The Porn Thread

[blazedaces]

Before I move on I want to point out to everyone you all agree with me that the old argument "morals are opinions because we can disagree on them" is invalid? Good, now we can move on to showing how the next one is invalid.

Theories. They aren't FACTS. And there will never, ever be any way to factually prove them right or wrong. Even if every last human being for the rest of time agrees on an ethical system, it's not objective. It's not mind-independent. It's based off of human judgement. You have to admit there is no factual basis behind any of this. There's also no way to argue that ethics is free of human judgement.

As mentioned above. Many scientific concepts are theories and sometimes we lack the current technology/method to prove them... but you still chose to differentiate between the two. In science we strive to determine the "objective" truth through these "subjective" means as you put it.

Through experimentation, through theories we strive to get closer and closer to "the truth". Even today, there are multiple explanations for how EXACTLY gravity works. We are currently in physics trying to come up with a "THEORY OF EVERYTHING" to determine how to combine all physical theories to some kind of common ground of some sort... there's more then one theory about this (One of them that moves elegantly towards that direction is "String Theory" which most of you have heard about). There's also some REALLY horrible theories, like if I suggested a scientific theory that gravity is created by little green men inside every atom you would laugh at me. Some theories are better than others. We chose criteria to determine such a thing.

The same process can be applied to ethics/morality can it not? There are some theories. Some are better than others. There are a few leading ethical theories (you're welcome to look them up/take a course) which strive to get closer to "the truth".

So what is the difference between science and ethics?

Did you read what I quoted?

... Honestly, I looked back a couple of posts. I can't find what part you're referring to and I do apologize. Can you please point it out for me? Thank you.

If people disagree on something in mathematics, it is objective since there is a factual way to prove it. There is no such way in ethics.

Yes there is, using particular ethical theories there is a way to prove or disprove moral issues.

I never said that nothing is objective.

Then please re-explain to me the distinction between subjective and objective. I think you're attributing subjectivity to too much in the world. I apologize if you read this and think I'm an idiot. I'm trying to challenge relativist thinking and it might be shaking some foundations which you deem "common sense" but it is necessary in order to have this discussion, so please bear with me.

There are 100 cm in a meter.

Only because we define a centimeter as quite literally 1 hundredth of a meter. It is true by definition. Can't we define an objective ethical system? Would that be so different than defining an objective system of length measurement?

The sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

I want to point out something about this. Maybe you won't like what I have to say, but it needs to be said. Not everyone has always agreed or even today agrees on this fact. I'm a realist, so I believe it is true REGARDLESS of what everyone thinks... which is why I believe it to be an objective truth. I agree with you on that.

But good sir, isn't there a chance that even though people disagree on morals/ethics that there might exist an objective truth pertaining to it? Isn't there some way to distinguish between which ethical theories are "closer" to a "true" ethics?

Captain Falcon is the personification of manliness.

Duh...

There are facts in this world, no doubt. But when something is argued about in good faith (I don't mean just disagreeing for its own sake), that means it's subjective. Evolution, global warming, gravity even, are still theories, because anything in science is only as true as the last test to confirm it.

We must distinguish between what we think and what "is"... unless you're trying to argue that there is only "what we think"... which is absolute relativism. I don't know, but I don't think that's what you're getting at.

Because people change? Ideas change? Societies, circumstances, wealth, economics, agriculture, art, science, law, change over time? And those are the contexts that would inform any system of ethics.

You said earlier that "the sun rises in the east and sets in the west". In 100 billion years when they sun has died out, perhaps after meteorites have knocked the earth out of orbit, or a black hole has enveloped our solar system entirely... the sun will no longer "rise in the east and set in the west". Are you saying that this truth is subjective just because it might change with time?

The problem with moral objectivism is that it doesn't address competing claims to morality, it just says "there is absolute right and wrong" without defining those things or dealing with the reality that different people see things differently. Hammurabi's Code worked in the ancient world, but it certainly wouldn't work today. Does that mean that it was wrong, or just that the way the world works is different?

Maybe that's a problem with certain moral objective theories... but if one were designed to "address competing claims of morality" as you put it... would that be satisfactory? I don't quite understand what you're saying either. Did Newton's theory of gravity or Galileo's Principle of Relativity "address competing claims of physics"? Did they not suggest that "there is absolute physical truth" in their theories/principles? People today see things differently, does that mean "it was wrong, or just that the way the world works is different?"

Moral objectivists also deny the fact that they were born and raised into a particular moral and ethical framework. We're Westerners: we have a Western, Judeo-Christian outlook on the world. Do you think that your idea of morality would be different if you were born in Iraq, or Japan, or early 19th century Georgia?

Again, a flaw of certain moral objectivists... I agree with you on that. Let's address that issue and deal with it, just like how we would address a flaw in a scientific theory. We come up with a new theory that accounts for that flaw in thinking. Why can't this be done much the same way with ethics?

The thing is, the argument takes ages to set up, particularly for people who aren't familair with natural law theory or virtue ethics, and I feel it detracts from the debate of this thread.

I'm also less motivated because I've already explained it numerous times in other threads, and it's such a chore to replicate time and time again.

Dre, I've taken multiple courses in ethics. I am familiar with most of the relevant/prevalent theories. I know most people are not and that it's a chore to repeat yourself... but please try. This is a debate forum. You can't expect everyone to have the high level of education required in all subjects.

At the same time, I highly encourage you to argue in scientific debates, even if you don't know everything. People should be willing to educate each other on issues they aren't familiar with. Let's work on educating the debate hall. Why not?

I think it could be possible. I don't think we have it right now, but I do think we have the tools to investigate further. In my observation/reading/experience/whatever, there has been a single principle that has stood as the basis for moral reasoning in all cultures I have heard of: selfishness. Different cultures disagree on how selfish you may be, or to whom you may be unselfish to, but this idea seems to lie beneath it all. In that African culture they may view it as selfish to not engage in those rituals, that to not do so would put the entire community at risk of the wrath of the deity/deities. you weren't specific so I can't be in that scenario. Countries rarely encourage cowardliness the night before a battle in the form of desertion. on is being selfish of one's own life to the harm of the greater community. In the same way in other cultures to have sex with children is selfish because they are psychologically harmed by the act. Or to kill an individual is selfish because you take his life, also to the harm of the community (why killing criminals or other nations is much more socially acceptable). I believe it was krazyglue who brought up a comic book figure as evidence, a sniper who just killed people. Anti-social personalities do exist, but are certainly the minority, but those in the same community with normal brain structure and chemistry see this individual's actions as wrong. I do not find it difficult for one to imagine how a system based on selfishness might have developed from a natural selection environment when one looks at the sociological implications. Everyone likes the individual who is unselfish, they may have even been originally conditioned to like him/her via his/her unselfishness. Who knows.

Anyway, all of that basically says that whether something is morally acceptable is dependent on if it is selfish in nature and who is selfish to. Now that I have established this premise come the hard part: global application. I'm fairly confident that equations could be developed for individual, isolated cultures to express their moral law, but global application is much, much, much more difficult. I can't do it. Yet. I think the next step to take is to try to develop expressions of the isolated cultures to confirm that is can be done. Then the next step is to take on the bigger fish. Establish variables, do research, test! test! test! Perhaps in the future we could establish an expression on how one's genes effect one's moral identification. Create "set points" for different cultures, with a normal curve expression the distribution of their moral beliefs with the set point being the mean. Then research could be done on different aspects, on the environment or culture, to identify at least the trend they correlate with. Maybe it will never be done. The laws of physics have yet to be expressed in a single, all-inclusive equation, and I am confident that physics has undergone far more empirical research than morality. But to make progress, we must start somewhere. I believe it's possible.

Faithkeeper, can I ask how old you are? I only ask because if you are not yet in college I HIGHLY recommend you plan on taking a course in philosophy of ethics... I think you would very much enjoy it.

You can also buy a book on the subject if you're impatient.

-blazed

 

[KrazyGlue]

Well guys, I looked it up and apparently this has been an unresolved philosophical debate throughout history. I personally think ethics are subjective, but I think we've just about reached the end of discussion.

(By the way, Faithekeeper, I'm not a creationist.)

 

[Deleted member]

Again, a flaw of certain moral objectivists... I agree with you on that. Let's address that issue and deal with it, just like how we would address a flaw in a scientific theory. We come up with a new theory that accounts for that flaw in thinking. Why can't this be done much the same way with ethics?

Not to jump in here, but:

You're nearly at the phase where you're disassociating yourself from moral objectivism entirely. How many times can you say "that's a flaw, not something logical objectivists support", before you are no longer a proponent of moral objectivism? You're crossing that line - or at least smudging it. Good thing, too — those theories are a load of garbage.

 

[RDK]

As mentioned above. Many scientific concepts are theories and sometimes we lack the current technology/method to prove them... but you still chose to differentiate between the two. In science we strive to determine the "objective" truth through these "subjective" means as you put it.

Through experimentation, through theories we strive to get closer and closer to "the truth". Even today, there are multiple explanations for how EXACTLY gravity works. We are currently in physics trying to come up with a "THEORY OF EVERYTHING" to determine how to combine all physical theories to some kind of common ground of some sort... there's more then one theory about this (One of them that moves elegantly towards that direction is "String Theory" which most of you have heard about). There's also some REALLY horrible theories, like if I suggested a scientific theory that gravity is created by little green men inside every atom you would laugh at me. Some theories are better than others. We chose criteria to determine such a thing.

The same process can be applied to ethics/morality can it not? There are some theories. Some are better than others. There are a few leading ethical theories (you're welcome to look them up/take a course) which strive to get closer to "the truth".

So what is the difference between science and ethics?

The difference is that through science we seek to understand how the world around us works. Even comparing the two implies that there is an objective standard of morals to begin with.

Science is about what is. Ethics and applied morals are about what should be. Two completely different things.

If I were to go around saying that something is morally right because it's natural, surely someone would call me out on it. It's called the "Naturalistic Fallacy". It's a fallacy because you can't derive an "ought" from an "is". Science simply explains what "is". Anything beyond that is not science.

That's why you can't bring proof into a moral or ethical debate. There's nothing to prove. It's like me trying to prove to you that red is a better color than blue.

The comparison is faulty; the two concepts aren't even in the same ballpark.

 

[Sucumbio]

something to add to the discussion though I realize it may be a non-point at this.. point, lol.

(and I'm gonna just go ahead and admit I had help on this, cause this debate topic is one of my weaker subject matters)

... argued for a theory of morality that relies on the consequences of an action: preference utilitarianism. Basically, in any given situation, there are various actions one could take, each having different consequences. The consequences can be bad or good depending on what we value/prefer/desire. We evaluate pain, loss of good, etc. as negative and pleasure, relationships, etc. as positive. Sum up all the negatives and positives related to an action to determine its utility. Choose the action that corresponds to the greatest utility.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww

The video is of Sam Harris at a TED symposium, where he argues that science can answer moral questions. It's a bit long, 23 minutes, but it's worth the view if you have time.

EDIT: 9:00 is about where he gets into the nitty gritty over objective morality.

 

[Dre89]

I've heard multiple say Sam Harris is a rubbish philosopher and has terrible sources.

Even if philosophy can't prove an ought from an is, that isn't justification for believing there is no morality, for that is an ought itself.

My arguments for why I believe there is an objective morality are displayed in the homosexuality thread at some length so I'm not going to do it again here.

 

[RDK]

Who let Dre into the Debate Hall? Honestly.

 

[Dre89]

What was there to gain by saying that?

 

[KrazyGlue]

Come on RDK, don't be like that.

But to be fair, Dre, you should really stop saying that you posted something in X thread so you don't want to type it up here. Saying "well I once made this point, but it's too long to type here or I've already made the point in another thread" doesn't further discussion at all. If you don't want to retype it, find the post and quote it here.

 

[Sucumbio]

I've heard multiple say Sam Harris is a rubbish philosopher and has terrible sources.

Really? Cause actually if you'd taken the time to watch the video you'd see that you both share many of the same ideas on objective morality as it relates to human flourishing. His "sources" in the presentation were his own pathways of logical approach, using examples in history, culture and society to demonstrate his position. There's nothing rubbish about it.

Even if philosophy can't prove an ought from an is, that isn't justification for believing there is no morality, for that is an ought itself.

Who said there's no morality? Not him, not you, nor I. ... ? Use that there quote tag, it'll save you when you make statements such as this.

My arguments for why I believe there is an objective morality are displayed in the homosexuality thread at some length so I'm not going to do it again here.

... I do realize that the Subjective vs Objective Morality Debate (which as pointed out is ages old) is pretty much ongoing in several threads, which is interesting in and of itself, but that is no reason to assume that your position wouldn't benefit from reiteration in this thread.

Also I'm seeing you cop-out with either "I don't want to repeat myself" or "this would take too long to explain" or "this would be too difficult to set up and -not worth it-."

This attitude is not conducive to healthy discussion, it pretty much boils down to "I'm taking my ball and going home." I almost sense that you're using it as a crutch, to avoid a -difficult- positional defense. The benefit of a message forum-based debate is that you have no real time constraints. Even if it takes you several posts, post-edits, revisions, (I usually have to preview/edit like 10 times on long posts) and even several sessions, you should still be able to eventually and coherently display your idea.

Going forward I'd recommend you read the How To Post thread and please please adhere to its guidelines. It's there for ALL of us (and this goes for all new debate hall members). It's not meant to be a downer. It's there to keep all our discussion properly structured, and by not adhering to it, you're jeopardizing the continuity of the debate, which is unfair to everyone else.

Arguing objective morality is like arguing which color is best.

"...colors can be objectively shown to be better than one another, you just need to specify the area in which you think they are better. If I go camping, which color will contrast the most with the environment? Red. If I want a car that will be coolest in the summer heat, whats the best color to get? White. If I buy a car and want to retain its highest resale value, what the best color to get? I don't know, maybe red or blue, but definitely not lime or pink. If the claim is, "red is my favorite (most preferable or desired) color," which is what is usually meant when someone says that "red is the best color," that too can be demonstrated through experiment. So, as it seems, experiment can demonstrate, objectively, which color is better."

-rvkevin

 

[Deleted member]

"...colors can be objectively shown to be better than one another, you just need to specify the area in which you think they are better.

This is almost a separate issue. Obviously I can say antifreeze is a worse toothpaste than Crest, but I can't objectively say that Crest tastes better. They're apples and oranges.

If I go camping, which color will contrast the most with the environment? Red.

Really? The camping is great in autumn, and that's when the leaves turn bright red.

If I want a car that will be coolest in the summer heat, whats the best color to get? White.

Depends where you are and what you consider to be cool or hot. Also depends on your location, as some summers are different in temperature. Would you want a white car driving through the tundra in the summertime? There may be an objective colour best for a certain UV index, but that's not a subjective matter. That would be how best the heat is diffused, not whether or not something is personal.

If I buy a car and want to retain its highest resale value, what the best color to get? I don't know, maybe red or blue, but definitely not lime or pink.

What if some rich oil tycoon loves the colour lime? What if that oil tycoon is a woman? Pink surely would go nicely. There is nothing objective about selling anything. A product is only worth as much as the buyer is willing to buy it for, and what the seller is willing to sell it for. (that's subjective too!)

If the claim is, "red is my favorite (most preferable or desired) color," which is what is usually meant when someone says that "red is the best color," that too can be demonstrated through experiment. So, as it seems, experiment can demonstrate, objectively, which color is better."

-rvkevin

No. No, a thousand times no. You can maybe objectively say which colour is better in certain situations (camouflage, for example) and for certain purposes, but saying "this colour is better than the other" without any corollary or additional statement is bogus. Again, refer to my toothpaste / antifreeze example to show how you're missing the point and talking about something completely different.

 

[Sucumbio]

Some quick definitions before we continue here...

This is almost a separate issue. Obviously I can say antifreeze is a worse toothpaste than Crest, but I can't objectively say that Crest tastes better. They're apples and oranges.

The point here is not which toothpaste tastes better, that's definitely opinion. The objective decision applies to whether you'd use antifreeze over toothpaste.

Really? The camping is great in autumn, and that's when the leaves turn bright red.

So objectively you'd choose a different color than red. You're still making good decisions based on factual evidence.

Depends where you are and what you consider to be cool or hot. Also depends on your location, as some summers are different in temperature. Would you want a white car driving through the tundra in the summertime? There may be an objective colour best for a certain UV index, but that's not a subjective matter. That would be how best the heat is diffused, not whether or not something is personal.

Of course it'll depend on location, because it's not summer everywhere at once, but the objective decision is still apparent. By understanding scientifically that lighter colors diffuse heat and darker colors absorb heat, one can objectively decide what color car to get. They may also decide to not get white, despite the heat factor because it shows dirt and grime more easily. This can objectively be proven in experiment by dirtying dozens of cars of varying color and recording which ones appear to be dirtiest at various distances, etc.

What if some rich oil tycoon loves the colour lime? What if that oil tycoon is a woman? Pink surely would go nicely. There is nothing objective about selling anything. A product is only worth as much as the buyer is willing to buy it for, and what the seller is willing to sell it for. (that's subjective too!)

True, but you don't consider the rare case when sizing up value. You typically will go with the common denominator, because you may need to sell your good in different locals. "Value" may appear to be subjective, but in truth, it is also objective based on its worth in terms of function. And though antiques have little real world value, they will have attached to them dollar values nonetheless, and one can empirically catalog the values of antiquities from collections of antiques, and make good decisions based on this to value their own piece. This is objective quantification.

No. No, a thousand times no. You can maybe objectively say which colour is better in certain situations (camouflage, for example) and for certain purposes, but saying "this colour is better than the other" without any corollary or additional statement is bogus. Again, refer to my toothpaste / antifreeze example to show how you're missing the point and talking about something completely different.

Well, see above for why its possible, and likely one is objectively deciding which color is best, and why it's not necessarily -just- an opinion.

 

[Deleted member]

The point here is not which toothpaste tastes better, that's definitely opinion. The objective decision applies to whether you'd use antifreeze over toothpaste.

I know that, but that's not an issue of objective vs subjective. If you really think it is, whatever; I don't care to argue about that. My only point was that while you can say a colour is better than the other for different purposes, you cannot say that one colour is prettier, nicer, uglier, etc than another as a fact. We both know this, so why are we arguing? I think I was more frustrated by your examples. They were problematic, as I pointed out.

True, but you don't consider the rare case when sizing up value. You typically will go with the common denominator, because you may need to sell your good in different locals. "Value" may appear to be subjective, but in truth, it is also objective based on its worth in terms of function. And though antiques have little real world value, they will have attached to them dollar values nonetheless, and one can empirically catalog the values of antiquities from collections of antiques, and make good decisions based on this to value their own piece. This is objective quantification.

Uh, most value is entirely arbitrary. Valuing your pieces based off of arbitrary values just continues the cycle. A professional examining your piece and says how much it's worth is still arbitrary. Say you have a piece from Andy Warhol - it's rather illogical that a picture of a soup can is worth so much. Prices are not objective.

Well, see above for why its possible, and likely one is objectively deciding which color is best in situations not concerning opinions or personal reasons.

Fixed that for you.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Who let Dre into the Debate Hall? Honestly.

He was much better in the proving grounds...



Dre... if you're gonna participate in the topic, participate in it, all you're doing now is making the people who vouched for you look bad.




Without referencing to any sort of religion, biological imperative to survive as a group seems like a good basis for morality, and optimizing survival certainly is objective, though debatable and difficult to figure out.

 

[Dre89]

Sorry, I was planning on participating in this topic but everyone started going at me in the homosexuality thread.

The debate is essentially the same in that thread, and it's alot more developed than it is here.

Had I known so many people would jump into the homosexuality thread and demand responses from me I wouldn't have participated here.