4:49 - "Why should I accept the premise that pain is bad?"... why is this an acceptable question, whereas "Why is logic true?" is not an acceptable question... In both cases you are starting with an unjustifiable basic premise... the chain of explanation must end somewhere... you will reach a point where asking "why" is impossible... If you say there is no objective morality because of unjustified basic premises, you must say the same for everything... Mathematics begins with axioms. science too
@otakurocklee agreed. There are no objectively true beliefs, because ultimately even if there was an objective truth, we couldn't know it, but if we only consider subjective reality, you are correct.
every living thing trys to escape pain but its still subjective what is objective is that your r feeling pain in other words i dont have agree your dying 4 u to b dying and evolution has givin us the need to survive so moraltiy is a social construct to avoid suffering its subjective but the means r sort of objective
No living creature wants pain or to die, that is objective, even without humans in the earth, that would stay as a truth. I can say that for a smart creature that is aware that living beings can suffer pain, it is morally objective to avoid causing unnecessary pain and avoid killing creatures in a way that they suffer.
Pain and fear of death is objective in complex living creatures, that is objective, just like the sun has more mass then the earth.
@DogsneedpIeasuretoo also, pain IS subjective by definition; i.e. I cannot subject a rock to pain; i.e. I cannot subject your nervous system to pain but I can subject your consciousness.
Did you read my comment? I said living creatures, are rocks living creatures? Can rocks feel pain?
""No living creature wants[...]", this is painfully subjective."←Explain how it is subjective.
"I cannot subject your nervous system to pain but I can subject your consciousness."←You can subject my nervous system to pain so what you talking about? Please explain yourself better, your comments makes no sense to me.
This would allow for behaviours of an individual to be objectively good or bad with reference to the collective but subjective for the individual, They may do something that is beneficial to themselves but that harms the collective, or they may sacrifice themselves for the greater good which is bad for them but would be good for the collective. This could explain why the Golden Rule crops up time and again, maybe it is a fundamental truth for a collective, an objectively moral tenet.
I have just had an epiphany, the problem does not lie with with the definition of Morals, or at least not solely with this. The problem lies with the definition of an object. I think you may be taking it too literally, as in using it only for things that are singular in nature. But a collective can also be considered an object, like a Hive, a herd or the human body, even a society or a species or phylum can be considered an object. If this is true then my hypothesis hold true.
I do not claim there has to be a purpose, I just state that in my humble opinion an entity that replicates itself either by means of fission or sexual means has an intrinsic purpose due to the fact that it is a self replicating mechanism. And If it is intrinsic to that entity then it is objectively so as it will be true independent of an observer or indeed lack of one. I believe it is intrinsic but I may be wrong.
@BornInAsphodelMeadow I'm sorry, I didn't realise this was a contest. Also you are incorrect, it is my opinion that the sun will rise tomorrow, this does not make the motion of the Earth around the Sun subjective. Either a self replicating entity has a purpose that is intdinsic or it does not, my opinion will not affect the outcome, but if we can determine that it does then morality for that entity will be objective.
@TheTomtompiper It's not a contest, it's a debate, and there are winners and losers. Also, I agree entirely. That said, The concept of intrinsic purpose, as you put it, is an oxymoron. Please explain to me how something can have a purpose not given to it by a subject, or concede that I'm right.
@BornInAsphodelMeadow I thought debate was a method to arrive at a correct conclusion that everybody could agree on, but I may be wrong. As to how something can have a purpose not given to it by a subject, I can only offer that self replicating entity's that I know of seem to replicate and as I am of the opinion that the developed rather than were created then this propensity to replicate is intrinsic and could be called a purpose (I did say it was a bad word.) but lets not use that word.
@BornInAsphodelMeadow I purposely used entity I think the day will arrive when electromechanical beings that self replicate will exist, and will have been endowed with this ability this by their creators so their purpose is subjective. but answer this, if you came from another planet and were to observe both entity's how would you know which was which? So I say that as far as I see that living systems have a purpose that was not given to them by a creator or by an observer, it is intrinsic.
@TheTomtompiper your first comment is basically this: "It's my opinion that the purpose for self-replicating entities is self replication" That's fine, whatever, but that purpose is something that you give it. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. Purpose, by definition, is something assigned BY a subject TO an object. You can't have an object assign another object a purpose, and so there is no such thing as morality without a subject, in other words, objective.
@BornInAsphodelMeadow "the purpose for self-replicating entities is self replication" That's fine, whatever, but that purpose is something that you give it."
I think the purpose is not given by Tomtompiper, its from the entity itself. Self replicating life does replicate, it opts to replicate, it does not need my permission, or orders from me. It does so on its own. Some of it has no intellect or consciousness, so how can that be subjective?
@adolthitler If it's not conscious, then it's logically contradictory to say that it gives itself purpose. That's like saying rocks give themselves the purpose of being hard and solid, because rocks are hard and solid, even though they aren't conscious. It's fucking stupid man. Purpose is something assigned by a subject. No subject, no purpose. Period.
will SOMEONE explain to me how you can have purpose without a subject? please? anyone?
@BornInAsphodelMeadow I don't know that it needs a subject to have a purpose. It does strive to eat shit, and reproduce. That striving is despite it not having a brain, the fact that it seeks food consumes it and when it has attained enough sustenance it reproduces. That is what it does, it does that because it is driven to do so and that is its purpose.
Your insistance that it needs a subject to have a purpose is like trying to say sound needs to be heard to be sound.
@adolthitler From wikipedia "Purpose is a result, end, mean, aim, or goal of an action intentionally undertaken[1], or of an object being brought into use or existence"
As each lifeform is born, it has the urge to reproduce and is therefore purposed. It does not require consciousness to have a purpose.
@adolthitler Alright then, let's take it for granted that whatever a biological organism is compelled to do is its purpose, and whatever serves its purpose is moral. So rape is moral, because the purpose of an organism is to reproduce, and rape helps it reproduce. Also, wearing a condom is immoral because it inhibits reproduction. See what I mean?
Morality is what we SHOULD DO. That's it, stop. no more. There can be no claim of what we should do that isn't based on opinion -> subjective.
@BornInAsphodelMeadow I must disagree about the example you give, if rape served the purpose of self replicating entity's then it would be the norm rather than the exception, In most cases I know of there is some sort of ritual that precedes sex, and this is the norm, so it obviously has benefits to the entity's Phylum and so is selected for while it would appear that rape is either negative, or neutral as it is not selected for.
@BornInAsphodelMeadow As for the condom example there may be times when population control may be beneficial so that is a subject for discussion and not cut and dried. If there are any "Moral" (Maybe another poor word, beneficial would be better.) truths for a particular Phylum they would fluid and would by necessity change with circumstances.
@BornInAsphodelMeadow No my argument is that due to the intrinsic nature of self replicating entity's namely their propensity to replicate, that there are behaviours that are advantageous and those that are disadvantageous to their Phylum as a whole and that these behaviours are objectively good, bad or neutral for the population as a whole. This could be seen as a basis for a moral code, and morals derived from this source could be called objective as they derive from a basic nature.
@BornInAsphodelMeadow But as I have said Moral is a tricky word, and it might be that we need to narrow the definition or create a new term. Perhaps we can go back to it's roots and use it to indicate lessons learned from observation of events as to which actions are good, bad and neutral and reward the good avoid the bad and accept the neutral.
@TheTomtompiper I've already defined morality dude. What you're talking about is a synonym of "What we should do to benefit the species". I"m not talking about what's good for the species, I'm talking about what we should do. Based on that definition, do you understand why the answer to the question "What should we do? (with no further qualifications, including "to benefit the species")" can only be subjective?
@BornInAsphodelMeadow Yes with such a narrow and restricted definition then everything will be subjective. If this restriction is placed on every thing we know then everything is subjective as it is only by agreeing on observations and transferring information from one to another can we decide if our senses are receiving correct information, by denying that interaction we cannot be objective. Therefore I fear we shall have to agree to differ.
@BornInAsphodelMeadow You need to go a bit further with your definition, as "What we should do to be good". Otherwise its just any behaviour that seems profitable and which direction to turn when you hit an obstacle is a moral question, which is silly.
My definition is better as it weeds a lot of random subjective morals. "Its immoral to wear a pink shirt" I heard this one growing up, but really "bad" people wear pink shirts? It obviously says nothing about the character of the wearer.
@BornInAsphodelMeadow I think that was the argument you put forward. However I think it benefits us to be "moral" in the sense of being good, in all the "subjective" glory of all the nice traits and behaviours you can think of. The key to a society is cooperation. The nicer you are the less people you offend and the more friends you have to help you out.
A friend of mine died of cancer 6 mths ago, his widow is yet to have to mow her lawn or tend her garden herself. Friends count.
@BornInAsphodelMeadow Er no. You confuse morality and purpose. Morality is about being good. Things are more complicated for us than for the mindless cell. Yet they are simple too. You can have any goal or purpose, whatever you assign for yourself. That is subjective. Being a good person, is not just attaining your goal any way you can. We live in a society, we need to care for our children unlike a simple cell. So rape is not really a valid way to reproduce.
@adolthitler You have the opportunity to rape to reproduce but then you are rolling the dice and may end up in jail. Society needs the cooperation of its units, each entity in society must freely interact with the others, if some need to fear others then society is not running optimally. So society does not reward rape, society punishes rape.
@TheTomtompiper as to your second comment, I could tell them apart because one was made of metal and the other was made of organic material. Even still, how the hell does that have any relevance to objects having purposes not given to them by subjects?
@TheTomtompiper On a final note, unless you can say something that you haven't already said that at least resembles a good try at an argument in your next comment, I'm done with this convo.
1. There are behaviours for the population of any species of organisms that will enhance the survivability of that species. 2. Organisms among the population who act in contrary to these advantageous behaviours are endangering themselves, others and the species as a whole. 3. You could argue that the behaviours were good, and going against the behaviours were bad. 4 This is intrinsic to all species or communities. 5. This is independent of opinion.
@TheTomtompiper Premise 3: "You could argue that the behaviours were good...". This is a weak-ass premise, man. I challenge you to argue convincingly that those actions are good without using any subjective premises.
@BornInAsphodelMeadow Hi I am just floating this idea out, I haven't given it a great deal of thought yet, so thanks for the feedback. If this is the only part that appears weak at present I will ponder on it and see if it can be strengthened. Even if I am successful this "objective morality" would only hold true within the boundary of the species. I will get back to you on this, I enjoy a challenge.
1. There are behaviours for the population of any species of entities that will enhance the survivability of that species, and behaviours that will damage the population as a whole.
2. Entities among the population who act in a damaging way are endangering themselves and the species as a whole.
3. It is advantageous for society to reward those who perform enhancing acts and dissuade those who perform damaging acts. Feedback?
1. There are behaviours for the population of any species of entities that will enhance the survivability of that species, and behaviours that will damage the population as a whole.
2. Entities among the population who act in a damaging way are endangering themselves and the species as a whole.
3. It is advantageous for entities to reward those who perform enhancing acts and dissuade those who perform damaging acts. Your thoughts?
@TheTomtompiper Gratz, you've just proved that it's advantageous to act in certain ways. You still haven't told me why we should act in ways that are advantageous to the species. The only possible answer to that question is subjective, and so morality is necessarily so.
@BornInAsphodelMeadow Yes I have proved it and it is an objective fact, the reasons why the entities should act in an advantageous or disadvantageous are irrelevant and do not require the permission of you or I to be so. To try to establish a non subjective reason we must first address the purpose of a self replicating entity. Purpose is a loaded word, If I could think of I better one I would, maybe raison d'etre would be better, basically what is it for?
@TheTomtompiper Your problem is that you assume that things can have objective purpose, and that we should be trying to find a sense of morality that is objective. Neither is so. Objective morality is an oxymoron, because you can't have a system of morality that has no intrinsic subjective opinions. Even yours is inseparable from the presupposition that one should do what is beneficial to your species. You can't justify that without opinionated (subjective) statements. If you can, show me.
@BornInAsphodelMeadow I did not assume anything, I merely asked a question about self replicating entities. Until we can agree on this I shall not be making any assumptions.
@TheTomtompiper And I answered you. You ask "What is a biological organism for?", I respond "There is no objective purpose for anything, including the existence and actions of biological organisms." So your question bears no fruit. Again, if you can prove me wrong by giving me an objective purpose for something, I'll happily withdraw that statement.
@BornInAsphodelMeadow Sorry I did not ask that question, and cannot find where you answered the question you think I asked. if as you say "There is no objective purpose for anything, including the existence and actions of biological organisms." then there is no such thing as objective, if there is no reason for anything then everything is subjective. I can live with that but I know of a few people who would rail against such a proposition.
@TheTomtompiper Correction: Everything we perceive is subjective, not everything there is. There could be an objective world, but we'd have no way of discerning it. Also, the fact that some people can't handle that doesn't mean that they're right and I'm wrong. There is no objective morality, no matter how badly one may wish it so.
@BornInAsphodelMeadow I will restate my question as it was a bit garbled. What is the purpose of a self replicating entity? If it has none, why does it exist? My thought is that it is hard wired to reproduce, and as this is intrinsic to it, it is an objective truth, being of the object.
@BornInAsphodelMeadow "How do you know there is one?", neuroscience and biology might possibly be able to answer that question
"no matter how badly one may wish it so." sure, except nobody wishes it so while assigning the same meaning to the words objective and morality .. so you're totally right, except you're wrong to assume that the words mean what you think they mean .. words don't get their meaning from the dictionary which just tries (and often fails) to describe the way the words are used
I do support that morality is subjective, yet there is the persuasive argument for objective morality that, if we wish to build a flourishing society then there are objective rules for members to follow. Just as, if we wished for a stagnant society, we could also follow objective rules.
Of course, each set of rules is different for each species, and can be dependant upon the dominant memes, but given the set of conditions the rule set is objective regardless of opinion.
@Disthron the question I posed wasn't what I was trying to answer in this video, it was just a definition. I will eventually post videos explaining my position on ethics.
I argued with BD in her comment section, but not because I'm a moral objectivist.
If we can't access anything without our brains, "objective" is a useless concept. It's always interpreted subjectively. So everything, even logic, and size of the moon, is only "intersubjectively" valid, as you say.
I just don't like the idea of placing morality into the category of "opinion", because we all intuitively experience it, like sight, and it would be silly to say it's my opinion that the sky is blue.
@AHughman08 well yeah, if I thought that the universe itself agreed with my moral decisions I'd feel pretty damn assured. I agree that in the strictest sense, objective knowledge would be impossible for a subject, but the notion of the word objective is useful when distinguishing things that (assuming certain things like that the external world is real and so are other people) seem to be true regardless of us or seem to be true because and only because of our opinion.
@BornInAsphodelMeadow Right. & my discrepancy with BD is that she uses "opinion" to describe moral statements.
Without examination, that is to say maybe the "moral landscape" as sam harris suggests, calling it opinion is as meaningless as calling it fact. There is no basis for calling moral statements opinion when we don't know what cognitive actions are taking place, or how reliable they are in attaining our goals.
If we move past the transcendent, "objective" morality becomes plausible.
@BornInAsphodelMeadow Heh, you're indubitably correct sir ;). Except I mean you should listen to what the Dr. Shelly Kagan has to say, he has written entire books on the matter. I've never heard anyone defend objective morality quite like him. It's really worth going through the entire discussion, maybe skipping the WLC only parts ;), but there are a lot of gems there in what Kagan says.
@2nDoppelganger Have you watched the video ? He explicitly and clearly states that his contractarian morality provides an objective, not dependant on anyone's opinion, fact of the matter kind of morality that trumps prudential concerns. What more do you want ?
@2nDoppelganger "If it is objective, you should be able to place your morality in my hand." .. oh man, not semantics again :(. That doesn't qualify for what everyone calls objective.
Would you call mathematical statements objective ? Just about everyone I've talked to would and yet you cannot prove that it's independent of your mind and I cannot place it in your hand.
And no, nobody is saying you should prescribe to the Bible, I meant you should look at Kagan's view from that debate, not WLC's.
@LaserBlowFish And so the Bible is the perfect moral absolute? Most of it is immoral, and the parts that are moral had already been thought up hundreds of years before Jesus Christ.
If you were not so dedicated to the Bible I don't think you'd be so hell bent on objective morality.
@2nDoppelganger Plese try not to misunderstand me :(, people do that a lot recently.
I'm not talking AT ALL about the Bible, quite the opposite, I very much agree that it contains immoral teaching. And I'm not hell bent on anything, I just find Kagan's arguments quite convincing. Have you watched them ?
@LaserBlowFish Mathematical facts are intersubjective, not objective. The same applies to his moral argument. Morals, at best, are intersubjective and not objective.
@2nDoppelganger Interesting point, please add that word to BionicDance and TheOneQuestion's vocabulary then as well because they clearly call that objective. That said, I don't know if his contractarian theory is intersubjective. I mean, Kagan is talking about conceptual, perfectly rational beings agreeing, not today's humans. And he mostly talks about conceptual harm rather than what harm is to a particular agent. Wikipedia's definition doesn't say if that still qualifies as intersubjective.
@2nDoppelganger Now there are several objections you might raise then.
1. Can you objectively say that the nazis were wrong to kill the jews ?
I think you can, because we have data to suggest that they were in fact harmed. It is an objective fact about the universe that they were harmed. Were they justified in doing so ? We can't know with 100% certainty I suppose but we do know that their resoning had logical errors i.e they did not arrive at their conclusion through reason and thus were wrong.
@LaserBlowFish The facts of an event and the morality of the facts are two different things. If I have two apples, then the two apples are objective, while 1+1=2 is still intersubjective. So to answer your question, still no.
@2nDoppelganger Ok that's a reasonably acceptable epistemic view I think. As long as you can say, sure morality isn't objective but it's intersubjective in a somewhat similar manner to 1+1=2 and it's not really subjective like chocolate vs vanilla then I totally agree, no argument whatsoever from my part.
I still prefer to call strong variants of intersubjectivity like 1+1=2 and morality objective, but we can say that's just an opinion that I and Kagan share, we can agree to disagree :).
@2nDoppelganger Wikipedia ? "A 1996-1999 survey of over 13,000 people[24] reported a much higher figure, with almost 39% of people reporting hallucinatory experiences, 27% of which were daytime hallucinations, mostly outside the context of illness or drug use"
@2nDoppelganger I've pointed out a case in which a person might say, "look I've seen it, I've felt it" .. and strictly by your definition that should be objective, unless I misunderstood, yet I'm sure you wouldn't want to call it that because it only happened once and it was so unlikely, inexplicable that it's much more plausible that it was a figment of his imagination.
@2nDoppelganger Well yes the hallucination shouldn't be objective under any definition of the word and yes under your definition of objectivity I can't present you with a concise list of commands that you should follow, all I can do is present you with long elaborate argumentations and hope that if it's good enough it will convince you to adopt a value.
@LaserBlowFish I could understand, and could even agree that there is some core set of standards and/or values that could be universally agreed on concerning morality. However, I would never call this "objective morality". What you are calling "objective morality", I am merely pointing out would be more properly labeled as "intersubjective morality". You and I probably could agree on moral philosophies, but would disagree on which terms to label them... namely, objective and intersubjective
@2nDoppelganger "I am merely pointing out would be more properly labeled as" .. Well that's the thing, I have provided you with arguments to suggest that maybe it isn't the "proper" way to label it. "proper" is not necessarily whatever the dictionary says. Often we assign words to things which don't exactly fit the definition and eventually the commonality between those things becomes the "true" definition of the word. This is the case with objective/subjective I think.
@2nDoppelganger (cont.) Also I'm curious what you think about watch?v=FqDxHxaX254 ? All this assuming you're open to the idea that maybe objective/subjective do indeed need to be redefined. If not, as I said originally, we can agree to disagree on semantics, even if clearly we agree on everything else :).
@2nDoppelganger Also notice how your definition differs from BornInAsphodelMeadow's. He gives an example of something objective which is literally impossible if "noone's opinion is relevant". You don't mention opinions or mind-dependence so it holds up better, but not to all scrutiny as I've shown with the halucination example.
@2nDoppelganger If you start with one apple and are given a second apple, its objective that you have two apples. Its objective 1+ 1 =2, only the labels are intersubjective.
2. If we try to derive moral conclusions using this theory, will they be objective ?
I suppose at any given moment, yes they will be intersubjective, you're rationality is limited and you have limited data. But you can say that in the LIMIT they are objective at least i.e we can establish a methodology which through reason and empyrical data will lead to better and better approximations of this elusive objective morality.
@2nDoppelganger So what do you think ? Intersubjective at any given point but converges to objectivity via an objective methodology ? Would that qualify for the coveted title of "objective morality" ?
I agree that you need a conscious mind to create a value. But you are missing the point of objective morality. Once you value human flourishing then there are objective moral values in relation to that goal.
@Scootsalongcrib That's like saying "You're missing the point of religion. Once you believe that God exists and that he wrote the bible, the rest is all objectively true". I don't believe that human flourishing is objectively good, nor is it logically possible to think so. Just admit that it's subjective, but the best system for the flourishing of humanity, in your opinion.
@BornInAsphodelMeadow Morality is not the only system that relies upon axioms. Try using evidence to prove that we should value evidence for example, for someone who does not value evidence or human well-being, there is nothing you could say to them that would objectively prove to them that evidence should be valued. We rely on an axiom to do science, that doesn't bring all of science crashing down around it.
@Skep155 I know, which is why I don't reject morality. I never said I did. Morality is as valid as its premises, just as science is as valid as its premises, and whether or not we accept those premises determines their validity to us, in other words, it's dependent on our opinion. SUBJECTIVE.
@BornInAsphodelMeadow Maybe there is evidence that evidence should be used, in the religion vs science debate. Science discovers new things and corrects errors, religion still says the world is flat, in the bible and the koran. Is it really subjective that one is better than the other?
This is beginning to feel like a "you don't know you're not in the matrix" argument. Either way, I am in, or not. My best course of action is to continue as if the world is real. I think ditto objective morals.
@adolthitler There can't be, because if you don't value evidence in the first place then when someone presents you with evidence that the Earth is spherical you can just say "Evidence means diddly squat to me, i think the Earth is flat regardless'. The value we place on evidence is still a subjective axiom, like the value we place on the well being of Humans. But I argue that we should value them both anyway, and we should feel free to call anybody who doesn't an idiot.
@Skep155 Sure we see that with religious nuts now. All evidence is ignored. But that does not make the value of evidence subjective. People have a subjective view of the objective fact evidence works best to determine what is correct.
When you ask people a mathematical problem, 23*56= you will get some right answers, and some wrong answers. There is an objective correct answer, and there are the subjective answers you recieve. Those answers do not make the correct answer subjective.
@adolthitler To be clear, you KNOW that 1+1=2 because you define the concepts in your own mind. What you don't know is whether this is independent of your mind. Ofcourse it's objective still, in almost all cases when you repeat the experiment of picking up one apple, then another apple you get what you call two apples. I said almost because if you're drunk or high, your brain might actually make the wrong connection and say you have three apples. So objectivity is just really strong consensus.
@LaserBlowFish No. Objectively there will be two apples. If I am drunk, two apples, if I sincerely believe there are a million apples, there will be two apples. You are getting confused with what exists even conceptually with what is in my head.
1 apple + 1 apple will always be 2 apples no matter how many people get it wrong for whatever reason.
Moral actions are moral regardless of whether people can or do concieve of them.
The fact that we often can't concieve them is our failing.
@adolthitler Sure, my point is just that you need to be careful with defining objective so that you are able to say that. It is not enough to say that is mind-independent or that it is your perception of a concept rather than the concept or it's not your opinion. What you ACTUALLY have to say is that it's only objective when you or others pick up 1,1 apples and get 2 99.99% of the time. It's still imaginable for you to be mistaken 99.9% of the time but this way I can say that doesn't matter.
@LaserBlowFish No I don't have to be careful of defining it that way. Its the only sensible way to define it. If a question has one correct answer then there is NO subjectivity in the correct answer. It does not matter if some don't know the answer, or even if none know the answer. The answer exists, and is objective. All the subjective speculation only shows the speculation is subjective, not that the correct answer is subjective.
1 + 1 =2 objectively and errors or opinions do not matter.
@adolthitler "If a question has one correct answer then there is NO subjectivity in the correct answer. It does not matter if some don't know the answer, or even if none know the answer. " Ok, that's another definition yet again. If goals depend on the mind and minds can be measured then there is a certain set of rules (not necessarily the same for everyone) that maximizes the "good"-ness perceived overall, I don't know what it is but it clearly exists so under that definition.. it's objective ?
@LaserBlowFish No its only one definition I have always pushed. That any moral question has a correct answer. That is the objective moral.
"there is a certain set of rules (not necessarily the same for everyone) that maximizes the "good"-ness perceived overall, I don't know what it is but it clearly exists so under that definition.. it's objective ?"
Almost. Definitely same rules for everyone. Not just humans, but ants, bees and members of any societies.
"Not just humans" .. well morality is only binding to rational agents such as humans but yes it can and should make reference to less-rational agents like "ants, bees etc" which do suffer, and thus they count as well yes
"Special rules based on names" ok that went too far yes, I just meant that there are special circumstances in which certain rules may need to be overridden .. people are different by nature and nurture, morality has to take that into account as well
@adolthitler (cont.) And I should clarify "not necessarily the same for everyone". Despite that it can be still be called a morality, a SINGLE set of rules because you can put a commandment #14532 there that says .. "if your name is X then you shall disregard rules X,Y,Z and instead do T". It may even need to be an infinite set of rules to account for all the weird cases but it would still be ONE set of rules, thus a morality and an objective one.
@LaserBlowFish I dont see objective morals getting that high. Special rules based on names, seems 100000% subjective. I don't agree that the subjective stuff is moral at all. It violates the concept of fairness, and justice. Any rule governing behaviour applies to all regardless of colour, race, sex, sexual preference, even religion does not exempt you.
@adolthitler (cont.) Ofcourse I'm presuming the a-priori existence of primary goals like "I avoid harm" which can still be false for like1% of the population but they will have other primary goals and those will want to avoid conflict with the goals of other 99%.
@LaserBlowFish "Ofcourse I'm presuming the a-priori existence of primary goals like "I avoid harm" which can still be false for like1% of the population but they will have other primary goals and those will want to avoid conflict with the goals of other 99%."
I think you are now thinking objective morals are a different thing for each person. Based on their preferences.
I don't like the idea of anal sex. But its not morally wrong to me. If two people wish to, go for it. I prefer not to.
@adolthitler Objective morals don't flip and flop according to my personal tastes. My understanding is I can't restrict your freedom based on my favorite colour, food, or sexual position. You can't restrict mine either.
I can easily say you can't kill someone except in self defense, you should not rape, or steal. Beyond that, well the objectivity gets harder to find. These are the minimum required to live in societies. Its true not just for us, but ants, and bees too.
@adolthitler "I can easily say " that's it :) .. it's enough to find a single thing you can call objectively wrong to be able to imagine that objective morality exists, we just don't know it yet, it's very much "harder to find" indeed. Unless you change your definition I don't need to be able to "place it into your hand", not the whole thing anyway, in order to show that it exists.
"You can't restrict mine either." I can and likely will if your preference involves harming others.
@LaserBlowFish ="You can't restrict mine either." I can and likely will if your preference involves harming others.=
That proviso seems to be assuming that my moral code would allow me to. That would not be the objective moral code. But I guess the proviso itself is part of the objective moral code, as I don't think its right to allow people to force, or attack others. I was confused as to if you are stating what you consider part of the objective code, or me allowing subjectivity in.
@adolthitler "as I don't think its right to allow people to force, or attack others." yes it isn't good unless you have VERY good logical and empyrically verified reasons. It was definitely good of the people who tackled Jared Lee Loughner to do so, they saved many lives that day with just a minimal amount of aggression.
I think the misunderstanding comes from the fact that my model is much more complex than just right OR wrong. There are many degrees between the two, allowing comparison.
@adolthitler So I can say, "eah you're right it IS wrong to force or attack people BUT when that's the only way to save many lives, it might be justified. And by justified I mean, it gives the best possible outcome, the lesser of two evils if you are forced to make a choice.
@adolthitler To be a little bit clearer, the moral code should be a model which provides particular answers, oughts, for particular situations, ideally all possible situations. Although I think I have good reasons, I'm not saying that my current opinions on what these answers are would necessarily coincide with the answers attributed to an objective morality but using this kind of model and applying the scientific method should get us closer to quasi-objective oughts.
Ok I like this post because it is close to what I came here to post.
I have been pondering my arguments with subjectivists on morals and was wondering where things go wrong in the communication. I think I have found it.
I propose there is an objective moral code out there. I admit my model of that perfect moral code is subjective. The fact that societal insects like ants and bees have morals regarding killing and theft, would indicate that its not opinion, due to insect IQs.
@adolthitler "I admit my model of that perfect moral code is subjective." yeah me too, I'm just saying that there are experts who can say their model is highly intersubjective, and maybe with enough work you could be able to call it quasi-objective at least.
@adolthitler Also, by inconsequential I mean, as far as we know. Hypothetically if you were to find out that every time you choose chocolate over vanilla, a kitten dies, it might be objectively wrong to choose chocolate.
@adolthitler What if that bastard is killing YOU ? Will you continue ? Or to put it better, regardless of whether you actually will or not, whether you can help yourself of not, SHOULD you stop ? Do you not think that if you don't stop in that particular case, it means something has gone wrong with your brain, like when you say 2+2=5 ?
@LaserBlowFish I probably have a lot wrong with my brain. My life experience shows I fight to the end, against any percieved injustice. I have fought six muggers, and then ten police who were supposed to be helping me, but who chose to try and push me around. I suspect I would stop for the kittens or the puppies, but if it was me, I'd kick him in the nuts.
@adolthitler "I have" .. "I suspect I would". This is not about reflecting on what you did and predicting what you will do, it's about what you should or should have done in particular situations, about considering long term consequences, about taking a good look at your goals, tydiing up and making a nice, rational, coherent picture.
@adolthitler And although Kagan only references harming and doing good to others, we can extend that to doing it to yourself as well. You might have deeply conflicting goals and not know about it, the brain allows it unfortunately, but once it is pointed out at least, you must resolve it, otherwise it is objectively true that you cannot achieve your goals, whatever they may be. So e.g if you don't like pain, you must like good healthcare and less violence.
@adolthitler "different thing for each person. Based on their preferences" it certainly takes inconsequential preferences into account, but it restricts the consequential ones. Harm and good can mean different things to everyone but everyone avoids harm and thus has to sign a social contract which involves not harming eachother.
In your case "I prefer not to" is inconsequential and thus it is objectively immoral for anyone to do it to you.
@adolthitler (cont.) I know I'm splitting hairs here and this may not be what you wanted by an objective morality, but it fits your definition I think, which just underlines my initial statement that you need to make a clear definition.
@adolthitler Mathematical problems would be irrelevant to someone who doesn't value maths. Why DO we value maths? Why DO we value what's beneficial? Can you objectively prove that we should value what 'works'? Can you objectively prove that we should value what's 'beneficial'? What if someone said they didn't value mathematics or what works? could you prove to them that what 'works' is objectively valuable? There are objective fatcs, but the value of evidence is subjective.
@Skep155 What works objectively is valuable because we are attempting an action. That action has optimum methods and sub optimum methods. If you want to move a wheel barrow full of soil, you could load it with a spade, or you could try a teaspoon. Its not immoral to use the teaspoon, but it is annoying and I really don't think you would choose that method. Its so obvious that the better method should be used, I don't know why you bother asking that question.
@adolthitler We complete actions for our own well being. If your moving a wheel barrow of soil, your doing it because you believe completing the task will increase your well being or the well being of others. That goal depends on the subjective axiom that our well being, and the well being of others, is valuable. The spade is objectively better than the tea spoon IF you accept the subjective axiom that we should value beneficial actions, fortunately we are programmed to accept the axiom.
@adolthitler And even on top of that you might need to add that it also depends on your assessment of how lucid you are. You can just disregard cases when you know you were drunk, but what if you just get a hallucination out of the blue ? It happens to people, that still doesn't make what they see objective at all.
@adolthitler There can't be, because if you don't value evidence in the first place then when someone presents you with evidence that the Earth is spherical you can just say "Evidence means diddly squat to me, i think the Earth is flat regardless'. The value we place on evidence is still a subjective axiom, like the value we place on the well being of Humans. But I argue that we should value them both anyway, and we should feel free to call anybody who doesn't an idiot.
@BornInAsphodelMeadow Then by your criteria we should not be able to discover any objective facts about the universe, since the value we place on evidence is subjective. Yet you seem perfectly content saying that the mass of the sun in objectively greater than the Earths mass. I apply the same standards to moral truths, the value we place on the well being of conscious entities is an axiom, but nevertheless there are facts to be known about human well being that we can objectively measure.
@Skep155 I agree, but I never said I knew that the sun had more mass than the earth, I just said that the statement "the sun has more mass than the earth" is objectively true or false. I'm not trying to say morality is useless, i'm just saying that our opinion is what makes it valid.
@BornInAsphodelMeadow I agree human flourishing is not objective. But what do you think a human should do to be good? Destroy humanity?
Objectively you should just accept that the human does have human goals. The ant has ant goals, the good human and good ant have similar traits. Traits forced by the need to exist in a society. Morality is a function of societies.
The commonality shows the objectivity, it does not matter if you are human, ant, bee, or alien.
@adolthitler Honestly dude I'm not going to respond to you again unless you say something different. I'm NOT saying that we should NOT be good to the human race. I'm just saying that the reason I think so is because of my personal opinion that the human race is good. I do accept that humans have goals and that they will act on them. I don't accept that that fact justifies morality in a way that's objective. WE FOLLOW OUR GOALS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE SUBJECTIVELY DESIRE TO DO.
@BornInAsphodelMeadow what of ants, bees etc? Human values? Is it because its a function of societies? What alternative are you posing?
I am not trying to be a jerk.
Would an alien intelligence have morals different from us? Let me clarify that question, by barring obvious subjective stuff from Zarg their supreme overlord on what constitutes moral pizza toppings. But won't they have laws and morals about when it is and is not ok to kill. Ditto theft. How is it then not objective?
@adolthitler Because it would be their opinion of it that would make it valid. I'm not saying that we can't all agree on a moral system, but i'm just saying that if no human being accepted that pain was bad or that the human race was good, there would be no morality towards them. Society would collapse, the human race would be wiped out, but if we didn't care about that, we'd have no reason to stop it from doing so.
@BornInAsphodel But I am not talking of the opinion of bees, or ants, or even people. I am saying the rules that all these societies share are functions of societies. Therefore are objective rules for living in societies. Opinions don't matter. Kill off all social species and wait for new social species to evolve. Voila! They too will observe these rules. Its the group dynamic driving the limits to the behaviour. We just tag it and bag it.
Gods, and ignorance allowed subjective trash as morals.
@BornInAsphodelMeadow Surelly the fact we must have that opinion to have a society means its objective. The outside force that just makes it so. We do have people who slip and then see the back of the hand from society. The fact that this holds true for ants and bees and aliens, and any other social being, this is what makes it more than our subjective view.
No it is not at all like saying if god exists then he wrote the bible. You can come to the conclusion that human flourishing is good or bad that is subjective yes. But so what? If you are in the bracket of humanity that accepts some form of human flourishing is good then there are logical consequences that follow.
@Scootsalongcrib When did I say that if God exists then he wrote the bible? I just said that if god exists and he wrote the bible, then it follows logically that christianity is true and should be followed. However, you've admitted that it's subjective, and that's all I was aiming for. I'm a moral person and I believe in the happiness and betterment of humanity, but acknowledge that that's just my opinion.
Yes you are correct about the God analogy. Sorry I misread that. My point is that it does not matter how subjective the idea of human flourishing is; once you accept human flourishing as a goal, then you have an objection foundation to build your moral code.
@BornInAsphodelMeadow@Scootsalongcrib "if god exists and he wrote the bible, then it follows logically that christianity is true and should be followed"
I agree that this statement is wrong, because it is subjective. However, although I do support that morality is subjective I come to a big point of doubt when it's posed like this;
"once you accept human flourishing as a goal, then you have an objection foundation to build your moral code."
Forgive me I really don’t think I am explaining myself adequately here. To be objective is to be mind independent. If I take an action that runs contrary my moral foundation (human flourishing) then I have committed immoral act. It does not matter what I think of or how I rationalize such an action. Therefore objective morality exists.
@Scootsalongcrib Your moral foundation--human flourishing--is a SUBJECTIVE basis for morality, not objective. If you take an action which runs contrary to your moral foundation, it ONE HUNDRED PERCENT matters what you think or how you rationalize such an action. Only subjective morality exists because YOU MAKE UP YOUR OWN MORALS.
To be objective, your moral code would have to be mind-independent, not your actions.
Does morality being "objective" matter? Without morals you would already be dead and I would probably be dead too.
parrisdaley 1 week ago
@parrisdaley your point being
BornInAsphodelMeadow 1 week ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Conspicuous by its absence: Objectivism
dannidandannikins 2 weeks ago
4:49 - "Why should I accept the premise that pain is bad?"... why is this an acceptable question, whereas "Why is logic true?" is not an acceptable question... In both cases you are starting with an unjustifiable basic premise... the chain of explanation must end somewhere... you will reach a point where asking "why" is impossible... If you say there is no objective morality because of unjustified basic premises, you must say the same for everything... Mathematics begins with axioms. science too
otakurocklee 4 months ago
@otakurocklee agreed. There are no objectively true beliefs, because ultimately even if there was an objective truth, we couldn't know it, but if we only consider subjective reality, you are correct.
BornInAsphodelMeadow 4 months ago
@BornInAsphodelMeadow cool. :) thanks for replying.
otakurocklee 4 months ago
objective morality is an oxymoron
every living thing trys to escape pain but its still subjective what is objective is that your r feeling pain in other words i dont have agree your dying 4 u to b dying and evolution has givin us the need to survive so moraltiy is a social construct to avoid suffering its subjective but the means r sort of objective
MrDavidkinane 4 months ago
objective morality is an oxymoron
MrDavidkinane 4 months ago
No living creature wants pain or to die, that is objective, even without humans in the earth, that would stay as a truth. I can say that for a smart creature that is aware that living beings can suffer pain, it is morally objective to avoid causing unnecessary pain and avoid killing creatures in a way that they suffer.
Pain and fear of death is objective in complex living creatures, that is objective, just like the sun has more mass then the earth.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 5 months ago
Comment removed
secobi 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DogsneedpIeasuretoo "No living creature wants[...]", this is painfully subjective.
secobi 4 months ago
@DogsneedpIeasuretoo also, pain IS subjective by definition; i.e. I cannot subject a rock to pain; i.e. I cannot subject your nervous system to pain but I can subject your consciousness.
secobi 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@secobi
Did you read my comment? I said living creatures, are rocks living creatures? Can rocks feel pain?
""No living creature wants[...]", this is painfully subjective."←Explain how it is subjective.
"I cannot subject your nervous system to pain but I can subject your consciousness."←You can subject my nervous system to pain so what you talking about? Please explain yourself better, your comments makes no sense to me.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 4 months ago
This would allow for behaviours of an individual to be objectively good or bad with reference to the collective but subjective for the individual, They may do something that is beneficial to themselves but that harms the collective, or they may sacrifice themselves for the greater good which is bad for them but would be good for the collective. This could explain why the Golden Rule crops up time and again, maybe it is a fundamental truth for a collective, an objectively moral tenet.
TheTomtompiper 1 year ago
I have just had an epiphany, the problem does not lie with with the definition of Morals, or at least not solely with this. The problem lies with the definition of an object. I think you may be taking it too literally, as in using it only for things that are singular in nature. But a collective can also be considered an object, like a Hive, a herd or the human body, even a society or a species or phylum can be considered an object. If this is true then my hypothesis hold true.
TheTomtompiper 1 year ago
I do not claim there has to be a purpose, I just state that in my humble opinion an entity that replicates itself either by means of fission or sexual means has an intrinsic purpose due to the fact that it is a self replicating mechanism. And If it is intrinsic to that entity then it is objectively so as it will be true independent of an observer or indeed lack of one. I believe it is intrinsic but I may be wrong.
TheTomtompiper 1 year ago
@TheTomtompiper "I just state that in my humble OPINION"
I win. All I'm trying to show is that your system of morality is only as valid as your opinion, and you've just stated that this is so.
BornInAsphodelMeadow 1 year ago
@BornInAsphodelMeadow I'm sorry, I didn't realise this was a contest. Also you are incorrect, it is my opinion that the sun will rise tomorrow, this does not make the motion of the Earth around the Sun subjective. Either a self replicating entity has a purpose that is intdinsic or it does not, my opinion will not affect the outcome, but if we can determine that it does then morality for that entity will be objective.
TheTomtompiper 1 year ago
@TheTomtompiper It's not a contest, it's a debate, and there are winners and losers. Also, I agree entirely. That said, The concept of intrinsic purpose, as you put it, is an oxymoron. Please explain to me how something can have a purpose not given to it by a subject, or concede that I'm right.
BornInAsphodelMeadow 1 year ago
@BornInAsphodelMeadow I thought debate was a method to arrive at a correct conclusion that everybody could agree on, but I may be wrong. As to how something can have a purpose not given to it by a subject, I can only offer that self replicating entity's that I know of seem to replicate and as I am of the opinion that the developed rather than were created then this propensity to replicate is intrinsic and could be called a purpose (I did say it was a bad word.) but lets not use that word.
TheTomtompiper 1 year ago
@BornInAsphodelMeadow I purposely used entity I think the day will arrive when electromechanical beings that self replicate will exist, and will have been endowed with this ability this by their creators so their purpose is subjective. but answer this, if you came from another planet and were to observe both entity's how would you know which was which? So I say that as far as I see that living systems have a purpose that was not given to them by a creator or by an observer, it is intrinsic.
TheTomtompiper 1 year ago
@TheTomtompiper your first comment is basically this: "It's my opinion that the purpose for self-replicating entities is self replication" That's fine, whatever, but that purpose is something that you give it. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. Purpose, by definition, is something assigned BY a subject TO an object. You can't have an object assign another object a purpose, and so there is no such thing as morality without a subject, in other words, objective.
BornInAsphodelMeadow 1 year ago
@BornInAsphodelMeadow "the purpose for self-replicating entities is self replication" That's fine, whatever, but that purpose is something that you give it."
I think the purpose is not given by Tomtompiper, its from the entity itself. Self replicating life does replicate, it opts to replicate, it does not need my permission, or orders from me. It does so on its own. Some of it has no intellect or consciousness, so how can that be subjective?
adolthitler 1 year ago
@adolthitler If it's not conscious, then it's logically contradictory to say that it gives itself purpose. That's like saying rocks give themselves the purpose of being hard and solid, because rocks are hard and solid, even though they aren't conscious. It's fucking stupid man. Purpose is something assigned by a subject. No subject, no purpose. Period.
will SOMEONE explain to me how you can have purpose without a subject? please? anyone?
BornInAsphodelMeadow 1 year ago
@BornInAsphodelMeadow I don't know that it needs a subject to have a purpose. It does strive to eat shit, and reproduce. That striving is despite it not having a brain, the fact that it seeks food consumes it and when it has attained enough sustenance it reproduces. That is what it does, it does that because it is driven to do so and that is its purpose.
Your insistance that it needs a subject to have a purpose is like trying to say sound needs to be heard to be sound.
adolthitler 1 year ago
@adolthitler From wikipedia "Purpose is a result, end, mean, aim, or goal of an action intentionally undertaken[1], or of an object being brought into use or existence"
As each lifeform is born, it has the urge to reproduce and is therefore purposed. It does not require consciousness to have a purpose.
adolthitler 1 year ago
@adolthitler Alright then, let's take it for granted that whatever a biological organism is compelled to do is its purpose, and whatever serves its purpose is moral. So rape is moral, because the purpose of an organism is to reproduce, and rape helps it reproduce. Also, wearing a condom is immoral because it inhibits reproduction. See what I mean?
Morality is what we SHOULD DO. That's it, stop. no more. There can be no claim of what we should do that isn't based on opinion -> subjective.
BornInAsphodelMeadow 1 year ago
@BornInAsphodelMeadow I must disagree about the example you give, if rape served the purpose of self replicating entity's then it would be the norm rather than the exception, In most cases I know of there is some sort of ritual that precedes sex, and this is the norm, so it obviously has benefits to the entity's Phylum and so is selected for while it would appear that rape is either negative, or neutral as it is not selected for.
TheTomtompiper 1 year ago
@BornInAsphodelMeadow As for the condom example there may be times when population control may be beneficial so that is a subject for discussion and not cut and dried. If there are any "Moral" (Maybe another poor word, beneficial would be better.) truths for a particular Phylum they would fluid and would by necessity change with circumstances.
TheTomtompiper 1 year ago
@TheTomtompiper So your argument is basically we should what would benefit us, is that so?
BornInAsphodelMeadow 1 year ago
@BornInAsphodelMeadow No my argument is that due to the intrinsic nature of self replicating entity's namely their propensity to replicate, that there are behaviours that are advantageous and those that are disadvantageous to their Phylum as a whole and that these behaviours are objectively good, bad or neutral for the population as a whole. This could be seen as a basis for a moral code, and morals derived from this source could be called objective as they derive from a basic nature.
TheTomtompiper 1 year ago
@BornInAsphodelMeadow But as I have said Moral is a tricky word, and it might be that we need to narrow the definition or create a new term. Perhaps we can go back to it's roots and use it to indicate lessons learned from observation of events as to which actions are good, bad and neutral and reward the good avoid the bad and accept the neutral.
TheTomtompiper 1 year ago
@TheTomtompiper I've already defined morality dude. What you're talking about is a synonym of "What we should do to benefit the species". I"m not talking about what's good for the species, I'm talking about what we should do. Based on that definition, do you understand why the answer to the question "What should we do? (with no further qualifications, including "to benefit the species")" can only be subjective?
BornInAsphodelMeadow 1 year ago
@BornInAsphodelMeadow Yes with such a narrow and restricted definition then everything will be subjective. If this restriction is placed on every thing we know then everything is subjective as it is only by agreeing on observations and transferring information from one to another can we decide if our senses are receiving correct information, by denying that interaction we cannot be objective. Therefore I fear we shall have to agree to differ.
TheTomtompiper 1 year ago
@BornInAsphodelMeadow You need to go a bit further with your definition, as "What we should do to be good". Otherwise its just any behaviour that seems profitable and which direction to turn when you hit an obstacle is a moral question, which is silly.
My definition is better as it weeds a lot of random subjective morals. "Its immoral to wear a pink shirt" I heard this one growing up, but really "bad" people wear pink shirts? It obviously says nothing about the character of the wearer.
adolthitler 1 year ago
@BornInAsphodelMeadow I think that was the argument you put forward. However I think it benefits us to be "moral" in the sense of being good, in all the "subjective" glory of all the nice traits and behaviours you can think of. The key to a society is cooperation. The nicer you are the less people you offend and the more friends you have to help you out.
A friend of mine died of cancer 6 mths ago, his widow is yet to have to mow her lawn or tend her garden herself. Friends count.
adolthitler 1 year ago
@BornInAsphodelMeadow Er no. You confuse morality and purpose. Morality is about being good. Things are more complicated for us than for the mindless cell. Yet they are simple too. You can have any goal or purpose, whatever you assign for yourself. That is subjective. Being a good person, is not just attaining your goal any way you can. We live in a society, we need to care for our children unlike a simple cell. So rape is not really a valid way to reproduce.
adolthitler 1 year ago
@adolthitler You have the opportunity to rape to reproduce but then you are rolling the dice and may end up in jail. Society needs the cooperation of its units, each entity in society must freely interact with the others, if some need to fear others then society is not running optimally. So society does not reward rape, society punishes rape.
adolthitler 1 year ago
@TheTomtompiper as to your second comment, I could tell them apart because one was made of metal and the other was made of organic material. Even still, how the hell does that have any relevance to objects having purposes not given to them by subjects?
BornInAsphodelMeadow 1 year ago
@TheTomtompiper On a final note, unless you can say something that you haven't already said that at least resembles a good try at an argument in your next comment, I'm done with this convo.
BornInAsphodelMeadow 1 year ago
Hey great vid :) Now can you please go crush Epydemic2020, cheers :D
SwissTopper 1 year ago
1. There are behaviours for the population of any species of organisms that will enhance the survivability of that species. 2. Organisms among the population who act in contrary to these advantageous behaviours are endangering themselves, others and the species as a whole. 3. You could argue that the behaviours were good, and going against the behaviours were bad. 4 This is intrinsic to all species or communities. 5. This is independent of opinion.
Therefore we just need to identify them.
TheTomtompiper 1 year ago
@TheTomtompiper Premise 3: "You could argue that the behaviours were good...". This is a weak-ass premise, man. I challenge you to argue convincingly that those actions are good without using any subjective premises.
BornInAsphodelMeadow 1 year ago
@BornInAsphodelMeadow Hi I am just floating this idea out, I haven't given it a great deal of thought yet, so thanks for the feedback. If this is the only part that appears weak at present I will ponder on it and see if it can be strengthened. Even if I am successful this "objective morality" would only hold true within the boundary of the species. I will get back to you on this, I enjoy a challenge.
TheTomtompiper 1 year ago
@BornInAsphodelMeadow Hi, I have revised the first 3 premises.
1. There are behaviours for the population of any species of entities that will enhance the survivability of that species, and behaviours that will damage the population as a whole.
2. Entities among the population who act in a damaging way are endangering themselves and the species as a whole.
3. It is advantageous for society to reward those who perform enhancing acts and dissuade those who perform damaging acts. Feedback?
TheTomtompiper 1 year ago
@BornInAsphodelMeadow Revised 1-3.
1. There are behaviours for the population of any species of entities that will enhance the survivability of that species, and behaviours that will damage the population as a whole.
2. Entities among the population who act in a damaging way are endangering themselves and the species as a whole.
3. It is advantageous for entities to reward those who perform enhancing acts and dissuade those who perform damaging acts. Your thoughts?
TheTomtompiper 1 year ago
@TheTomtompiper Gratz, you've just proved that it's advantageous to act in certain ways. You still haven't told me why we should act in ways that are advantageous to the species. The only possible answer to that question is subjective, and so morality is necessarily so.
BornInAsphodelMeadow 1 year ago
@BornInAsphodelMeadow Yes I have proved it and it is an objective fact, the reasons why the entities should act in an advantageous or disadvantageous are irrelevant and do not require the permission of you or I to be so. To try to establish a non subjective reason we must first address the purpose of a self replicating entity. Purpose is a loaded word, If I could think of I better one I would, maybe raison d'etre would be better, basically what is it for?
TheTomtompiper 1 year ago
@TheTomtompiper Your problem is that you assume that things can have objective purpose, and that we should be trying to find a sense of morality that is objective. Neither is so. Objective morality is an oxymoron, because you can't have a system of morality that has no intrinsic subjective opinions. Even yours is inseparable from the presupposition that one should do what is beneficial to your species. You can't justify that without opinionated (subjective) statements. If you can, show me.
BornInAsphodelMeadow 1 year ago
@BornInAsphodelMeadow I did not assume anything, I merely asked a question about self replicating entities. Until we can agree on this I shall not be making any assumptions.
TheTomtompiper 1 year ago
@TheTomtompiper And I answered you. You ask "What is a biological organism for?", I respond "There is no objective purpose for anything, including the existence and actions of biological organisms." So your question bears no fruit. Again, if you can prove me wrong by giving me an objective purpose for something, I'll happily withdraw that statement.
BornInAsphodelMeadow 1 year ago
@BornInAsphodelMeadow Sorry I did not ask that question, and cannot find where you answered the question you think I asked. if as you say "There is no objective purpose for anything, including the existence and actions of biological organisms." then there is no such thing as objective, if there is no reason for anything then everything is subjective. I can live with that but I know of a few people who would rail against such a proposition.
TheTomtompiper 1 year ago
@TheTomtompiper Correction: Everything we perceive is subjective, not everything there is. There could be an objective world, but we'd have no way of discerning it. Also, the fact that some people can't handle that doesn't mean that they're right and I'm wrong. There is no objective morality, no matter how badly one may wish it so.
BornInAsphodelMeadow 1 year ago
@BornInAsphodelMeadow I will restate my question as it was a bit garbled. What is the purpose of a self replicating entity? If it has none, why does it exist? My thought is that it is hard wired to reproduce, and as this is intrinsic to it, it is an objective truth, being of the object.
TheTomtompiper 1 year ago
@TheTomtompiper why does there have to be a purpose? How do you know there is one?
BornInAsphodelMeadow 1 year ago
@BornInAsphodelMeadow "How do you know there is one?", neuroscience and biology might possibly be able to answer that question
"no matter how badly one may wish it so." sure, except nobody wishes it so while assigning the same meaning to the words objective and morality .. so you're totally right, except you're wrong to assume that the words mean what you think they mean .. words don't get their meaning from the dictionary which just tries (and often fails) to describe the way the words are used
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
I do support that morality is subjective, yet there is the persuasive argument for objective morality that, if we wish to build a flourishing society then there are objective rules for members to follow. Just as, if we wished for a stagnant society, we could also follow objective rules.
Of course, each set of rules is different for each species, and can be dependant upon the dominant memes, but given the set of conditions the rule set is objective regardless of opinion.
bignastydragon 1 year ago
*shrugs* So let's say that morality is subjective, how dose that help answer the question that you posed?
Disthron 1 year ago
@Disthron the question I posed wasn't what I was trying to answer in this video, it was just a definition. I will eventually post videos explaining my position on ethics.
BornInAsphodelMeadow 1 year ago
I argued with BD in her comment section, but not because I'm a moral objectivist.
If we can't access anything without our brains, "objective" is a useless concept. It's always interpreted subjectively. So everything, even logic, and size of the moon, is only "intersubjectively" valid, as you say.
I just don't like the idea of placing morality into the category of "opinion", because we all intuitively experience it, like sight, and it would be silly to say it's my opinion that the sky is blue.
AHughman08 1 year ago
@AHughman08 well yeah, if I thought that the universe itself agreed with my moral decisions I'd feel pretty damn assured. I agree that in the strictest sense, objective knowledge would be impossible for a subject, but the notion of the word objective is useful when distinguishing things that (assuming certain things like that the external world is real and so are other people) seem to be true regardless of us or seem to be true because and only because of our opinion.
BornInAsphodelMeadow 1 year ago
@BornInAsphodelMeadow Right. & my discrepancy with BD is that she uses "opinion" to describe moral statements.
Without examination, that is to say maybe the "moral landscape" as sam harris suggests, calling it opinion is as meaningless as calling it fact. There is no basis for calling moral statements opinion when we don't know what cognitive actions are taking place, or how reliable they are in attaining our goals.
If we move past the transcendent, "objective" morality becomes plausible.
AHughman08 1 year ago
"I have objective morality"
I outstretch my hand. "Okay, hand it over."
End of discussion.
2nDoppelganger 1 year ago 3
@2nDoppelganger NICE. I like it. :)
BionicDance 1 year ago
@2nDoppelganger /me hands over watch?v=_l69QN7ixmM .. that is objective morality
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@LaserBlowFish Lol, William Lane Craig. As if an 11th grade student who took one course in philosophy couldn't expose him for his BS.
BornInAsphodelMeadow 1 year ago
@BornInAsphodelMeadow Heh, you're indubitably correct sir ;). Except I mean you should listen to what the Dr. Shelly Kagan has to say, he has written entire books on the matter. I've never heard anyone defend objective morality quite like him. It's really worth going through the entire discussion, maybe skipping the WLC only parts ;), but there are a lot of gems there in what Kagan says.
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@LaserBlowFish Will do, thanks for the recommendation :)
BornInAsphodelMeadow 1 year ago
@LaserBlowFish Objective though? Still fails.
2nDoppelganger 1 year ago
@2nDoppelganger Have you watched the video ? He explicitly and clearly states that his contractarian morality provides an objective, not dependant on anyone's opinion, fact of the matter kind of morality that trumps prudential concerns. What more do you want ?
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@LaserBlowFish Do you know what objective means? If it is objective, you should be able to place your morality in my hand.
2nDoppelganger 1 year ago
@2nDoppelganger "If it is objective, you should be able to place your morality in my hand." .. oh man, not semantics again :(. That doesn't qualify for what everyone calls objective.
Would you call mathematical statements objective ? Just about everyone I've talked to would and yet you cannot prove that it's independent of your mind and I cannot place it in your hand.
And no, nobody is saying you should prescribe to the Bible, I meant you should look at Kagan's view from that debate, not WLC's.
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@LaserBlowFish And so the Bible is the perfect moral absolute? Most of it is immoral, and the parts that are moral had already been thought up hundreds of years before Jesus Christ.
If you were not so dedicated to the Bible I don't think you'd be so hell bent on objective morality.
2nDoppelganger 1 year ago
@2nDoppelganger Plese try not to misunderstand me :(, people do that a lot recently.
I'm not talking AT ALL about the Bible, quite the opposite, I very much agree that it contains immoral teaching. And I'm not hell bent on anything, I just find Kagan's arguments quite convincing. Have you watched them ?
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@LaserBlowFish Mathematical facts are intersubjective, not objective. The same applies to his moral argument. Morals, at best, are intersubjective and not objective.
2nDoppelganger 1 year ago
@2nDoppelganger Interesting point, please add that word to BionicDance and TheOneQuestion's vocabulary then as well because they clearly call that objective. That said, I don't know if his contractarian theory is intersubjective. I mean, Kagan is talking about conceptual, perfectly rational beings agreeing, not today's humans. And he mostly talks about conceptual harm rather than what harm is to a particular agent. Wikipedia's definition doesn't say if that still qualifies as intersubjective.
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@2nDoppelganger Now there are several objections you might raise then.
1. Can you objectively say that the nazis were wrong to kill the jews ?
I think you can, because we have data to suggest that they were in fact harmed. It is an objective fact about the universe that they were harmed. Were they justified in doing so ? We can't know with 100% certainty I suppose but we do know that their resoning had logical errors i.e they did not arrive at their conclusion through reason and thus were wrong.
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@LaserBlowFish The facts of an event and the morality of the facts are two different things. If I have two apples, then the two apples are objective, while 1+1=2 is still intersubjective. So to answer your question, still no.
2nDoppelganger 1 year ago
@2nDoppelganger Ok that's a reasonably acceptable epistemic view I think. As long as you can say, sure morality isn't objective but it's intersubjective in a somewhat similar manner to 1+1=2 and it's not really subjective like chocolate vs vanilla then I totally agree, no argument whatsoever from my part.
I still prefer to call strong variants of intersubjectivity like 1+1=2 and morality objective, but we can say that's just an opinion that I and Kagan share, we can agree to disagree :).
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@LaserBlowFish Then there's been no disagreement. The only disagreement we've had is with the term "objective morality"
2nDoppelganger 1 year ago
@2nDoppelganger Yay :). If I may ask you just one thing, can you please explain this to BionicDance et al ?
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@LaserBlowFish Who's that?
2nDoppelganger 1 year ago
@2nDoppelganger Wikipedia ? "A 1996-1999 survey of over 13,000 people[24] reported a much higher figure, with almost 39% of people reporting hallucinatory experiences, 27% of which were daytime hallucinations, mostly outside the context of illness or drug use"
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@LaserBlowFish What's the point of that?
2nDoppelganger 1 year ago
@2nDoppelganger I've pointed out a case in which a person might say, "look I've seen it, I've felt it" .. and strictly by your definition that should be objective, unless I misunderstood, yet I'm sure you wouldn't want to call it that because it only happened once and it was so unlikely, inexplicable that it's much more plausible that it was a figment of his imagination.
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@LaserBlowFish Having a hallucination and objectively feeling morality are two different things.
2nDoppelganger 1 year ago
@2nDoppelganger Well yes the hallucination shouldn't be objective under any definition of the word and yes under your definition of objectivity I can't present you with a concise list of commands that you should follow, all I can do is present you with long elaborate argumentations and hope that if it's good enough it will convince you to adopt a value.
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@LaserBlowFish I could understand, and could even agree that there is some core set of standards and/or values that could be universally agreed on concerning morality. However, I would never call this "objective morality". What you are calling "objective morality", I am merely pointing out would be more properly labeled as "intersubjective morality". You and I probably could agree on moral philosophies, but would disagree on which terms to label them... namely, objective and intersubjective
2nDoppelganger 1 year ago
@2nDoppelganger "I am merely pointing out would be more properly labeled as" .. Well that's the thing, I have provided you with arguments to suggest that maybe it isn't the "proper" way to label it. "proper" is not necessarily whatever the dictionary says. Often we assign words to things which don't exactly fit the definition and eventually the commonality between those things becomes the "true" definition of the word. This is the case with objective/subjective I think.
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@2nDoppelganger (cont.) Also I'm curious what you think about watch?v=FqDxHxaX254 ? All this assuming you're open to the idea that maybe objective/subjective do indeed need to be redefined. If not, as I said originally, we can agree to disagree on semantics, even if clearly we agree on everything else :).
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@2nDoppelganger Also notice how your definition differs from BornInAsphodelMeadow's. He gives an example of something objective which is literally impossible if "noone's opinion is relevant". You don't mention opinions or mind-dependence so it holds up better, but not to all scrutiny as I've shown with the halucination example.
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@2nDoppelganger If you start with one apple and are given a second apple, its objective that you have two apples. Its objective 1+ 1 =2, only the labels are intersubjective.
adolthitler 1 year ago
@2nDoppelganger Then there's the harder one:
2. If we try to derive moral conclusions using this theory, will they be objective ?
I suppose at any given moment, yes they will be intersubjective, you're rationality is limited and you have limited data. But you can say that in the LIMIT they are objective at least i.e we can establish a methodology which through reason and empyrical data will lead to better and better approximations of this elusive objective morality.
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@2nDoppelganger So what do you think ? Intersubjective at any given point but converges to objectivity via an objective methodology ? Would that qualify for the coveted title of "objective morality" ?
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@2nDoppelganger In other words the only excuse you have for not following it is that you are not rational enough, which is not an excuse.
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@LaserBlowFish Also, I would never prescribe to the morality of the bible. I have read the bible, and have found nothing moral about it.
2nDoppelganger 1 year ago
Objective morality exists because you can't tell me how magnets work.
Morrakiu 1 year ago
@Morrakiu LOL I really hope you're kidding.
2nDoppelganger 1 year ago
Pleaaaasseeee be back! :)
ShwaNerd 1 year ago
I agree that you need a conscious mind to create a value. But you are missing the point of objective morality. Once you value human flourishing then there are objective moral values in relation to that goal.
Scootsalongcrib 1 year ago
@Scootsalongcrib That's like saying "You're missing the point of religion. Once you believe that God exists and that he wrote the bible, the rest is all objectively true". I don't believe that human flourishing is objectively good, nor is it logically possible to think so. Just admit that it's subjective, but the best system for the flourishing of humanity, in your opinion.
BornInAsphodelMeadow 1 year ago
@BornInAsphodelMeadow Morality is not the only system that relies upon axioms. Try using evidence to prove that we should value evidence for example, for someone who does not value evidence or human well-being, there is nothing you could say to them that would objectively prove to them that evidence should be valued. We rely on an axiom to do science, that doesn't bring all of science crashing down around it.
Skep155 1 year ago
@Skep155 I know, which is why I don't reject morality. I never said I did. Morality is as valid as its premises, just as science is as valid as its premises, and whether or not we accept those premises determines their validity to us, in other words, it's dependent on our opinion. SUBJECTIVE.
BornInAsphodelMeadow 1 year ago
@BornInAsphodelMeadow Maybe there is evidence that evidence should be used, in the religion vs science debate. Science discovers new things and corrects errors, religion still says the world is flat, in the bible and the koran. Is it really subjective that one is better than the other?
This is beginning to feel like a "you don't know you're not in the matrix" argument. Either way, I am in, or not. My best course of action is to continue as if the world is real. I think ditto objective morals.
adolthitler 1 year ago
@adolthitler There can't be, because if you don't value evidence in the first place then when someone presents you with evidence that the Earth is spherical you can just say "Evidence means diddly squat to me, i think the Earth is flat regardless'. The value we place on evidence is still a subjective axiom, like the value we place on the well being of Humans. But I argue that we should value them both anyway, and we should feel free to call anybody who doesn't an idiot.
Skep155 1 year ago
@Skep155 Sure we see that with religious nuts now. All evidence is ignored. But that does not make the value of evidence subjective. People have a subjective view of the objective fact evidence works best to determine what is correct.
When you ask people a mathematical problem, 23*56= you will get some right answers, and some wrong answers. There is an objective correct answer, and there are the subjective answers you recieve. Those answers do not make the correct answer subjective.
adolthitler 1 year ago
@adolthitler To be clear, you KNOW that 1+1=2 because you define the concepts in your own mind. What you don't know is whether this is independent of your mind. Ofcourse it's objective still, in almost all cases when you repeat the experiment of picking up one apple, then another apple you get what you call two apples. I said almost because if you're drunk or high, your brain might actually make the wrong connection and say you have three apples. So objectivity is just really strong consensus.
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@LaserBlowFish No. Objectively there will be two apples. If I am drunk, two apples, if I sincerely believe there are a million apples, there will be two apples. You are getting confused with what exists even conceptually with what is in my head.
1 apple + 1 apple will always be 2 apples no matter how many people get it wrong for whatever reason.
Moral actions are moral regardless of whether people can or do concieve of them.
The fact that we often can't concieve them is our failing.
adolthitler 1 year ago
@adolthitler Sure, my point is just that you need to be careful with defining objective so that you are able to say that. It is not enough to say that is mind-independent or that it is your perception of a concept rather than the concept or it's not your opinion. What you ACTUALLY have to say is that it's only objective when you or others pick up 1,1 apples and get 2 99.99% of the time. It's still imaginable for you to be mistaken 99.9% of the time but this way I can say that doesn't matter.
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@LaserBlowFish No I don't have to be careful of defining it that way. Its the only sensible way to define it. If a question has one correct answer then there is NO subjectivity in the correct answer. It does not matter if some don't know the answer, or even if none know the answer. The answer exists, and is objective. All the subjective speculation only shows the speculation is subjective, not that the correct answer is subjective.
1 + 1 =2 objectively and errors or opinions do not matter.
adolthitler 1 year ago
@adolthitler "If a question has one correct answer then there is NO subjectivity in the correct answer. It does not matter if some don't know the answer, or even if none know the answer. " Ok, that's another definition yet again. If goals depend on the mind and minds can be measured then there is a certain set of rules (not necessarily the same for everyone) that maximizes the "good"-ness perceived overall, I don't know what it is but it clearly exists so under that definition.. it's objective ?
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@LaserBlowFish No its only one definition I have always pushed. That any moral question has a correct answer. That is the objective moral.
"there is a certain set of rules (not necessarily the same for everyone) that maximizes the "good"-ness perceived overall, I don't know what it is but it clearly exists so under that definition.. it's objective ?"
Almost. Definitely same rules for everyone. Not just humans, but ants, bees and members of any societies.
adolthitler 1 year ago
@adolthitler
"Not just humans" .. well morality is only binding to rational agents such as humans but yes it can and should make reference to less-rational agents like "ants, bees etc" which do suffer, and thus they count as well yes
"Special rules based on names" ok that went too far yes, I just meant that there are special circumstances in which certain rules may need to be overridden .. people are different by nature and nurture, morality has to take that into account as well
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@adolthitler (cont.) And I should clarify "not necessarily the same for everyone". Despite that it can be still be called a morality, a SINGLE set of rules because you can put a commandment #14532 there that says .. "if your name is X then you shall disregard rules X,Y,Z and instead do T". It may even need to be an infinite set of rules to account for all the weird cases but it would still be ONE set of rules, thus a morality and an objective one.
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@LaserBlowFish I dont see objective morals getting that high. Special rules based on names, seems 100000% subjective. I don't agree that the subjective stuff is moral at all. It violates the concept of fairness, and justice. Any rule governing behaviour applies to all regardless of colour, race, sex, sexual preference, even religion does not exempt you.
adolthitler 1 year ago
@adolthitler (cont.) Ofcourse I'm presuming the a-priori existence of primary goals like "I avoid harm" which can still be false for like1% of the population but they will have other primary goals and those will want to avoid conflict with the goals of other 99%.
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@LaserBlowFish "Ofcourse I'm presuming the a-priori existence of primary goals like "I avoid harm" which can still be false for like1% of the population but they will have other primary goals and those will want to avoid conflict with the goals of other 99%."
I think you are now thinking objective morals are a different thing for each person. Based on their preferences.
I don't like the idea of anal sex. But its not morally wrong to me. If two people wish to, go for it. I prefer not to.
adolthitler 1 year ago
@adolthitler Objective morals don't flip and flop according to my personal tastes. My understanding is I can't restrict your freedom based on my favorite colour, food, or sexual position. You can't restrict mine either.
I can easily say you can't kill someone except in self defense, you should not rape, or steal. Beyond that, well the objectivity gets harder to find. These are the minimum required to live in societies. Its true not just for us, but ants, and bees too.
adolthitler 1 year ago
@adolthitler "I can easily say " that's it :) .. it's enough to find a single thing you can call objectively wrong to be able to imagine that objective morality exists, we just don't know it yet, it's very much "harder to find" indeed. Unless you change your definition I don't need to be able to "place it into your hand", not the whole thing anyway, in order to show that it exists.
"You can't restrict mine either." I can and likely will if your preference involves harming others.
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@LaserBlowFish LOL I meant if we are using objective morality.
adolthitler 1 year ago
@adolthitler How is what I described not objective morality according to your original definition ?
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@LaserBlowFish ="You can't restrict mine either." I can and likely will if your preference involves harming others.=
That proviso seems to be assuming that my moral code would allow me to. That would not be the objective moral code. But I guess the proviso itself is part of the objective moral code, as I don't think its right to allow people to force, or attack others. I was confused as to if you are stating what you consider part of the objective code, or me allowing subjectivity in.
adolthitler 1 year ago
@adolthitler "as I don't think its right to allow people to force, or attack others." yes it isn't good unless you have VERY good logical and empyrically verified reasons. It was definitely good of the people who tackled Jared Lee Loughner to do so, they saved many lives that day with just a minimal amount of aggression.
I think the misunderstanding comes from the fact that my model is much more complex than just right OR wrong. There are many degrees between the two, allowing comparison.
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@LaserBlowFish Yes you, Sam Harris and I share the peaks and valleys moral model I suspect.
adolthitler 1 year ago
@adolthitler So I can say, "eah you're right it IS wrong to force or attack people BUT when that's the only way to save many lives, it might be justified. And by justified I mean, it gives the best possible outcome, the lesser of two evils if you are forced to make a choice.
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@LaserBlowFish I would accept this too as an extension of "self" defense. Defense of others is equally valid.
adolthitler 1 year ago
@adolthitler To be a little bit clearer, the moral code should be a model which provides particular answers, oughts, for particular situations, ideally all possible situations. Although I think I have good reasons, I'm not saying that my current opinions on what these answers are would necessarily coincide with the answers attributed to an objective morality but using this kind of model and applying the scientific method should get us closer to quasi-objective oughts.
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
Ok I like this post because it is close to what I came here to post.
I have been pondering my arguments with subjectivists on morals and was wondering where things go wrong in the communication. I think I have found it.
I propose there is an objective moral code out there. I admit my model of that perfect moral code is subjective. The fact that societal insects like ants and bees have morals regarding killing and theft, would indicate that its not opinion, due to insect IQs.
adolthitler 1 year ago
@adolthitler "I admit my model of that perfect moral code is subjective." yeah me too, I'm just saying that there are experts who can say their model is highly intersubjective, and maybe with enough work you could be able to call it quasi-objective at least.
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@adolthitler Also, by inconsequential I mean, as far as we know. Hypothetically if you were to find out that every time you choose chocolate over vanilla, a kitten dies, it might be objectively wrong to choose chocolate.
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@LaserBlowFish I hear god kills a kitten every time I masturbate. But I can't stop.
adolthitler 1 year ago
@adolthitler Substitute "killing a kitten" with the worst possible thing you can imagine happening.
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@LaserBlowFish Oh no that bastard is killing a puppy.
adolthitler 1 year ago
@adolthitler What if that bastard is killing YOU ? Will you continue ? Or to put it better, regardless of whether you actually will or not, whether you can help yourself of not, SHOULD you stop ? Do you not think that if you don't stop in that particular case, it means something has gone wrong with your brain, like when you say 2+2=5 ?
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@LaserBlowFish I probably have a lot wrong with my brain. My life experience shows I fight to the end, against any percieved injustice. I have fought six muggers, and then ten police who were supposed to be helping me, but who chose to try and push me around. I suspect I would stop for the kittens or the puppies, but if it was me, I'd kick him in the nuts.
adolthitler 1 year ago
@adolthitler "I have" .. "I suspect I would". This is not about reflecting on what you did and predicting what you will do, it's about what you should or should have done in particular situations, about considering long term consequences, about taking a good look at your goals, tydiing up and making a nice, rational, coherent picture.
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@adolthitler And although Kagan only references harming and doing good to others, we can extend that to doing it to yourself as well. You might have deeply conflicting goals and not know about it, the brain allows it unfortunately, but once it is pointed out at least, you must resolve it, otherwise it is objectively true that you cannot achieve your goals, whatever they may be. So e.g if you don't like pain, you must like good healthcare and less violence.
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@adolthitler "different thing for each person. Based on their preferences" it certainly takes inconsequential preferences into account, but it restricts the consequential ones. Harm and good can mean different things to everyone but everyone avoids harm and thus has to sign a social contract which involves not harming eachother.
In your case "I prefer not to" is inconsequential and thus it is objectively immoral for anyone to do it to you.
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@adolthitler (cont.) I know I'm splitting hairs here and this may not be what you wanted by an objective morality, but it fits your definition I think, which just underlines my initial statement that you need to make a clear definition.
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@adolthitler Mathematical problems would be irrelevant to someone who doesn't value maths. Why DO we value maths? Why DO we value what's beneficial? Can you objectively prove that we should value what 'works'? Can you objectively prove that we should value what's 'beneficial'? What if someone said they didn't value mathematics or what works? could you prove to them that what 'works' is objectively valuable? There are objective fatcs, but the value of evidence is subjective.
Skep155 1 year ago
@Skep155 What works objectively is valuable because we are attempting an action. That action has optimum methods and sub optimum methods. If you want to move a wheel barrow full of soil, you could load it with a spade, or you could try a teaspoon. Its not immoral to use the teaspoon, but it is annoying and I really don't think you would choose that method. Its so obvious that the better method should be used, I don't know why you bother asking that question.
adolthitler 1 year ago
@adolthitler We complete actions for our own well being. If your moving a wheel barrow of soil, your doing it because you believe completing the task will increase your well being or the well being of others. That goal depends on the subjective axiom that our well being, and the well being of others, is valuable. The spade is objectively better than the tea spoon IF you accept the subjective axiom that we should value beneficial actions, fortunately we are programmed to accept the axiom.
Skep155 1 year ago
@adolthitler And even on top of that you might need to add that it also depends on your assessment of how lucid you are. You can just disregard cases when you know you were drunk, but what if you just get a hallucination out of the blue ? It happens to people, that still doesn't make what they see objective at all.
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@adolthitler There can't be, because if you don't value evidence in the first place then when someone presents you with evidence that the Earth is spherical you can just say "Evidence means diddly squat to me, i think the Earth is flat regardless'. The value we place on evidence is still a subjective axiom, like the value we place on the well being of Humans. But I argue that we should value them both anyway, and we should feel free to call anybody who doesn't an idiot.
Skep155 1 year ago
@BornInAsphodelMeadow Then by your criteria we should not be able to discover any objective facts about the universe, since the value we place on evidence is subjective. Yet you seem perfectly content saying that the mass of the sun in objectively greater than the Earths mass. I apply the same standards to moral truths, the value we place on the well being of conscious entities is an axiom, but nevertheless there are facts to be known about human well being that we can objectively measure.
Skep155 1 year ago
@Skep155 I agree, but I never said I knew that the sun had more mass than the earth, I just said that the statement "the sun has more mass than the earth" is objectively true or false. I'm not trying to say morality is useless, i'm just saying that our opinion is what makes it valid.
BornInAsphodelMeadow 1 year ago
@BornInAsphodelMeadow I agree human flourishing is not objective. But what do you think a human should do to be good? Destroy humanity?
Objectively you should just accept that the human does have human goals. The ant has ant goals, the good human and good ant have similar traits. Traits forced by the need to exist in a society. Morality is a function of societies.
The commonality shows the objectivity, it does not matter if you are human, ant, bee, or alien.
adolthitler 1 year ago
@adolthitler Honestly dude I'm not going to respond to you again unless you say something different. I'm NOT saying that we should NOT be good to the human race. I'm just saying that the reason I think so is because of my personal opinion that the human race is good. I do accept that humans have goals and that they will act on them. I don't accept that that fact justifies morality in a way that's objective. WE FOLLOW OUR GOALS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE SUBJECTIVELY DESIRE TO DO.
Questions?
BornInAsphodelMeadow 1 year ago
@BornInAsphodelMeadow what of ants, bees etc? Human values? Is it because its a function of societies? What alternative are you posing?
I am not trying to be a jerk.
Would an alien intelligence have morals different from us? Let me clarify that question, by barring obvious subjective stuff from Zarg their supreme overlord on what constitutes moral pizza toppings. But won't they have laws and morals about when it is and is not ok to kill. Ditto theft. How is it then not objective?
adolthitler 1 year ago
@adolthitler Because it would be their opinion of it that would make it valid. I'm not saying that we can't all agree on a moral system, but i'm just saying that if no human being accepted that pain was bad or that the human race was good, there would be no morality towards them. Society would collapse, the human race would be wiped out, but if we didn't care about that, we'd have no reason to stop it from doing so.
BornInAsphodelMeadow 1 year ago
@BornInAsphodel But I am not talking of the opinion of bees, or ants, or even people. I am saying the rules that all these societies share are functions of societies. Therefore are objective rules for living in societies. Opinions don't matter. Kill off all social species and wait for new social species to evolve. Voila! They too will observe these rules. Its the group dynamic driving the limits to the behaviour. We just tag it and bag it.
Gods, and ignorance allowed subjective trash as morals.
adolthitler 1 year ago
@BornInAsphodelMeadow Surelly the fact we must have that opinion to have a society means its objective. The outside force that just makes it so. We do have people who slip and then see the back of the hand from society. The fact that this holds true for ants and bees and aliens, and any other social being, this is what makes it more than our subjective view.
adolthitler 1 year ago
@BornInAsphodelMeadow
No it is not at all like saying if god exists then he wrote the bible. You can come to the conclusion that human flourishing is good or bad that is subjective yes. But so what? If you are in the bracket of humanity that accepts some form of human flourishing is good then there are logical consequences that follow.
Scootsalongcrib 1 year ago
@Scootsalongcrib When did I say that if God exists then he wrote the bible? I just said that if god exists and he wrote the bible, then it follows logically that christianity is true and should be followed. However, you've admitted that it's subjective, and that's all I was aiming for. I'm a moral person and I believe in the happiness and betterment of humanity, but acknowledge that that's just my opinion.
BornInAsphodelMeadow 1 year ago
@BornInAsphodelMeadow
Yes you are correct about the God analogy. Sorry I misread that. My point is that it does not matter how subjective the idea of human flourishing is; once you accept human flourishing as a goal, then you have an objection foundation to build your moral code.
Scootsalongcrib 1 year ago
@BornInAsphodelMeadow @Scootsalongcrib "if god exists and he wrote the bible, then it follows logically that christianity is true and should be followed"
I agree that this statement is wrong, because it is subjective. However, although I do support that morality is subjective I come to a big point of doubt when it's posed like this;
"once you accept human flourishing as a goal, then you have an objection foundation to build your moral code."
bignastydragon 1 year ago
@Scootsalongcrib That is NOT objective morality, it's objective METHODS of achieving a SUBJECTIVE morality.
BionicDance 1 year ago
@BionicDance
Forgive me I really don’t think I am explaining myself adequately here. To be objective is to be mind independent. If I take an action that runs contrary my moral foundation (human flourishing) then I have committed immoral act. It does not matter what I think of or how I rationalize such an action. Therefore objective morality exists.
Scootsalongcrib 1 year ago
@Scootsalongcrib Your moral foundation--human flourishing--is a SUBJECTIVE basis for morality, not objective. If you take an action which runs contrary to your moral foundation, it ONE HUNDRED PERCENT matters what you think or how you rationalize such an action. Only subjective morality exists because YOU MAKE UP YOUR OWN MORALS.
To be objective, your moral code would have to be mind-independent, not your actions.
BionicDance 1 year ago