaks into your home, ties you up, rapes your wife in front of you, kills her, kills your family, then locks you up in a 3x3 box for the rest of your life. After all, morality is just a human invention, dependent upon a human mind, and therefore subjective by definition. See the problem with this kind of thinking?
MagisterPridgen 2 months ago
@MagisterPridgen No I don't. Those things are illegal. Those are my grounds for objection.
rhettboy 2 months ago
@MagisterPridgen Further, you don't know what subjective means. Read a book.
rhettboy 2 months ago
@rhettboy You're entitled to your opinion. That's what subjective means. Perhaps you should take your own advice and read some books on Objectivist Ethics, that way your arguments aren't strawmen.
MagisterPridgen 2 months ago
@MagisterPridgen Subjective means what subjective means. If you've deviated from that definition, YOU are the one at fault, not me. Stop being so arrogant. You don't get to make up your own meaning of words just because the actual meaning doesn't fit your worldview.
rhettboy 2 months ago
@MagisterPridgen There have been cultures and situations where all of those actions done to a person would be considered "justice." We have, as a society (over my objections) decided that it's fine to kill entire families (and visitors and neighbors) in their homes if one of them has been branded (not legally proven) to be a "terrorist." See the problem with your kind of thinking? Objective morality is like a four-sided triangle.
DynaCatlovesme 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rhettboy "Morality is a human invention". That depends on how you define "morality". Watch animal behavior and you will see a variety of species socially acting with altruism, sense of justice, and behavior that appears moral. There's a penguin documentary where a mother penguin's young dies; she steals a baby from a weaker neighbor; several other penguins surrounded the thief and squak and push the theif, and guide the young back to it's mother.
If that ain't social morality, what is?
TheHigherVoltage 2 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage Sorry for the lateness.
That's not morality, because the organisms performing those actions aren't self aware. Assigning moral worth, right and wrong, to organisms that can't know any better is just silly. Any 'altruism' or 'morality' comes from us imbuing this or that action with the moral worth it would have, if the organisms were humans instead of [insert non-human animal].
And besides, there's no such thing as altruism.
rhettboy 1 month ago
@rhettboy #1 We know many animals are 'self-aware', just ask Koko. #2 you might want to look up the definition of altruism.
TheHigherVoltage 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage Fair enough. But your post cited the example of a penguin, which are not self aware as far as we've been able to tell. Also, Koko was an example of a gorilla learning sign language, not self awareness. Humans are currently the only animals that are unambiguously self aware.
I looked up the definition of altruism. I also looked up the definition of god and unicorn. Merely having an entry in the dictionary probably isn't sufficient proof of concept.
rhettboy 1 month ago
@rhettboy (1) Koko use to have a cat, and was sad when she died. Koko later on, discussed death with her trainer. If grief and self-awareness that Koko too will die one day is not self-awareness, what is?
(2) We also know animals like dolphins are self-aware. Interactions with mirrors give strong evidence of this.
(3) Altruism, as defined by the dictionary, defines all parents of every species who require nursing. Google "dog saves dog". That's altruistic behavior as well.
TheHigherVoltage 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage Koko's language ability is probably a better example of the power of operant conditioning than actual language ability. Also, as far as I'm aware, the 'grief' was just the trainer's interpretation of a sound that sounded like human crying. That could well be the case, but it's hardly unambiguous evidence of self awareness.
rhettboy 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage Also, dogs can't do things with moral worth, because they're not self aware. Any moral worth is imposed on them from the humans observing the behaviour. Technically, that can actually be said for any animal from which we can't actually gain first hand confirmation that they intended their actions to have any moral worth. Which is all of them, except humans. They may be 'moral-like', things that have moral worth to humans, but they cannot be actually moral.
rhettboy 1 month ago
@rhettboy "Also, dogs can't do things with moral worth, because they're not self aware."
Are you noticing your argument is based on an assumption? And that goes against the observational evidence?
I fail to see how the penguin example, or the dog example could be explained without involving social justice and altruism. ie. morality.
What is the difference you see between humans putting themselves in harms way to protect others, and parents of other species doing the same?
TheHigherVoltage 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage Intention.
rhettboy 1 month ago
@rhettboy 'intention'. How is the intention different between a human putting itself in danger to save another, and another animal species doing the same?
Also, how do you define 'self-aware'? I can recognize myself in a mirror (a primary indication of self-awareness) as do many other species (such as other primates, dolphins, elephants, etc.) We also know many other animals are capable of sitting back and reasoning out problems.
TheHigherVoltage 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage It's different because as far as we've been able to tell, non-human animals do it on instinct, rather than as a volitional, intentional action. Self awareness is hard to define, but it's definitely more than just looking in a mirror and being able to recognise that you are yourself. It encompasses the awareness of yourself as yourself, as well as an awareness your place in relation to the rest of the world.I'm pretty sure that's uniquely human.
rhettboy 1 month ago
@rhettboy " It's different because as far as we've been able to tell, non-human animals do it on instinct" The most primal instinct is self-preservation, altruistic animal behavior goes against instinct.
" as well as an awareness your place in relation to the rest of the world." If that's the criteria, then most humans I know don't qualify as self-aware. :/
TheHigherVoltage 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage I agree. Which is why I also think morality has 'devolved' into having little more than utility value these days. It's a very powerful control tool.
rhettboy 1 month ago
@rhettboy I disagree. In the Western World, less than 200 years ago slavery was deemed moral. 100 years ago treating women like shit was moral, as was child labor.
Interestingly enough, the self-proclaimed 'bastions of morality' in the Western World (Christianity) were the supporters of those 3 examples of immorality.
TheHigherVoltage 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage I would argue that, at least for slavery and child labor, they persisted not because they were 'moral' but because they were actually really really useful. As for treating women like shit... People treat people like shit all the time still today and don't think twice about it.
rhettboy 1 month ago
@rhettboy regardless of what's arguably useful or not, slavery, child labor and treating women as second class citizens were all morally enshrined.
TheHigherVoltage 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage I wouldn't know, I wasn't around 200 years ago to gauge the moral worth of those things. I'd be interested to know, if I was around, how we'd be able to tell the difference between something that was seen as amoral and useful and something that had some moral worth and was also peripherally useful.
Just because we attach some moral worth to things in one era, it's entirely possible that there was once no moral worth attached.
rhettboy 1 month ago
@rhettboy There's plenty of political and religious arguments, dated and on record, surrounding slavery, child labor and women's rights. From Vatican edicts to political speeches. All it takes is research.
TheHigherVoltage 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage Arguing for the 'moral correctness' (whatever that means) of those things?
rhettboy 1 month ago
@rhettboy You sure like moving the goalposts.
TheHigherVoltage 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage Moving the goalposts on what? I was asking for clarification...
rhettboy 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage Individuals don't matter when we get to that scale. Natural selection works at the species level. 'Altruism' equals stupidity (from a gene's perspective), so 'altruistic' individuals are soon weeded out.
rhettboy 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rhettboy "Natural selection works at the species level." huh? Natural selection operates on individual procreation. When there's enough mutation/natural selection differentiation, a new species is classified.
" 'Altruism' equals stupidity (from a gene's perspective)" Agreed.
"so 'altruistic' individuals are soon weeded out." If that were true, shouldn't altruistic behavior not exist by now?
TheHigherVoltage 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage I've only ever seen unrepeated findings from single subject, or small group studies, that provide pretty ambiguous evidence that some animals have various subsets of the entire suite of cognitive capacities that need to all be in place in order to say that an animal is anything but 'moral-like'. Only humans have the complete package.
rhettboy 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage Also, as far as I'm aware there's no unambiguous evidence, observational or otherwise, that any animals other than humans are self aware. And certainly no repeated results.
rhettboy 1 month ago
@rhettboy As a sidenote, the Goethe University Frankfurt has been studying the self-awareness of birds for several years now, most notably magpies - which routinely recognize themselves in mirrors (self-aware). We know the evidence is not anecdotal, as the birds will groom themselves based on what they see in the mirror.
Check out the research and parameters used.
TheHigherVoltage 1 month ago
Comment removed
rhettboy 1 month ago
Does someone want to tell me why it's such a big deal that the atheist side makes up an objective basis for their morality? When a theist accuses me of not having an objective basis for my morality I say 'You're right, I don't. And nor do you. You just think you do'.
rhettboy 2 months ago
@rhettboy
"why it's such a big deal that the atheist side makes up an objective basis for their morality"
It's because if one's position can't account for objective morality, then that position is wrong. You would not be able to logically call yourself an Atheist if you wanted to be true to logic and reality. This is because some things are really right, and some things are really wrong, and it's not simply a matter of feeling or opinion. And for that to be the case, they must be objective.
Dhorpatan 2 months ago
@rhettboy
(Part 3) If you say that it is good to love and care for a child, that logically entails that this is the case independent of anyone's feelings or opinion.
Because if loving and caring for a child, being good, is only a matter of subjective opinion, then that logically entails that there is no truth to loving a child being good. Since truth is objective, not subjective. Truth cannot obtain on subjective fount.
Dhorpatan 2 months ago
@rhettboy
(Part 4) If loving and caring for a child is only a matter of SUBJECTIVE OPINION, then you have no valid or logical ground from which to condemn or judge a person who feels it is good to hurt a child.
Because if what is right or wrong, good or evil, is subjective, then that makes it relative. Which means truth can be made up at whim, and that's a logical contradiction, because truth is not relative. Truth cannot be changed by subjective intentionality(I.E. wishing, feelings, desire)
Dhorpatan 2 months ago
@rhettboy
(Part 6) And for that to be the case, morality must be objective. Because truth cannot obtain on subjective fount. To say there is no objective morality, is to deny rationally self evident facts of reality. All sane and rational men know that some things are really right, and some things are really wrong. That they are wrong or evil, Independent of opinions to the contrary.
And that entails objectivity. OBJECTIVE MORALITY.
Dhorpatan 2 months ago
There's one crucial connection you have to make Dhorpatan - according to Objectivism, the standard of value is NOT mankind as a whole, but rather, the life of the INDIVIDUAL human being who is acting. The reason Objectivism condemns murder and other such acts of force is because it upholds the principle of individual rights, and it is in the selfish interests of all individuals to uphold those rights. Furthermore, among rational, honest individuals, there are no clashes of interests.
jonathanaconway 2 months ago
@jonathanaconway
Yes!
Soupflakez 2 months ago
@jonathanaconway
Where in the video did I say the standard of value is mankind as a whole? The ultimate standard of value, and therefore the ontological basis for morality, is life itself. Since that is what morality is....a guide to living.
Dhorpatan 2 months ago
@Dhorpatan
You're right. Life in the wide sense. All it takes to understand that concept is to look out at the world. Who is alive? The individual.
Soupflakez 2 months ago
@Dhorpatan You have to stress INDIVIDUAL life, because so many people will automatically assume you're talking about "mankind" or "society", since altruism/collectivism have been drummed into them from birth.
jonathanaconway 2 months ago
@DynaCatlovesme
Correction:
Though, not thought;
Dhorpatan 2 months ago
Philosophy noob here. So, if I understand correctly, as an objectivist, one sets objective values based on their subjective values, and then therefore can argue objectively whether something is right or wrong. Is that right?
Also, if im right, is there some kind of reference to what is normally thought to be objectively right and wrong? I like this whole objectivism thing, I would like to learn more.
mattmar826 2 months ago
@mattmar826 I think you're on the right track, but your thinking is muddled and confused. To clarify, the point is that the alternatives we are currently offered, that morality comes from God or that it is a social convention, are both incorrect, i.e. a false dichotomy. Knowledge of ethics is achieved the same as knowledge of everything else, through the application of reason to reality. That's the sense in which it is objective, because it's rational, not mystical or social.
MagisterPridgen 2 months ago
@MagisterPridgen
Nah. Objective means independent of the mind. I gave a clear explication of how the morality offered by Objectivism is OBJECTIVE.
I don't need to hedge and say it's objective only "in the sense in which".
Dhorpatan 2 months ago
@Dhorpatan I do, of course, agree with you. But this can only be discovered by the application of reason to reality, which I'm trying to work these people up to. Otherwise they won't get to the point of being able to understand what you are saying. This is why Peikoff emphasizes that objectivity in the epistemological sense is most important, i.e. according to a rational method that discovers truths about reality and is not cut off from it ala Kant's anti-realism.
MagisterPridgen 2 months ago
@MagisterPridgen
Anyone who talks about discovering something by the application of reason to reality is OK with me.
I greatly respect those type of people, who also seem to be few and far between. Most people seem to operate on emotions and feelings.
Dhorpatan 2 months ago
@Dhorpatan I have infinite respect for advocates of reason, which is why I sub'd and friended you. When I see people commenting who don't understand, i.e. those who haven't studied philosophy in general, or Objectivism in particular, I try as best I can to set them straight. Not because it's a contest, but because I want to make the world a better place, just as you do. Happy holidays!
MagisterPridgen 2 months ago
@MagisterPridgen So, essentially, how do we determine what is objectively right or wrong. You talk about reason to reality, would that translate to observing that we have feelings, and working around each other's feelings? I still don't see where the objectives come from.
mattmar826 2 months ago
@mattmar826
Objective morality means a code designed to guide one's actions in order to sustain one's life and flourish. The means to achieving that end are set forth by the objective requirements of man's life. If one chooses one doesn't want to sustain one's own life (and flourish), then one's choice is therefore to die. No one has a problem with choosing suicide, but don't pretend you can get away with valuing whatever you wish. That won't work.
Soupflakez 2 months ago
@Soupflakez
I should add: no one has a problem with choosing suicide if there is no means to achieving sustenance and a flourishing life.
Soupflakez 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Soupflakez "I should add: no one has a problem with choosing suicide if there is no means to achieving sustenance and a flourishing life."
Most religious people claim to have a problem with ever choosing suicide - no matter how bad it gets. Personally, I find that fucktarded...but that's religion for ya.
TheHigherVoltage 2 months ago
@Soupflakez Excellent! Well said.
MagisterPridgen 2 months ago
@MagisterPridgen @Soupflakez Thanks for all the responses, but I still have a lot of questions you feel up to it ^.^ You both talk about the right of life, where does that come from? I understand how under this right and wrong can be reasoned, but why is the right to life valued? Why can't I get away with valuing whatever I wish? I find the concept of things being inherently right or wrong difficult to grasp, I guess.
mattmar826 2 months ago
@mattmar826 Unless you are alive, and rational, the concepts right and wrong don't apply. In a universe full of rocks morality is irrelevant. That's why life is the primary value. That doesn't, however, mean that you personally have to value life. It only means that if you don't then certain results will follow, such as you dying or someone killing you without any objection on your part. After all, you don't care whether you live or die, right?
MagisterPridgen 2 months ago
@MagisterPridgen Thats interesting. I'm going to have to sit on that one, think about it for a while. Thanks for your thoughts.
mattmar826 2 months ago
@mattmar826 Any time. You may want to read Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness if this really interests you. Happy learning!
MagisterPridgen 2 months ago
@mattmar826 But we are not in a universe full of rocks. There are, in fact, living rational beings in this universe and that is the reality from which a code of ethics is derived. We could also say that in a universe full of rocks there would be no science of biology. That doesn't mean that in this universe biology is just some made up fictitious nonsense. Likewise with ethics.
MagisterPridgen 2 months ago
@mattmar826 We don't determine it. If we did it wouldn't be objective would it? We learn about it, discover it, gain knowledge of it the same way we do anything else - by the application of reason to reality. As a simple example, people generally agree that murder is wrong. But why? If ethics is a guide to living, then the right to life is obviously the first principle of it. Murder contradicts this. This also explains why, if someone tries to murder you, it is your right to defend yourself.
MagisterPridgen 2 months ago
@mattmar826 If someone physically attacks you they have chosen to forfeit their rights by violating yours. This is how ethical principles serve as an objective guide to making rational decisions. In both cases the principle of life guides you in what is and is not permissible in different contexts. Reason must be our guide because people are not infallible and may arrive at different conclusions. That's why moral philosophy as a guide to action is a requirement of human life.
MagisterPridgen 2 months ago
@mattmar826
"one sets objective values based on their subjecive values"
No.
Dhorpatan 2 months ago
In my assessment, the christian view of objective morality, and particularly from divine command theory, is in fact the rankest form of subjective morality: moral relativism. The subjective morality that most atheists profess, is actually much more objective than the theist perspective.
Blackmark52 2 months ago
@Blackmark52 Facts.
richaldeano 2 months ago
religious people seem to claim their morality is objective b/c its independent from the minds of man, by making it dependent upon another mind, that of a god.
but its still dependent upon a mind, and things dependent upon perception of minds are definitively subjective.
so they are just replacing one set of orders for another, and picking an irrelevant detail that only makes it slightly different from the morals of men.
EVERYVERSER 2 months ago
but not substantially different.
EVERYVERSER 2 months ago
I've yet to find any example of 'objective morality' that isn't proven subjective under scrutiny.
TheHigherVoltage 2 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheHigherVoltage "I've yet to find any example of 'objective morality' that isn't proven subjective under scrutiny."
To use Sam Harris' reasoning (as I understand it) one has to make at least one assumption about any objective reality (e.g. we have to assume we aren't in the matrix and the spoon really does exist). But that doesn't invalidate all objective reasoning built upon that core assumption.
Blackmark52 2 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage If you define reason, or "scrutiny", as "subjective" then I can see why you'd believe that. By that argument physics, biology, mathematics, and every other subject is subjective.
MagisterPridgen 2 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage
OK. (Shrugs shoulder).
Dhorpatan 2 months ago
@Dhorpatan I take it you didn't get my point. Specifically, you claim (para) that 'what promotes the life of man is good / what harms the life of man is evil'.
What promotes and what harms/destroys is largely (if not almost completely) subjective. Subjective conditions cannot be a basis for objective morality.
TheHigherVoltage 2 months ago
@Voltage
The standard of evaluation is objective, as it's independent of the mind, and the ontological foundation for it is also objective, since life is an objective fact. You can split hairs till the cows come home with retarded nonsense about what promotes and what harms/destroys is largely subjective. Of course it's not. Any idiot can tell what promotes life and what harms/destroys it. But people want to play devils advocate on my videos and resist what I say, so that's what they'll do.
Dhorpatan 2 months ago
@Dhorpatan "Any idiot can tell what promotes life and what harms/destroys it."
Let's find out :
(1) In moderation, alcohol has health and social benefits, however a shitload of people are harmed or die from alcohol related incidents each year. Is keeping alcohol legal morally good, or morally evil?
(2) Is non-ectopic abortion moral or immoral?
TheHigherVoltage 2 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage
You have to employ reason and logic to come to conclusions. Objectivism stresses that in it's philosophy. That reason applied to reality is how we come to objective truth.
If reason shows that alcohol IN MODERATION, has health and social benefits, then it is good to drink alcohol if you value drinking it. If reason has shown that too much alcohol makes you drunk, and causes alcohol related incidents, then it is wrong to drink alcohol excessively. It's not hard.
Dhorpatan 2 months ago
@Dhorpatan I understand where you're coming from, but you deviated from my question in making it a personal issue of self control. I'm testing to see if your proposal can apply to moral issues that are not as black and white as your examples.
Is keeping alcohol legal objectively moral or objectively immoral?
TheHigherVoltage 2 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage
Keeping alcohol legal is not a moral issue. It is a political issue as that deals with individual freedom, or the lack thereof. Now, whether it's right or wrong to drink alcohol is a moral issue.
Yes, a non ectopic abortion is morally right, if the woman does not value the fetus.
Dhorpatan 2 months ago
@Dhorpatan So selling alcohol is not a moral issue...but consuming alcohol is a moral issue? I'll have to think about this...something doesn't seem right...but maybe I'm wrong.
"Yes, a non ectopic abortion is morally right, if the woman does not value the fetus."
If a woman's subjective value (towards the fetus) determines if her action was morally right or wrong, then that equally applies to Aaron, and allows me to slap the shit outta him, and be morally right if I do not value him.
TheHigherVoltage 2 months ago
@Dhorpatan I'd also like to re-ask : According to the framework you propose, is non-ectopic abortion objectively moral or objectively immoral? or subjective?
TheHigherVoltage 2 months ago
@Dhorpatan (cont) Implying I'm an idiot or only playing devil's advocate when questioning and testing your system is way off the mark. If your hypothesis holds up to scrutiny - I'll adopt and promote it. If it can't, I won't. To me, that's just skeptical inquiry and common sense. I'm just not going to take anyone's word for anything - no matter how sure they are.
TheHigherVoltage 2 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage I believe in objective morals. My argument is similar to Sam Harris' Moral Landscape, that we can at least determine that some things are better than others. I also believe that each moral question has an optimum answer which is the "objective" moral for that question. However we still need a lot of thought about moral questions and debate to find the optimum answer. Just because Dhorpatan does not have every moral answer does not mean the answer is not there.
adolthitler 2 months ago
@adolthitler Can you give me any specifically defined examples of an objective moral?
TheHigherVoltage 2 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage Do some thinking! I just argued that they are there. What would make an objective moral? For starters it has to apply to you and your god if you have one. No one rule for everyone else and a speacial one for you.
adolthitler 1 month ago
@adolthitler what are you talking about?
TheHigherVoltage 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage Your comment of a week ago. I do all my replies to replies at one time. I am getting lazy.
adolthitler 1 month ago
@adolthitler If you accept Harris' argument you accept subjective, not objective, morality. Harris' argument is that there are objective facts we can make moral value judgements about, which are entirely dependent on our brain states. That makes them subjective by definition.
rhettboy 2 months ago
@rhettboy
(Part 2) If good and evil is simply a matter of opinion, then that contradicts reality and knowledge itself because there would then be no good and evil, since truth and facts cannot obtain on subjective ground. Thus to say there is no objective morality, no objective good and evil, is to deny logic and reality. Because there clearly is a good and evil in the world. What is good and evil is not simply a matter of subjective opinion, that can be wished away or denied at whim.
Dhorpatan 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dhorpatan Your position is also predicated on question begging and circular logic. Learn some logic.
rhettboy 2 months ago
@Dhorpatan And to pre-empt your reply 'Nuh-uh!' doesn't count as a valid counterargument.
rhettboy 2 months ago
@rhett
(Part 5) If morality was subjective, then a person would be right to say it is good to harm and abuse a child. But we know they are wrong, because there really is good and evil in the world. They are objective facts of reality.
Dhorpatan 2 months ago
@Dhorpatan You don't know what objective means. Read a book.
rhettboy 2 months ago
Comment removed
rhettboy 2 months ago
@rhettboy Are those brains states part of reality? Can we be mistaken in those judgments, or are we omniscient/infallible? By what methods and standards do we distinguish correct from incorrect judgments? Do we just make that shit up? Or is it also part of reality? If we were infallible we wouldn't need reason, since we couldn't be mistaken about things. Does all of this, or does it not, occur in an objective reality?
MagisterPridgen 2 months ago
@MagisterPridgen There's no such thing as objectively correct and incorrect moral judgements. There cannot be. When something is a human invention, as morality is, and is context specific, as moral judgements are, that means that they can only ever be subjectively correct or incorrect.
rhettboy 2 months ago
@rhettboy Everything we think is reliant on our brain states so all mathematics is subjective and objective no longer has any meaning.
adolthitler 1 month ago
@adolthitler 1+1=2 regardless of whether there are brains there to think it. Our brains merely make it a meaningful fact about the world, but our brains do not make it a true fact. Lying is not morally wrong regardless of whether there are brains there to think it. Our brains make it both meaningful and true. Math is objective, morality is subjective.
rhettboy 1 month ago
@rhettboy
Morality is objective if one has an objective standard of evaluation to judge behavior and values beyond mere social convention or emotion.
Also, morality is objective, because there are clearly some things that are really right, and some things that are really wrong, independent of subjective judgement to the contrary(I.E. independent of the mind).
Dhorpatan 1 month ago
@Dhorpatan You've yet to demonstrate either of those things. You think you have, but you haven't. You've just asserted them. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
rhettboy 1 month ago
@rhettboy
I demonstrated it in the video sparky. I offered robust argumentation, which you have done nothing to refute. I don't see why someone would want to refute it. It's sound, logical, and gives a fantastic objective ground for the long sought after objective morality on Atheistic ground.
Dhorpatan 1 month ago
@Dhorpatan You shouldn't need to sound like a used car salesman when selling your 'argument', not that there was one, in the video or elsewhere. All you've made is a bunch of assertions. I know you can't see it, but that's what you did.
rhettboy 1 month ago
@rhettboy
Learn what an assertion is.
Dhorpatan 1 month ago
@Dhorpatan I know what an assertion is. I get more than enough examples of them in your videos. I know them very well at this point.
rhettboy 1 month ago
@rhettboy
An assertion is basically a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief. There's nothing wrong with that. So, you probably mean I made bare assertions, which of course, you've done nothing to prove.
Dhorpatan 1 month ago
Comment removed
rhettboy 1 month ago
@rhettboy
You're welcome to point out where I made any bare assertions. Otherwise, you can move along, as you seem only capable of wasting my time, and being antagonistic and hostile towards me as always.
Dhorpatan 1 month ago
Comment removed
rhettboy 1 month ago
@Dhorpatan "You're welcome to point out where I made any bare assertions": 0.00-4.14
By the way, I'm not being antagonistic or hostile towards you. I am merely disagreeing with you. If I was being antagonistic or hostile towards you, trust me, you'd know about it. Disagreement is not hostility nor is it antagonism.
rhettboy 1 month ago
@rhettboy
Do you have some mental problems Rhettboy? I said you are welcome to point out where I made any bare assertions, and you say by numbers, the whole video.
It's like you have a mental problem or something, because you are deranged enough to claim someone else is making assertions(more appropriately called bare assertions), while you yourself are doing the exact same thing. Making bare assertions, and passing it off as fact.
Dhorpatan 1 month ago
@Dhorpatan If it makes you feel any better, I've given your assertions more attention than the summary dismissal they deserve by having various discussions here in the comments.
I wouldn't be too butthurt if I was you. Most people just wouldn't bother. They'd just dismiss them outright, which is actually all the thought they deserve.
rhettboy 1 month ago
@rhettboy
Do you really have mental problems, or are you really this incapable of backing up your empty declarations? What assertions did I make in the video, that was not backed up by argument/support? Which would make them therefore, BARE ASSERTIONS, and thus fallacious.
Dhorpatan 1 month ago
@Dhorpatan I repeat 0.00-4.14
rhettboy 1 month ago
@rhettboy
Wow. It's like I'm dealing with a mental patient. Seriously. I don't want to jump to conclusions, but you appear to have some serious mental problems Rhettboy.
Dhorpatan 1 month ago
@Dhorpatan Your arrogance would be pretty offputting if it wasn't so damn amusing to watch you descend into ad hominems because of it.
rhettboy 1 month ago
@rhettboy
Making an observation, is not arrogance sparky. And you need to learn what an Ad Hominem is. Anyway, you've wasted enough of my time with your mentally deranged circles and empty declarations.
Dhorpatan 1 month ago
@Dhorpatan You've said that to me about 5 different times, yet you keep replying. Interesting, that. It's like you have to say it every so often in case you forget. Nevermind. You're arrogant so you're always right by default. Be bouyed by that I guess.
rhettboy 1 month ago
@rhettboy 1+1 =3 is a lie. 1 +1 =2 and therefore lying is wrong objectively. The fact that you can choose to say the wrong thing or the right thing does not prevent the right thing from being objectively right and the wrong thing from being objectively wrong.
adolthitler 1 month ago
@adolthitler Seriously? That's probably one of the biggest non-sequiturs I've ever seen. I sincerely hope you aren't seriously advancing that as an argument.
If you're someone trying to demonstrate how silly it is to try and apply objectivism to morality, congratulations on a job welll done.
rhettboy 1 month ago
@rhettboy It is not a non sequitur it follows from your statement that 1+1=2 is objective. And the statement that "lying cannot be shown to be morally wrong". Where the comment popped up, you'll have to bitch to youtube.
I admit it is not an argument for the morality but it does argue the objectivity of lying being wrong. The morality would require more situational details. But as a general guide to you try "the boy who cried wolf".
adolthitler 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage That is a commendable attitude and approach, which I applaud you for, but if you are sincerely interested you should take the time and effort to do the hard work for yourself. You can't expect others to spoon feed you for your own edification and self gratification. We aren't obligated to and we exist for our own sake, not for yours.
MagisterPridgen 2 months ago
@MagisterPridgen I've been at it for more than 20 years now...self-education is a rewarding hobby. :)
TheHigherVoltage 2 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage
(Part 2) The reason why we can objectively know what harms and destroys the life of man or said volitional organism, and what promotes it, is because that principle is grounded in the Law of Identity. What harms and destroys life, and what promotes it is based on the very nature of life itself. But of course we also must take into account context and as always, utilize reason and logic which Objectivism expressly articulates.
Dhorpatan 2 months ago
@Dhorpatan
Exactly. A good response is simply "wishing won't make it so."
Soupflakez 2 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage Me either. It won't be found either.
rhettboy 2 months ago
@rhettboy I dunno man, I'm hesitant to declare 'It won't be found either.' It seems almost every time we put limits on what can be done, humans have found a way to break through.
TheHigherVoltage 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JesusFingeredBabies
"I wanna cum on Aaron Wilson's girlfriend's titties!!! ;-P"
With that thick brain you have, she will have your face in the mud in a few seconds.
saintpine 2 months ago
Sorry, but all you did is subjectively assign a subjective definition to morality in a way that was subjectively satisfactory for your personal use. There is no objective morality.
DynaCatlovesme 2 months ago
@DynaCatlovesme Perhaps you should study something on the subject so you won't be arguing against a strawman. I recommend The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand, The Moral Landscape by Same Harris, and Viable Values by Tara Smith. If you actually make it through those three books and remain unconvinced that ethics is objective (i.e. rational), then there is likely no convincing you. However, the fact of your not being convinced in no way alters the fact that ethics is as objective.
MagisterPridgen 2 months ago
@MagisterPridgen It's not clear to me if you mean exactly the same thing as "morality" when you use the word "ethics" but I'll still condescend to wasting some time on you.
Is every person rational? Does every person function by a system of ethics?
DynaCatlovesme 2 months ago
@DynaCatlovesme Morality and ethics are synonymous. All things being equal, people possess a rational faculty, but they must choose to exercise that faculty and be guided by it. So in that sense people are not rational by default. Also, there is the possibility of misuse or misapplication. That is where the studies of epistemology and logic come in. There is correct and incorrect reasoning. Not everyone functions ethically, otherwise there would be no unethical people and there obviously are.
MagisterPridgen 2 months ago
@MagisterPridgen I apologize for the snarkiness, I was "touchy" earlier for some reason, felt bad about it after for hours. Don't care to discuss further at present.
DynaCatlovesme 2 months ago
@DynaCatlovesme Apology accepted. I try not to allow rational discussions to become personal and prefer instead to focus on the relevant issues. No need to feel bad my friend. Your intellectual honesty is inspiring and praiseworthy. Such is an example of ethical integrity in action. Don't hesitate to contact me when/if you'd like to discuss it further. I'm a philosophy major with a minor in neuroscience, so this definitely interests me. Happy holidays!
MagisterPridgen 2 months ago
Part 1:
For me this entire discussion is quite simple:
1st we must properly define what we mean by morality & ethics & simply stating it is good vs bad behavior is insufficient
Once a sufficiently clear definition of morality is provided, then we can acquire objective facts that support which behaviors qualify as moral vs immoral
But everyone wants to skip step #1 & assume good vs bad behavior is apparent to all, but it isn't.
LetReasonPrevail1 2 months ago
Part:
So the 1st step of definining morality is subjective in nature & that's just the way it is. To protest against this reality is like complaining that in order to see we must open our eyes & this just isn't fair
But once this is definitional effort is sufficiently done, then we do have a solid foundation upon which to objectively ground morality thru empirical facts derived from our experience of life
LetReasonPrevail1 2 months ago
Part 3:
So morality is initially subjective by virtue of the fact that it must be defined. At the same time, morality can also be objectively grounded
So morality has both subjective & objective characteristics
The theisic demand that morality be either absolutely objective or entirely relativistic is quite simply a fallacious false dilemma
The desire for things to be black or white & the refusal to accept the grayness of life is the immature desire to be a child
What say you?
LetReasonPrevail1 2 months ago
@LetReasonPrevail1 I say your reasoning seems sound but I'm not immediately convinced that there are "objective facts that support which behaviors qualify as moral vs immoral" that are non-situational. I am also not convinced that there are no situational moral behaviors that are, in fact, desirable, but nevertheless supported by no objective facts.
DynaCatlovesme 2 months ago
@DynaCatlovesme Being situational or contextual doesn't make them any less objective. In fact, to understand the objective meaning of ANYTHING the context ALWAYS has to be taken into account. That's why taking things out of context is a dishonest rhetorical tactic and why it leads to confusion about what is actually the case.
MagisterPridgen 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MagisterPridgen You are doing a couple of things, I thnk. Firstly, you are incorrectly equating Objectivism (the Randian philosophy, I presume) with objectivity. Secondly, you are making the same error that is often made in logic whereby an argument that is internally logical is considered true. You can have an internally objective view, but it is not objective extenally by definition.
DynaCatlovesme 2 months ago
@DynaCatlovesme
Sorry, but all you did was subjectively claim that I subjectively assigned a subjective definition to morality in a blah blah blah. When you can actually present a reasoned argument against the objective morality I offered, go ahead.
I don't know why you would want to fight the morality offered here thought, since it provides a detailed solution to the long sought after objective morality on Atheist fount. To deny objective morality is extremely dangerous and illogical.
Dhorpatan 2 months ago
@Dhorpatan I am not "fighting the morality offered here" as it is not relevant in it's details, I am only insisting that it is not objective. I rather agree with you that the denial of objective morality is potentially dangerous among the uneducated.
DynaCatlovesme 2 months ago
@DynaCatlovesme
But your insistence that it is not objective, has no merit, since you are not proving it true with reason or logic, but rather simply making empty declarations.
Dhorpatan 2 months ago
@Dhorpatan So many others have done so, in such great detail, that I shouldn't need to. Al you've