The point of "Morals"

[Budget Player Cadet_]

What is the point of morality, and of acting in a "morally correct" manner?

I'd argue that morality itself inherently has no merit. It is almost certainly a nurture aspect of the human psyche, impounded on us during our childhood–"Don't steal" "don't kill" don't lie" etc. (The concept that morals would be "god-given" seems to falter very quickly when you imagine that some cultures used to "morally" sacrifice warriors to their gods, and that we used to "morally" murder "witches"; can anyone think of a different method of obtaining 'morals'?)
So morals are completely arbitrary, and can be changed, perhaps not over the course of years, but over generations, easily... the question is, what is the point of them at all? Does it matter at all to use our morals for anything other than the overall betterment of humanity, and only humanity?

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Morals (as arbitrary as they are cultural) are inherently good for the community in that it helps to keep the social contract intact. And as times and technology changes, so do morals.

 

[rvkevin]

This was in response to a different question but its kind of relevant:

If you desire X, and Y achieves X, then you should do Y. For utilitarians, X would be relieving suffering/increasing happiness in reference to the relevant parties, and Y would be things that achieve those goals. The debate of "is and ought" is why is X decreasing suffering and not something else, such as increasing suffering or following holy texts? Why do we not ought to decrease happiness and increase suffering? This is what Harris was referring to when he said that this is what it means to have a field of expertise and not considering certain views. In a sense, we are defining increasing happiness/decreasing pain as the goal of morality because that is our goal as individuals (which is where the philosophers cry foul "as you cannot get an ought from an is" and why science doesn't really resolve the meta-ethical issue in any meaningful sense).

So, why ought we decrease suffering/increase happiness? Well, I just found it to be more satisfactory than anything else and inline with what actions people tend to call moral/immoral; however, X is probably better defined as being a particular group, where the criteria we would use for determining how preferable a group is, is the level of well-being (based on the individual's preferences) of the group (and I would contend that most people, since people are relatively similar, our notion of well-being would be relatively similar | For example, if you want to live in a society with low X, X being murder, theft, etc., you should not commit X and condemn those who do), so it would lead to similar conclusions, and where differences occur, trade offs occur.

If you disagree with X, by all means, make it decreasing happiness and increasing suffering. However, once this individual is detrimental to the group, either the group will disband (a negative outcome for those in the group), or the more likely case, the group has reason to condemn the individual and if need be, ultimately isolate the individual from the group to maintain the cohesiveness of the group. In society, this would be incarceration (on less severe offenses, loss of relationships, economic opportunities, etc.); in the animal kingdom, this would just be letting the individual left alone to fend for itself, making itself a prime target of predation and reprimands for smaller offenses. These social tools allow the group to influence the individual's desires to conform with the group's, to make it in the individual's self-interest to conform with X enabling the success of the group. In this sense, morality is the glue that holds society (the group) together.

It is generally accepted that certain standards of behavior are needed to ensure a stable productive group (society), here is a common purpose; while it may not the only purpose, it is a purpose nonetheless. Immoral actions are a tax on the group. Moral actions benefit the group. Having a stable productive society raises the well-being of everyone involved, and as such, is a worthy desire for each of its members.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

This was in response to a different question but its kind of relevant:

If you desire X, and Y achieves X, then you should do Y. For utilitarians, X would be relieving suffering/increasing happiness in reference to the relevant parties, and Y would be things that achieve those goals. The debate of "is and ought" is why is X decreasing suffering and not something else, such as increasing suffering or following holy texts? Why do we not ought to decrease happiness and increase suffering? This is what Harris was referring to when he said that this is what it means to have a field of expertise and not considering certain views. In a sense, we are defining increasing happiness/decreasing pain as the goal of morality because that is our goal as individuals (which is where the philosophers cry foul "as you cannot get an ought from an is" and why science doesn't really resolve the meta-ethical issue in any meaningful sense).

So, why ought we decrease suffering/increase happiness? Well, I just found it to be more satisfactory than anything else and inline with what actions people tend to call moral/immoral; however, X is probably better defined as being a particular group, where the criteria we would use for determining how preferable a group is, is the level of well-being (based on the individual's preferences) of the group (and I would contend that most people, since people are relatively similar, our notion of well-being would be relatively similar | For example, if you want to live in a society with low X, X being murder, theft, etc., you should not commit X and condemn those who do), so it would lead to similar conclusions, and where differences occur, trade offs occur.

If you disagree with X, by all means, make it decreasing happiness and increasing suffering. However, once this individual is detrimental to the group, either the group will disband (a negative outcome for those in the group), or the more likely case, the group has reason to condemn the individual and if need be, ultimately isolate the individual from the group to maintain the cohesiveness of the group. In society, this would be incarceration (on less severe offenses, loss of relationships, economic opportunities, etc.); in the animal kingdom, this would just be letting the individual left alone to fend for itself, making itself a prime target of predation and reprimands for smaller offenses. These social tools allow the group to influence the individual's desires to conform with the group's, to make it in the individual's self-interest to conform with X enabling the success of the group. In this sense, morality is the glue that holds society (the group) together.

It is generally accepted that certain standards of behavior are needed to ensure a stable productive group (society), here is a common purpose; while it may not the only purpose, it is a purpose nonetheless. Immoral actions are a tax on the group. Moral actions benefit the group. Having a stable productive society raises the well-being of everyone involved, and as such, is a worthy desire for each of its members.

Yes, this is more or less what I was planning on coming to. However, let's talk about 'acting morally on principle'. If you do not follow the morals of a group, you may get thrown out. However, if it doesn't benefit you or the group in this particular moment to follow said morals, should you still follow them? Some people might think so.

Additionally, many morals seem completely overrated, and some groups put too much weight on completely irrelevant morals that have no real place. What is wrong with creating your own rules if those rules are neutral to the community and positive to you, a net gain of happiness? If the goal is overall happiness, why are certain parts of our morality so important when they just bring us down?

I'd like to take for an example, the moral case of the german national courts' decision to stop "haftpflichtbewaerung" (keeping especially dangerous criminals in jail after their sentences are up), merely because of the basic morality of "one crime, one punishment" (and, of course, maximum life sentence being like 20 years or so). It's obvious that these criminals belong in jail for the rest of their lives or dead-they will continue to be ridiculously dangerous. So why do we follow the morality of respecting their rights, even though it is ridiculously detrimental to the community?

 

[Deleted member]

Morals (as arbitrary as they are cultural) are inherently good for the community in that it helps to keep the social contract intact. And as times and technology changes, so do morals.

This assumes the social contract is a positive force in humanity.

 

[rvkevin]

I'd like to take for an example, the moral case of the German national courts' decision to stop "haftpflichtbewaerung" (keeping especially dangerous criminals in jail after their sentences are up), merely because of the basic morality of "one crime, one punishment" (and, of course, maximum life sentence being like 20 years or so). It's obvious that these criminals belong in jail for the rest of their lives or dead-they will continue to be ridiculously dangerous. So why do we follow the morality of respecting their rights, even though it is ridiculously detrimental to the community?

It would depend on how the society wants to model their judicial system. If imprisonment is supposed to be serving a debt to society, then a fixed time would be adequate, such as in this case, and extending that time would be unfair. If imprisonment is to separate violent criminals from society, then the sentence would not be 20 years, it would be life with possibility of parole, and their behavior in prison would indicate whether or not their violent behavior has changed. This would also be consistent with using prison as a form of rehabilitation. Basically, they decided that it is more "fair" for someone to receive the time they received than to prolong their sentence.

This principle of fairness has value to us and can be demonstrated by experiment. "The ultimatum game is a game often played in economic experiments in which two players interact to decide how to divide a sum of money that is given to them. The first player proposes how to divide the sum between the two players, and the second player can either accept or reject this proposal. If the second player rejects, neither player receives anything. If the second player accepts, the money is split according to the proposal. The game is played only once so that reciprocation is not an issue."

So, experimenter gives Person A 10 dollars, and then Person A offers Person B part of the 10 dollars and then Person B decides to accept the deal or reject the deal. If both people are perfectly rational, Person A would give Person B 1 dollar and Person B would accept the deal since receiving 1 dollar is a better payoff than zero. However, most people reject an offer of 1 dollar. People value "fairness" so people reject the offer since the other person is being unfair. Knowing this, if you ever participate in such an experiment, don't offer 1 dollar, but something more fair such as 3-5 dollars. It might seem like both participants would have a net gain in happiness if they left with more money than they came in, but that is not what experiments show.

We value fairness, so we want society to have fair rules, and haftpflichtbewaerung was judged to be unfair by society. On the surface, it might appear that implementing haftpflichtbewaerung would result in a net gain, but it is not necessarily the case. It would be similar to saying, "why do we have the burden of proof on the prosecutor and not the defendant?" It would result in more arrests and make society safer. But in the process, we would have to sacrifice our values to implement it. It has been traditionally said that it is “better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer." Society has determined that these principles are more consistent with their values and if it means a little more crime, it is worth the cost.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

This assumes the social contract is a positive force in humanity.

Yes, I assume the social contract is a positive force. Without it we would have an anarchic system without any form of personal security. Humanity would never be able to rise above Maslow's second hierarchy and man would be little more than the lowest animals. Even dogs and cats have a form of the social contract.

But did you have a point other than trying to get a rise out of me, ie: trolling?

 

[Deleted member]

We're in a morals thread. Forgive me for pointing out your logical fallacy.

 

[Deleted member]

Oh hai, I'm double posting. But not really, because I want to respond to this message Gamer4Fire sent me in regards to my last post.


I would just like to showcase how ridiculous this is. I wonder if Socrates was called a troll back in the day?

Either prove that the social contract is objectively good (which you will not be able to do) or stop begging the question entirely. I linked you to the wikipedia page. Google "begging the question" if you still think I'm trolling.

 

[RDK]

So let me get this straight. The guy who argued with me for a billion pages in the anarchy thread about how anarchy was the worst idea ever is now advocating a society with no system of moralty?

HERP DERP

 

[Deleted member]

Gamer4Fire,

because you insist on being a coward, I will continue to showcase your laughable messages on this thread.


I have not ignored any posts. In fact, it was that post which I first pointed out was fallacious. You can argue FOR the social contract, but to assume that it is objectively good in your premise regarding morality is begging the question, for you have not proved that initial point. Listen, if you still can't understand logic, get out of the debate hall pronto. No one wants you here anyway.

 

[Dre89]

I was intending to participate here but because people are being douches again I thought I'd step in.

No one wants you here anyway.

Is there really a need to be so rude? Besides, no offence Del, but you post like once every eight years, and it's usually an insult rathter than a mature argument, so don't live under the illusion that we're all going to be in tears if you leave either.

BPC- No the idea of morality is not just nurture-based. The Golden Rule is present in multiple religions, trascending multiple cultures and time periods, dating as far back as Zorrowastraonism, the oldest religion in history. If nurture was the sole cause of morality, apart from the fact you haven't explained where the inital concept would have originally come from (as nurture always implies a prior influence), then the Golden Rule would not be so universal, for different cultures harbour different 'nurtures' so to speak.

Rvkevin- Utilitarianism is too vague for it to be natural for humans to apply it. There's no specification as to how far ahead you must accommodate when considering what action to take (the effect in the next day, a year, or ten years etc.). Also, utilitarianism would imply we should be spending every single second of our lives trying to contribute to charitable causes, which is clearly not natural. Utilitarianism essentially requires rocket science to execute properly, but if morality is the universal principle that every human being should be acting upon, you wouldn't have to a genius to work it out, it should just come naturally.

Del and RDK- If there is no morality, then what purpose do all our specific inclinations serve? Why do all humans naturally act upon multiple presuppositions (eg. that our experience correlates to reality). Why is it natural then for food and sex to be good for us? What are the point of such inclinations? Secondly, if there is no morality, then humans need not uphold the Golden Rule, or social contract. If this is the case, why is it then that animals. creatures of supposedly lesser mental capacities than us, all uphold social contracts? You can't say that humans are unique in that they need not uphold such a contract, because then you are conceding that humans are intrinsically different to animals, thus attributing us an aletrante purpose to animals.

So basically, in what way do you argue that there is no morality?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

What is the point of morality, and of acting in a "morally correct" manner?

Well, it could be argued that certain morals benefit both the society and the individual. Humans are social animals, and evolving in small hunter-gatherer groups wherein the individual members rely on each other for survival, morality had to come about. If we stabbed each other in the back, we would all end up dead. So, we have an evolutionary disposition to behave morally.

What is the point of this? To benefit society and therefore all the individuals as a whole, otherwise it would not have evolved. Some morals are silly yes, but good solid ones like "don't kill" benefit society in numerous ways.

I'd argue that morality itself inherently has no merit. It is almost certainly a nurture aspect of the human psyche, impounded on us during our childhood–"Don't steal" "don't kill" don't lie" etc. (The concept that morals would be "god-given" seems to falter very quickly when you imagine that some cultures used to "morally" sacrifice warriors to their gods, and that we used to "morally" murder "witches"; can anyone think of a different method of obtaining 'morals'?)
So morals are completely arbitrary, and can be changed, perhaps not over the course of years, but over generations, easily... the question is, what is the point of them at all? Does it matter at all to use our morals for anything other than the overall betterment of humanity, and only humanity?

Morality itself has no real inherent value, because it's just a bunch of electrochemical signals in our brains, but what it achieves is very useful. It works to the betterment of ourselves and humanity, and probably not too much else.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

BPC- No the idea of morality is not just nurture-based. The Golden Rule is present in multiple religions, trascending multiple cultures and time periods, dating as far back as Zorrowastraonism, the oldest religion in history. If nurture was the sole cause of morality, apart from the fact you haven't explained where the inital concept would have originally come from (as nurture always implies a prior influence), then the Golden Rule would not be so universal, for different cultures harbour different 'nurtures' so to speak.

"[...]ethics is the byproduct of biological evolution because humans that lived cooperatively in a society out-survived those that did not. Evidence being the majority of human beings in the world today."

Rvkevin- Utilitarianism is too vague for it to be natural for humans to apply it. There's no specification as to how far ahead you must accommodate when considering what action to take (the effect in the next day, a year, or ten years etc.). Also, utilitarianism would imply we should be spending every single second of our lives trying to contribute to charitable causes, which is clearly not natural. Utilitarianism essentially requires rocket science to execute properly, but if morality is the universal principle that every human being should be acting upon, you wouldn't have to a genius to work it out, it should just come naturally.

And it usually does through natural altruism. You don't have to give a concrete time period, ie: week/month/year, on how far ahead you are going to accommodate people. The key word is utility, how useful it is to be helpful at any one time or how useful you want to be in the future. Neither of these things require rocket science.

Del and RDK- If there is no morality, then what purpose do all our specific inclinations serve? Why do all humans naturally act upon multiple presuppositions (eg. that our experience correlates to reality). Why is it natural then for food and sex to be good for us? What are the point of such inclinations? Secondly, if there is no morality, then humans need not uphold the Golden Rule, or social contract. If this is the case, why is it then that animals. creatures of supposedly lesser mental capacities than us, all uphold social contracts? You can't say that humans are unique in that they need not uphold such a contract, because then you are conceding that humans are intrinsically different to animals, thus attributing us an aletrante purpose to animals.

Correlating our perception to reality is the default position and is only questioned when you gain the insight to rationalize it. Otherwise experience wouldn't mean anything, which to most people it does.

Second, we are animals. Nuff said.

What is the point of this? To benefit society and therefore all the individuals as a whole, otherwise it would not have evolved. Some morals are silly yes, but good solid ones like "don't kill" benefit society in numerous ways.

Also don't steal, don't lie, etc. Humans (and other animals) have a large array of built in morals.

Morality itself has no real inherent value, because it's just a bunch of electrochemical signals in our brains, but what it achieves is very useful. It works to the betterment of ourselves and humanity, and probably not too much else.

I would disagree, the value of morals can be measured by how well it betters humanity. Thus it has the possibility to be inherently valuable.

 

[Dre89]

"[...]ethics is the byproduct of biological evolution because humans that lived cooperatively in a society out-survived those that did not. Evidence being the majority of human beings in the world today."

But to live cooperatively in a society, and have the will to do so, you have to have the biological functions and inclinations to do so. So the fact that humans were even capable of operating efficiently in social structures implies that they were already strcutured to do so.

And it usually does through natural altruism. You don't have to give a concrete time period, ie: week/month/year, on how far ahead you are going to accommodate people. The key word is utility, how useful it is to be helpful at any one time or how useful you want to be in the future. Neither of these things require rocket science.

But not only have you just assumed that the Golden Rule is self-evident, in that it is an objectively good principle, but you have just assumed that it is the only objective good principle. Just as Del said (although I won't be rude about it), you have provided no justification for either of these assumptions.

The idea that morality is just about utility or the Golden Rule is only self-evident to modern westerners, because it is a modern western ideal. Particularly when you're debating someone such as myself who is familiar with mroal theories from previous times, who'll have to prove why the Golden Rule is objectively good, and why utility is the only good in the world.

Correlating our perception to reality is the default position and is only questioned when you gain the insight to rationalize it. Otherwise experience wouldn't mean anything, which to most people it does.

Exactly, we have several default positions, and to argue that morality is non-existent is to ignore several of these.

Second, we are animals. Nuff said.

No we are not just animals, we're animals, but we're more than just animals, we're different. Here is a paragraph from an essay of mine showing why-

"Before we continue, this assumption must be briefly defended. The existence of levels of perfections is evidenced by the existence of various levels of superiority. These various levels of superiority are evidenced by the fact that there three are general types of beings: those which are purely means to an end, those which are created as means to an end, but flourish as ends in themselves, and that which is purely an end in itself. Beings which lack the capacity to commit moral goods and evils are purely means to ends; their goal is to contribute to an ecosystem or a natural cycle, and their individual goals or purposes cannot be altered by them themselves, only those who govern them. Humans, like all other beings, were created for a specific purpose, so they are a means to an end, but flourish as ends in themselves, for their moral capacities allow them to alter their desires and what they contribute towards - a capacity they would not posses if they were not intended to flourish as ends in themselves. Despite this capacity, humans cannot alter what true human flourishing is, only their ideal of it, so in a second way they are also means to an end. Finally, God, being self-necessary in nature, is purely an end in Himself. What is evidenced here is that certain beings relate to other beings in varying manners, suggesting there are degrees of superiority and perfection; for if all beings were equal all beings would be ends in themselves, requiring them all to have the same fundamental nature, which is not the case."

Basically, humans are the only creatures who are not governed by a particular ecosystem, they have no natural cycle they are forced to contribute to like all other animals. Humans traverse multiple ecosystems, and in doing so have ruined several of them. Animals cannot alter what they contribute to by their own accord, they can only do so if manipulated by an external force (eg. humans).

I would disagree, the value of morals can be measured by how well it betters humanity. Thus it has the possibility to be inherently valuable.

But what do you consider "bettering"? You have given no standard. To you, bettering is just survival. If morality is just not harming others against their own good (Golden Rule/social contract), then you're not "bettering" humanity, you're just letting it survive.

This is the problem with this modern ideal of morality merely being about not harming others against their own will. What's the point of surviving if the only point of humanity is to...well survive?

Modern morality has no ideal of human flourishing, or Aristotle's "eudaemonia". In a moral sense, flourishing would be upholding moral principles, even if their neglect wouldn't result in the suffering of another individual (abstaining from sex before marriage is an example of one, whether that actually does contribute to flourishing is another debate).

 

[rvkevin]

There's no specification as to how far ahead you must accommodate when considering what action to take (the effect in the next day, a year, or ten years etc.).

It depends on the action. The effects of some actions go away after a short time, a long time for others. When you participate in a dangerous activity, such as climbing Everest, you would be considering the rest of your life. When you participate in an inert activity, such as bowling, the potential consequences are negligible, only the opportunity cost for the next two hours would need to be considered.

Also, utilitarianism would imply we should be spending every single second of our lives trying to contribute to charitable causes, which is clearly not natural.

Every single second? It implies we should volunteer every second, twenty-four hours a day, 365 days a year? What would happen if you give up all your possessions, and start volunteering regularly? Besides the first surge of money, beyond that, your efforts would be minor. You would have eliminated your main source of income, which makes your ability to help diminish to just labor. It is the difference between a one time donation of a million dollars and putting the million dollars into a fund that uses the interest to donate indefinitely. To help someone's situation, you don't need to bankrupt your own supply. You are able to help a fellow man's hunger by giving him half of your catch indefinitely, or you can teach him to fish; I think it is silly to suggest that utilitarianism implies the former.

The idea of teaching a man to fish is a strong one. What if I never donated a dime, but implemented micro-financing in the area. This way, when one person takes a loan and improves their productivity and pays off that loan, then I am able to lend that loan to a different person. If I had instead donated that sum of money to that person, I would not have had the opportunity to help the second person. To assume that charity is the only way or the best way to help other people is to be ignorant of the benefits of micro-financing. This may be considered "rocket science" for you, but in actuality, it only requires a basic understanding of economics.

Utilitarianism essentially requires rocket science to execute properly, but if morality is the universal principle that every human being should be acting upon, you wouldn't have to a genius to work it out, it should just come naturally.

The "people are too stupid to understand it" objection...If they can't, then they probably dropped out of middle school. I think it is better for people to think for themselves than to follow universal rules. It would be like saying that communicating is natural so you shouldn't have to attend school to learn proper grammar (or something more advance like writing persuasive papers), it should just come naturally. I think everyone should be able to communicate effectively, but that doesn't mean that education is not necessary to accomplish that goal. Needless to say, I don't see the need for morality to be written on our hearts.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I was intending to participate here but because people are being douches again I thought I'd step in.

Oh dear.

BPC- No the idea of morality is not just nurture-based. The Golden Rule is present in multiple religions, trascending multiple cultures and time periods, dating as far back as Zorrowastraonism, the oldest religion in history. If nurture was the sole cause of morality, apart from the fact you haven't explained where the inital concept would have originally come from (as nurture always implies a prior influence), then the Golden Rule would not be so universal, for different cultures harbour different 'nurtures' so to speak.

It is, actually, very possible. The way that the golden rule is omnipresent could be a coincidence, and could very well also be wrong. Alternatively, it could be evolutionary, seeing as it's one of the most basic tenants of social life (not just of morals, but actually living together as a species)–if you weren't ready to follow the golden rule, the community would treat you like you treat them, and try to kill you.

Del and RDK- If there is no morality, then what purpose do all our specific inclinations serve? Why do all humans naturally act upon multiple presuppositions (eg. that our experience correlates to reality). Why is it natural then for food and sex to be good for us? What are the point of such inclinations? Secondly, if there is no morality, then humans need not uphold the Golden Rule, or social contract. If this is the case, why is it then that animals. creatures of supposedly lesser mental capacities than us, all uphold social contracts? You can't say that humans are unique in that they need not uphold such a contract, because then you are conceding that humans are intrinsically different to animals, thus attributing us an aletrante purpose to animals.

So basically, in what way do you argue that there is no morality?

1. It is natural for food and sex to be good for us because we need food and sex to survive as a species! From an evolutionary standpoint, they are good for us, and those of us who do the most of both do the best.
2. We are animals. If we are not, point to me when the jump between "ape-like animal" and "man" happened? The fact that we are the first species to develop self-awareness does not mean we will be the last by any means.
3. Animals uphold the social contract out of instinct. Perhaps we do the same? However, morals are by no means fixed in any group, it's just that in animals, they aren't capable of developing anywhere near as fast due to the lack of things like indoctrinating factors (A wolf will not understand that violence to humans is a bad thing immediately if we chastise it; it will take many generations of domestication before that happens. The south americans learned very fast that if we try to kill the outsiders, we will die, and that we need to change ASAP. There was a morality shift almost over one generation.). We can't communicate strong enough with animals.

 

[Dre89]

Oh dear.

That wasn't referring to you.

It is, actually, very possible. The way that the golden rule is omnipresent could be a coincidence, and could very well also be wrong. Alternatively, it could be evolutionary, seeing as it's one of the most basic tenants of social life (not just of morals, but actually living together as a species)–if you weren't ready to follow the golden rule, the community would treat you like you treat them, and try to kill you.

So are you saying that there is no reason to uphold the GR at all?

1. It is natural for food and sex to be good for us because we need food and sex to survive as a species! From an evolutionary standpoint, they are good for us, and those of us who do the most of both do the best.

But you're assuming the only inherent good is survival. You haven't explained why survival is such a good, why it should be preserved.

You haven't explained why if survival is in fact an objective good that should be upheld (you haven't explained why this is different to any other ideal), why there can't be any other goods too.

I'm saying our nature is structured to move us towards other objective goods beyond survival.

2. We are animals. If we are not, point to me when the jump between "ape-like animal" and "man" happened? The fact that we are the first species to develop self-awareness does not mean we will be the last by any means.

I didn't say we weren't animals, I said we are more than just mere animals. We are everything an animal is plus more.

3. Animals uphold the social contract out of instinct. Perhaps we do the same? However, morals are by no means fixed in any group, it's just that in animals, they aren't capable of developing anywhere near as fast due to the lack of things like indoctrinating factors (A wolf will not understand that violence to humans is a bad thing immediately if we chastise it; it will take many generations of domestication before that happens. The south americans learned very fast that if we try to kill the outsiders, we will die, and that we need to change ASAP. There was a morality shift almost over one generation.). We can't communicate strong enough with animals.

This is going off a massive assumption, that is, that humans are no different to humans. This is essentially your argument-

1. Humans are just animals
2. Animals instinctively uphold the GR
3. Humans differ on morals
Conclusion- Because we are just animals, and therefore can only do what is instinctual and what is natural, the fact that morality differs in various cultures shows it is non-existent.

The argument already assumes the conclusion, that there is no right and wrong, and that humans have no objectively good nature to corrupt. Then because of the diversity of moral practices, because you've already initially assumed that there is no right or wrong, you conclude that morality doesn't exist.

Whereas I can argue that humans are distinct from animals in that we can corrupt our own natures, we can do what is unnatural (which is what I argued in the paragraph of my essay I posted). Therefore, the diversity of moral theories results in certain parties, possibly even all, acting in a corrupted, or unnatural way, due to cultural influences.

It all comes down to whether humans are distinct from animals or not really.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

It all comes down to whether humans are distinct from animals or not really.

Here's the thing: They're not!

I even pointed out a link to this showing how Humans aren't really that distinct from other animals in the sense that we are animals.

Where's your evidence showing otherwise? You know, the peer-reviewed, scientific kind.

NB It's okay for you to believe that this is true, but I think you are trying to tell others it is true. Let me know if I am reading that wrong.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I would disagree, the value of morals can be measured by how well it betters humanity. Thus it has the possibility to be inherently valuable.

Yes, but they have no intrinsic value. They're just a bunch of electrochemical signals in our brains, they're unique yes, but that's about it. They only have a value when they're enacted, told to others or produce benefits to everyone, otherwise, it's just fluff.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

That wasn't referring to you.



So are you saying that there is no reason to uphold the GR at all?

There is. Mainly out of the evolutionary tenant towards survival of the species.

But you're assuming the only inherent good is survival. You haven't explained why survival is such a good, why it should be preserved.

Survival of the species is the inherent good of evolution. There is nothing more important to evolution and natural selection. Please pick up a science textbook sometime in the near future.

Why should survival be preserved? You're seriously asking this?

You haven't explained why if survival is in fact an objective good that should be upheld (you haven't explained why this is different to any other ideal), why there can't be any other goods too.

Indeed. But there's no actual need for good beyond mere survival of the species.

I'm saying our nature is structured to move us towards other objective goods beyond survival.

Prove it.

I didn't say we weren't animals, I said we are more than just mere animals. We are everything an animal is plus more.

No, we are everything an animal is, just better. Just like a tiger is everything a house cat is, just better (well, except the whole "gets loved and protected as a pet by humans" part). Alternatively, prove it. Just because we are the first does not mean we will be the last.

This is going off a massive assumption, that is, that humans are no different to humans. This is essentially your argument-

1. Humans are just animals
2. Animals instinctively uphold the GR
3. Humans differ on morals
Conclusion- Because we are just animals, and therefore can only do what is instinctual and what is natural, the fact that morality differs in various cultures shows it is non-existent.

The argument already assumes the conclusion, that there is no right and wrong, and that humans have no objectively good nature to corrupt. Then because of the diversity of moral practices, because you've already initially assumed that there is no right or wrong, you conclude that morality doesn't exist.

Except... 1 and 2 are scientifically proven. So is 3 (more or less). The arguments would assume the conclusion if they weren't independently proven on their own!

Whereas I can argue that humans are distinct from animals in that we can corrupt our own natures, we can do what is unnatural (which is what I argued in the paragraph of my essay I posted). Therefore, the diversity of moral theories results in certain parties, possibly even all, acting in a corrupted, or unnatural way, due to cultural influences.

It all comes down to whether humans are distinct from animals or not really.

That essay is seriously starting to piss me off, mostly because we've shown you why the main base it goes off of is false.

 

[Dre89]

There is. Mainly out of the evolutionary tenant towards survival of the species.

But if morality doesn't exist, why should we care? Saying we have a duty to care is implying the existence of objective morality. Immanuel Kant's deontology is based on duty, so how is this different?

Survival of the species is the inherent good of evolution. There is nothing more important to evolution and natural selection. Please pick up a science textbook sometime in the near future.

Why should survival be preserved? You're seriously asking this?

See above.

Indeed. But there's no actual need for good beyond mere survival of the species.

So now you're admitting that there is an objective moral good? You're giving mixed messages.

Prove it.

Inclination toward artistic expression is an example. Art does not contribute to human preservation. In purely evolutionary terms, art is merely a medium through which time and resources are exhausted in varying quantities.

Art doesn't contribute to human preservation, it contributes to human flourishing. In fact, human preservation is a prerequisite to art, and flourishing in general.

No, we are everything an animal is, just better. Just like a tiger is everything a house cat is, just better (well, except the whole "gets loved and protected as a pet by humans" part). Alternatively, prove it. Just because we are the first does not mean we will be the last.

You're assuming an animal must be of our intelligence to contribute towards an alternate end, which is bogus because domesticated animals disprove that.

The fact that humans have successfully domesticated certain animals proves they have the mental capacity to contribute to alternate ends.

Now seeing as they have always had the capcity to do this, why haven't they ever done it on their own accord? Because they weren't structured to do so.

It's evident humans are different because had animals been the same as us, they would have always been altering what they contribute to, because they've always ahd the mental capacity to do so. A wilderbeast doesn't need the intellect of Einstein to refuse to participate in the annual migration across the Serenghetti, yet it never refuses to because it is not part of the essence of animals to be able to alter what they contribute to on their own accord.

Except... 1 and 2 are scientifically proven. So is 3 (more or less). The arguments would assume the conclusion if they weren't independently proven on their own!

You saying something is 'scientifically proven' no longer means anything to me anymore, considering that the domestication of animals 'scientifically' disproves 1.

It is scientific fact that animals have the capacity to contribute to alternate ends. It is also scientific fact that they cannot do so without external interference.

So the idea that humans are no different, and were just the first to evolove such a self-aware faculty is bogus, because such a faculty would have been present in nearly every animal before humans, because the potential to evolve such a capacity had been there for millions of years.

If anything, the evolution of the self-awareness faculty (the ability to alter what you contribute to on your own accord) makes no evolutionary sense. It makes no sense why it would become necessary millions of years after successfull evolution without it. Not so coincidentally, humans, the one creature on Earth with this self-aware faculty, is the one creature who fits in no ecosystem. Not only is humanity the only species to not be governed by any ecosystem, it cannot interfere in any ecosystem without imbalancing it.

So what are you suggesting, that the human is just the first of many species with the self-awareness faculty that will be governed by no ecossytem, and in fact ruin every ecosystem it interferes in? What evolutionary benefit would it be to start developing creatures that will cause such disharmony?

That essay is seriously starting to piss me off, mostly because we've shown you why the main base it goes off of is false.

Actually, the 'main base it goes off' is actually scientific. The conclusions are based on what has been observed in nature, which are factual observations. The conclusion that humans are in fact different just logically follows what the observation of nature tells us.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

If anything, the evolution of the self-awareness faculty (the ability to alter what you contribute to on your own accord) makes no evolutionary sense. It makes no sense why it would become necessary millions of years after successfull evolution without it. Not so coincidentally, humans, the one creature on Earth with this self-aware faculty, is the one creature who fits in no ecosystem. Not only is humanity the only species to not be governed by any ecosystem, it cannot interfere in any ecosystem without imbalancing it.

It's interesting that you say that. Being self-aware has a number of advantages. It allows us to produce complex technology, discover truth and gain a better understanding of the universe. This sort of thing would be advantageous to humans and as such, there is nothing stopping evolution from producing this outcome.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

But if morality doesn't exist, why should we care? Saying we have a duty to care is implying the existence of objective morality. Immanuel Kant's deontology is based on duty, so how is this different?

We don't have a duty; we have the natural order. There's no objective reason that life is an objective goal, simply that we find it enjoyable for the most part. Oh and for some reason, our instincts tell us that life is better than death. It's not an objective good, but the people who don't subjectively see it as a good have the option of giving it up (suicide).

So now you're admitting that there is an objective moral good? You're giving mixed messages.

Nope. What I'm saying is that the good of morals, the reason we have them in themselves, is that they are positive for the survival of a species, and the survival of the species is an objective good in the same manner that things like "the world not plunging into the sun/flying past pluto" or "cthulu not awakening and killing all of us" or "GWB is not getting a third term"–they aren't objectively good, but they might as well be, seeing as those that don't see them as such are usually clinically insane or insanely stupid. Especially on that last one.

Inclination toward artistic expression is an example. Art does not contribute to human preservation. In purely evolutionary terms, art is merely a medium through which time and resources are exhausted in varying quantities.

The chicks dig it?

Art doesn't contribute to human preservation, it contributes to human flourishing. In fact, human preservation is a prerequisite to art, and flourishing in general.

Point taken. However, I'm fairly certain that there must have been some evolutionary background for artists (you know how crazy chicks go for some "artists" nowadays/back when art was good too, don't you?).

You're assuming an animal must be of our intelligence to contribute towards an alternate end, which is bogus because domesticated animals disprove that.

Domesticated aren't of our intelligence... Or do you mean they lead to an alternate end?

The fact that humans have successfully domesticated certain animals proves they have the mental capacity to contribute to alternate ends.

Oh, this is what you mean. Yeah, no. Allow me to explain it to you this way.

Say you have a gene, or a group of genes, that, when active, tend to lead to rather angry sheep. Most behavior is genetically based, no? So what happens when the sheep that have this gene are systematically killed off? The sheep with the genes we want (mild, friendly, passive, dumb) have better chances of survival because their natural condition has changed from "we need to protect our meaty bodies from predators" to "we need to please our masters in the best way possible".

Now seeing as they have always had the capcity to do this, why haven't they ever done it on their own accord? Because they weren't structured to do so.

See above. They never had the capacity to do that. Their environment changed, they adapted to it.

It's evident humans are different because had animals been the same as us, they would have always been altering what they contribute to, because they've always ahd the mental capacity to do so. A wilderbeast doesn't need the intellect of Einstein to refuse to participate in the annual migration across the Serenghetti, yet it never refuses to because it is not part of the essence of animals to be able to alter what they contribute to on their own accord.

Would it be positive for the animal? They have not gotten past the "instinct" phase (in fact, we haven't fully either), where they do what their instincts tell them is right. And why do they have this coded into their brain? Well, the wildebeasts that stayed back ended up dying. They didn't reproduce, they didn't succeed in the herd.

You saying something is 'scientifically proven' no longer means anything to me anymore, considering that the domestication of animals 'scientifically' disproves 1.

No, no it doesn't. Check your facts. If something being widely scientifically proven doesn't mean anything to you, I have this great concept for you, it's called "Young Earth Creationism".

It is scientific fact that animals have the capacity to contribute to alternate ends. It is also scientific fact that they cannot do so without external interference.

Wrong and wrong. Cite your facts. I'm currently looking for good, peer-based literature pointing to us being animals, but google is being a ****.

So the idea that humans are no different, and were just the first to evolove such a self-aware faculty is bogus, because such a faculty would have been present in nearly every animal before humans, because the potential to evolve such a capacity had been there for millions of years.

Humans are no different. Certain species of gorillas have been shown to be self-aware. They are getting to the point where we were hundreds of thousands of years ago-just barely self-aware, getting around to the whole "evolving into the dominant species on the planet" part.

If anything, the evolution of the self-awareness faculty (the ability to alter what you contribute to on your own accord) makes no evolutionary sense. It makes no sense why it would become necessary millions of years after successfull evolution without it. Not so coincidentally, humans, the one creature on Earth with this self-aware faculty, is the one creature who fits in no ecosystem. Not only is humanity the only species to not be governed by any ecosystem, it cannot interfere in any ecosystem without imbalancing it.

The humans who were smarter were better equipped to deal with ****. That simple, really. And they got more tail.

So what are you suggesting, that the human is just the first of many species with the self-awareness faculty that will be governed by no ecossytem, and in fact ruin every ecosystem it interferes in? What evolutionary benefit would it be to start developing creatures that will cause such disharmony?

None, except for us. Think about it, when we "harm each other ecosystem we participate in", who are we harming it for? The other animals, sure. But for ourselves? We bulldoze that **** and build houses for us to live in, grow plants for us to eat. I am suggesting that the human is the very first species to develop these thoughts, and that there may be others on the way (presumably primates).

Actually, the 'main base it goes off' is actually scientific. The conclusions are based on what has been observed in nature, which are factual observations. The conclusion that humans are in fact different just logically follows what the observation of nature tells us.

Really? I'm sorry, I'm not buying it.

 

[Dre89]

We don't have a duty; we have the natural order. There's no objective reason that life is an objective goal, simply that we find it enjoyable for the most part. Oh and for some reason, our instincts tell us that life is better than death. It's not an objective good, but the people who don't subjectively see it as a good have the option of giving it up (suicide).

But wouldn't you consider those inclinations towards an appreciation of life objective goods that are ends in themselves?

Nope. What I'm saying is that the good of morals, the reason we have them in themselves, is that they are positive for the survival of a species, and the survival of the species is an objective good in the same manner that things like "the world not plunging into the sun/flying past pluto" or "cthulu not awakening and killing all of us" or "GWB is not getting a third term"–they aren't objectively good, but they might as well be, seeing as those that don't see them as such are usually clinically insane or insanely stupid. Especially on that last one.

But you're admitting that we have inclinations towards certain things. These inclinations move us towards how we are supposed to act, what is natural. That's what I'm saying morality.

The chicks dig it?

Haha well then why do chicks do art?

Point taken. However, I'm fairly certain that there must have been some evolutionary background for artists (you know how crazy chicks go for some "artists" nowadays/back when art was good too, don't you?).

Yeah but you're just grasping straws here.

Domesticated aren't of our intelligence... Or do you mean they lead to an alternate end?

Oh, this is what you mean. Yeah, no. Allow me to explain it to you this way.

Say you have a gene, or a group of genes, that, when active, tend to lead to rather angry sheep. Most behavior is genetically based, no? So what happens when the sheep that have this gene are systematically killed off? The sheep with the genes we want (mild, friendly, passive, dumb) have better chances of survival because their natural condition has changed from "we need to protect our meaty bodies from predators" to "we need to please our masters in the best way possible".

I get what you're saying but I think you may have missed my point. Take a lion for example. We can train lions. A lion is designed to XYZ in its wild habitat. However, we can train a lion to do ABC, showing that the lion is mentally capable of contributing to alternate ends.

The sheep example doesn't work because you're saying the sheep have evolved from an XYZ nature to an ABC nature. I'm saying the fact we can get an XZY lion to do ABC shows that the mental capacity has been there all the time, yet it is never applied by the lion on its own accord because animals are different to humans.

See above. They never had the capacity to do that. Their environment changed, they adapted to it.

See above.

Would it be positive for the animal? They have not gotten past the "instinct" phase (in fact, we haven't fully either), where they do what their instincts tell them is right. And why do they have this coded into their brain? Well, the wildebeasts that stayed back ended up dying. They didn't reproduce, they didn't succeed in the herd.

No, no it doesn't. Check your facts. If something being widely scientifically proven doesn't mean anything to you, I have this great concept for you, it's called "Young Earth Creationism".

Wrong and wrong. Cite your facts. I'm currently looking for good, peer-based literature pointing to us being animals, but google is being a ****.

If you're denying that what I'm claiming is fact, the you're denying that we can train lions. You're denying that we train an XYZ lion to do ABC. Surely you're not denying that, that's fact.

Humans are no different. Certain species of gorillas have been shown to be self-aware. They are getting to the point where we were hundreds of thousands of years ago-just barely self-aware, getting around to the whole "evolving into the dominant species on the planet" part.

But gorillas still and probably always will be governed by their ecosystems. Gorillas can't corrupt their own or foreign ecosystems. No matter how intelligent they become, they'll always be restricted in this manner.

The humans who were smarter were better equipped to deal with ****. That simple, really. And they got more tail.

But I'm saying the world appears to be structured for their to be one self-aware species. Every animals is is assigned a specific ecosystem and a specific goal. Humans have no ecosystem, and they fit in none, they imbalance anyone they participate in. To me the world just appears to be designed to be the human's oyster.

None, except for us. Think about it, when we "harm each other ecosystem we participate in", who are we harming it for? The other animals, sure. But for ourselves? We bulldoze that **** and build houses for us to live in, grow plants for us to eat. I am suggesting that the human is the very first species to develop these thoughts, and that there may be others on the way (presumably primates).

So are you suggesting that evolution is moving from maintaining balanced ecosystems, to creating self-aware ecosystemless creatures that will imbalance the entire planet? Seems like a bit of a sudden jump away from a formula that had been applied for billions of years had it not?

Really? I'm sorry, I'm not buying it.

The conclusion is what you don't buy. But what is fact is that humans can train an XYZ lion to do ABC proving that animals do possess the mental capacity to contribute to alternate ends.

 

[rvkevin]

If anything, the evolution of the self-awareness faculty (the ability to alter what you contribute to on your own accord) makes no evolutionary sense. It makes no sense why it would become necessary millions of years after successful evolution without it.

This is based on a misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. Evolution does not plan ahead and seek certain niches that have not been fulfilled. It may have been the case that flying would never have occurred because the mutations required for flight never took place, but that does not take away from the benefits of flight. Just because a certain characteristic is extremely beneficial for an organism does not mean that it will occur. If the mutation required for it occurs, it will be selected for and if it occurs millions of years after an appearance of equilibrium, so be it.

Not so coincidentally, humans, the one creature on Earth with this self-aware faculty, is the one creature who fits in no ecosystem. Not only is humanity the only species to not be governed by any ecosystem, it cannot interfere in any ecosystem without outbalancing it.

I don't understand how humans don't fit into any ecosystem, tribes appear in the great plains, the deserts, the forests and jungle. If anything, we fit into many ecosystems. The same species you speak of has lived with equilibrium for centuries without overbalancing it. However, I'm not sure what you mean by overbalancing it, since other species can and do live beyond their means. If a predator, such as the wolf, is eliminated from the population, then the specific prey, the deer, will overpopulate, diminish their food supply, most will die off, and come to an equilibrium at a smaller population than they started with. They "corrupted" their own nature by producing more that could be sustained, which is not beneficial to the survival of deer, namely the deer population, which decreases their fitness. The same could be said for humans, except that we fit into so many ecosystems that our numbers are cushioned by the vast resources not available to the deer and have yet to starve our food supply. The only difference is that we are able to manipulate our environment in order to increase our food supply, but that comes with our niche, so I fail to see how that is special in any way.

So what are you suggesting, that the human is just the first of many species with the self-awareness faculty that will be governed by no ecosystem, and in fact ruin every ecosystem it interferes in? What evolutionary benefit would it be to start developing creatures that will cause such disharmony?

Evolution does not look into the future. As long as the animal has an evolutionary advantage, it will be selected for, it does not matter if that evolutionary advantage will lead to the nuclear destruction of the Earth 5 million years in the future.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

But wouldn't you consider those inclinations towards an appreciation of life objective goods that are ends in themselves?

No. From an evolutionary perspective, those that wanted to live especially much ended up living more than, say, those who didn't really care if they lived or died.

But you're admitting that we have inclinations towards certain things. These inclinations move us towards how we are supposed to act, what is natural. That's what I'm saying morality.

You have a funny way of saying "instinct".

Haha well then why do chicks do art?

Because guys dig artsy chicks and/or think they're "easy" (they often are, **** dirty hippies )?

I get what you're saying but I think you may have missed my point. Take a lion for example. We can train lions. A lion is designed to XYZ in its wild habitat. However, we can train a lion to do ABC, showing that the lion is mentally capable of contributing to alternate ends.

The sheep example doesn't work because you're saying the sheep have evolved from an XYZ nature to an ABC nature. I'm saying the fact we can get an XZY lion to do ABC shows that the mental capacity has been there all the time, yet it is never applied by the lion on its own accord because animals are different to humans.

See below; basically, it's never been applied because it never mattered before.

But gorillas still and probably always will be governed by their ecosystems. Gorillas can't corrupt their own or foreign ecosystems. No matter how intelligent they become, they'll always be restricted in this manner.

Ah, because you can see into the future.

But I'm saying the world appears to be structured for their to be one self-aware species. Every animals is is assigned a specific ecosystem and a specific goal. Humans have no ecosystem, and they fit in none, they imbalance anyone they participate in. To me the world just appears to be designed to be the human's oyster.

If you belonged to the first self-aware species, of course you would think that. If you belonged to a species who was not yet self-aware, you wouldn't. Know why? Because you wouldn't be thinking about it at all.

So are you suggesting that evolution is moving from maintaining balanced ecosystems, to creating self-aware ecosystemless creatures that will imbalance the entire planet? Seems like a bit of a sudden jump away from a formula that had been applied for billions of years had it not?

Dre, really, pick up a science textbook for once.

The conclusion is what you don't buy. But what is fact is that humans can train an XYZ lion to do ABC proving that animals do possess the mental capacity to contribute to alternate ends.

AH! I got the answer to this one. Simply put? The living conditions of the lion have changed. Give an animal an action-reaction response, and they'll always respond. If the rat knows that behind red, there's an electric shock, and behind blue, there's cheese, it'll go for the cheese. If the lion knows that, should he do what the humans require of him, he gets fed, and if he doesn't, he gets fed less or not at all, then he will do what it takes to gain food. Such stimuli applies to even the most simple of animals with brains (and many insects). We're changing his living conditions, not his intellect. The "alternate end" becomes as valid as the "true" end for him. So no, they can't.

 

[Deleted member]

Is there really a need to be so rude? Besides, no offence Del, but you post like once every eight years, and it's usually an insult rathter than a mature argument, so don't live under the illusion that we're all going to be in tears if you leave either.

In short, yes. There really is no way to convey - without being infracted multiple times, some of which for ridiculous and unjust reasons - how much disdain I hold for Gamer4Fire. That being said, I will now post maturely. The posts involving me (apparently now talking to myself) are important. They show moderator abuse and disregard for the Socratic Method. So yeah, I do need to be "so rude" when the goings-on of this Hall are in shambles and I'm getting in trouble for "trolling", when I am doing the complete opposite of that. It's sad.

Del and RDK- If there is no morality, then what purpose do all our specific inclinations serve? Why do all humans naturally act upon multiple presuppositions (eg. that our experience correlates to reality). Why is it natural then for food and sex to be good for us? What are the point of such inclinations? Secondly, if there is no morality, then humans need not uphold the Golden Rule, or social contract. If this is the case, why is it then that animals. creatures of supposedly lesser mental capacities than us, all uphold social contracts? You can't say that humans are unique in that they need not uphold such a contract, because then you are conceding that humans are intrinsically different to animals, thus attributing us an aletrante purpose to animals.

So basically, in what way do you argue that there is no morality?

Y'know, I never actually stated (and I don't think RDK did either) that there is no morality. Questioning the social contract, like I did with whatshisface, was simply to point out his logical fallacy. What he did is pretty easy to show. It's like saying:

1 - The Bible is correct

2 - The Bible says homosexuality is wrong

3 - Therefore, homosexuality is wrong

Well, no. Not so fast. Prove the first premise (The Bible is correct) before you continue on. We haven't concluded that the social contract is a good thing, and we never will be able to objectively state that it is. Having morality is not universal, nor is the usefulness of the social contract. I'm not against it, I'm just hesitant to confirm anything objectively when morality is inherently a subjective matter.

That's all, folks.

 

[Dre89]

Del when you say morality is a subjective matter, do you mean that it is subjective in that opinions are diverse, but there may possibly be an objective morality, or that mroality itself is subjective, and no objective mroality exists?

 

[Deleted member]

I mean that no objective morality exists, and that morality itself is subjective. If you think otherwise, prove it. You won't be able to.

 

[Dre89]

If I were bothered to prove it, I'd try
to show that the body is designed to move toward certain goods. I'd also show that diversity of opinion doesn't mean a lack of objective truth.

How would you prove that morality isn't objective?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

If I were bothered to prove it, I'd try
to show that the body is designed to move toward certain goods. I'd also show that diversity of opinion doesn't mean a lack of objective truth.

How would you prove that morality isn't objective?

I believe that the burden of proof is on you Dre, in this one. You're trying to prove the existence of morality that transcends humanity, saying "you can't disprove it", isn't quite good enough.

 

[Dre89]

I never said you couldn't disprove it.

I think there's an equally heavy burden of proof on both sides.

 

[Deleted member]

How would you prove that morality isn't objective?

The same way I'd prove that not everyone in the world enjoys eating pizza.

 

[Dre89]

The same way I'd prove that not everyone in the world enjoys eating pizza.

By getting people's opinions? That's your argument?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

No, by finding people to whom this morality does not appear to apply (as in, if you say "life is an objective moral good", I'd find someone who is manic depressive and suicidal; if you say "procreation is an objective moral good", I'd find an asexual person (they exist), etc.).

 

[rvkevin]

The ambiguous definition of morality is coming into play here. If morality concerns what someone thinks or feels what is right and wrong, then morality is as subjective as someone's preference for pizza. If morality concerns the governing dynamics of populations or maximizing the fulfillment of the before mentioned preferences , then there are objective answers to moral decisions. If morality concerns the commands of a non-existent being, then morality is fictional. The answer to the question, "what is morality, or what is your notion of morality?" will decide whether morality is fictional, subjective, or objective. Even if one action is not inherently or intrinsically different than any other action, morality can still be objective, it just depends on what notion of morality is being considered. There are many different notions of morality to consider so before saying morality is subjective or objective, you should first mention what you consider morality to be because it may be the case that what you consider morality is not what is currently being discussed.

 

[Sucumbio]

Can not something be said about a given population who almost unanimously and for now inexplicably "thinks and feels" that murder (a human killing another human with malice aforethought) is "wrong?"

What I mean is, this is neither totally subjective nor objective, is it?

 

[KrazyGlue]

If it's not "totally" objective, it's subjective. I don't see how it could be neither.

 

[Deleted member]

Can not something be said about a given population who almost unanimously and for now inexplicably "thinks and feels" that murder (a human killing another human with malice aforethought) is "wrong?"

What I mean is, this is neither totally subjective nor objective, is it?

I'll bet you 99.99% of people also love the taste of water. Doesn't mean there aren't anomalies or exceptions. In the case of murder, I'd say because there are many motivations for killing someone, you'd probably find a rather disturbing percentage who are not so black and white about it.