#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
What law is the best, most functional, or most morally valid law?
| Add New Argument |
|
1
point
1
point
In order to establish that you would need a way to quantify the value of a law. Secondly, morality is very subjective and you would also have to find a way to make morality absolute. You could potentially establish this by seeing which laws have endured the test of time and culture, and as it turns out - incest being objectionable - is among the few that have. In order to establish that you would need a way to quantify the value of a law. I don’t see a need for quantification. One merely needs to demonstrate in general terms that a law is better than or worse than some other law according to some chosen standard. Secondly, morality is very subjective So is eyesight, but we can demonstrate that some see better than others you would also have to find a way to make morality absolute Would you mind clarifying that statement? incest being objectionable - is among the few that have. There are also crimes against people, such as assault and murder, and crimes against property, such as theft. 1
point
according to some chosen standard. Yes, but that standard is essentially arbitrary, not objective. So is eyesight, but we can demonstrate that some see better than others There's an objective way to test your ability to see, every test measures a very specific aspect of vision (like visual acuity measuring refraction errors in the eyeball). There's no such test for morality or laws. Would you mind clarifying that statement? Absolute morality is this idea that morality exists in the realm of - let's say - Newton's laws of motion. They are precise and unchanging and deviating from those moral laws means you are immoral. So my point is that until you find a concrete way to establish such morality, it is impossible to determine the "most morally valid law." There are also crimes against people, such as assault and murder, and crimes against property, such as theft. Right, but those aren't as universal as you think they are. The reasons for who should be killed for what (if at all), changes from culture to culture. What constitutes assault is never consistent among cultures, even if the concept exists at all. Same goes for property and theft. Yes, but that standard is essentially arbitrary, not objective. An objective standard, not arbitrarily determined, exists for morality. There's an objective way to test your ability to see, every test measures a very specific aspect of vision (like visual acuity measuring refraction errors in the eyeball). There's no such test for morality or laws. If there were no tests for eyesight, would some eyesight not be better than others? Testability is not essential to objectivity. So my point is that until you find a concrete way to establish such morality, it is impossible to determine the "most morally valid law." Keeping to my original analogy, there was once very limited means of knowing what eyesight was better than others. And there are differing qualities of sight in different contexts (color, lighting etc). Morality is more complex than eyesight, and we have not devoted scientific study to it for very long. Even so, we can estimate moral quality as we once estimated eyesight. It is easy to see that some individual or group behavior is detrimental to the continued survival of the individual or species, though it is not easy to see for all behavior. Since morality is a guide to behavior, and an evolved trait, behavior that fails to serve the function for which morality evolved, essentially surviveability, is morally incorrect. Just as eyesight that does not serve its function is incorrect and requires corrective lenses or operations. Says the caveman Wait, I thought I was Stalin? Now I live in a cave? Have you missed your medication today buddy? who believes, against all modern science, that humans have no nature. Like this modern science, you hilariously dishonest Jew imbecile? "What,” asked the distinguished evolutionist Michael Ghiselin in 1997, “does evolution teach us about human nature?” The answer he gave will surprise those who suppose that the evolutionary sciences describe the deepest and most ubiquitous aspects of our psychological makeup. Ghiselin informed his readers that evolution “teaches us that human nature is a superstition.” https://newhumanist.org. It’s nice that you can find an ideologue to pretend that humans are the only mammals without a nature, but it’s not science, and this isn’t 1997. From a lecture last year called “How Neuroscience Helps Us to Understand Human Nature” “What has only been happening quite recently is that neuroscience can have a role in our culture. Neuroscience also talks about the fields of economics, moral behavior, politics, aesthetics, and education.” https://brainworldmagazine.com/ If you could suspend your own blinding bias long enough to read the relevant literature, you would see that the sciences, specifically neuroscience, neurobiology, and evolutionary psychology are not on your side. Of course that’s assuming you can read it. Every single day you are stomped on this site by facts. Your pathetic responses are highly predictable with the simplest pattern. If the subject is too complex for you, you claim your opponent is engaged in logical contradiction that you cannot illustrate. If your opponent stumps you, you call them Hitler or some other irrelevant insult. This happens daily. It just happened again. Read a fucking book. 1
point
An objective standard, not arbitrarily determined, exists for morality. Making such claim implies that every action can be tested to determine it's true moral value, no moral dilemma would ever be ambiguous. Personally, I think the entire field of philosophy wouldn't exists if that were the case. If there were no tests for eyesight, would some eyesight not be better than others? Testability is not essential to objectivity. Testability is the essence of objectivity, that's how you determine if something is objective or not. If there was no objective way to test eyesight, bad eyesight would just be a subjective opinion. Although we now have a way to precisely define what bad eyesight is, that doesn't mean that's going to be true of morality. we can estimate moral quality as we once estimated eyesight Eyesight at its core is a physical process that can be precisely measured. Morality on the other hand is an abstract concept that has a murky definition. A definition that is imprecise and changes. Simply because science hasn't found objective morality, that doesn't mean it exists. morality is a guide to behavior, and an evolved trait, behavior that fails to serve the function for which morality evolved, essentially surviveability, is morally incorrect. That's how you've come to define morality. Yours differs greatly on how others define it. Keeping with you definition. Have you ever heard of the four Fs in evolutionary biology? Fight, Flee, Food, and Reproduce. That's what your definition of morality would boil down to. Making such claim implies that every action can be tested to determine it's true moral value, no moral dilemma would ever be ambiguous. That’s not true. The existence of an objective standard, one independent of our perception, does not imply that we can sufficiently perceive all the necessary variables required to test at the level you propose. While we cannot know with certainty which individual actions are best suited for our well-being, either individually or on the whole, we can know that some actions are detrimental. For my purposes, “well-being” refers to how well we are surviving. Personally, I think the entire field of philosophy wouldn't exists if that were the case. Philosophy always precedes it’s counterpart in science. Testability is the essence of objectivity Not so. We know that there is a whole objective world out there that we cannot perceive and thus, cannot test. Furthermore, we know that there are systems and situations too complex for us to account for all appropriate variables, but we still know that there is an objective nature to the truths we seek, though we seek imperfectly. If there was no objective way to test eyesight, bad eyesight would just be a subjective opinion. Before color blot tests, the fact that some people suffered what we now call color blindness was an objective fact, regardless of testability. Although we now have a way to precisely define what bad eyesight is, that doesn't mean that's going to be true of morality. Most things in the world are imprecise. The precise differences that we once could not detect still existed prior to our detection. Morality is no different. We are not in a position to make precise moral statements with high confidence. But we are in a position to make broad moral statements with some confidence. And it is the nature of life that we must make precise moral decisions all the time, regardless of confidence. Eyesight at its core is a physical process that can be precisely measured. Morality on the other hand is an abstract concept that has a murky definition. All reference to morality refers to a code of conduct. Moral issues are issues of behavior. While different people have different thoughts on what proper moral conduct is, what morality is hasn’t been imprecisely defined. A definition that is imprecise and changes. Moral prescriptions change, not the definition of morality. Simply because science hasn't found objective morality, that doesn't mean it exists. Science has. It’s simply that people do not discuss it in these terms, though we are beginning to. That's how you've come to define morality. Yours differs greatly on how others define it. It doesn’t. What I call morally correct differs, but all references to morality as such is a reference to proper conduct. Have you ever heard of the four Fs in evolutionary biology? Fight, Flee, Food, and Reproduce. That's what your definition of morality would boil down to. These 4 Fs are highly complex, each in their own right. The most evolutionarily advantageous or destructive way to conduct any one of them, for a species whose nature is individual yet social, is so incredibly complex that even though we’ve done it since forever, you believe it cannot properly be done. It can, though not precisely. A true statement need not be precise, or even consistent in all contexts, to be true. 1
point
The existence of an objective standard, one independent of our perception, does not imply that we can sufficiently perceive all the necessary variables required to test at the level you propose When you want to find the best and most moral law, you require a precise and objective way of measuring morality. For example, when we say something is cold, that's vague and subjective. When you say it's -20 degrees Celsius, there's is no confusion on what that means. Morality would need something similar in order for it to become objective. It doesn't suffice to say something is good or bad, moral or immoral. While we cannot know with certainty which individual actions are best suited for our well-being, either individually or on the whole, we can know that some actions are detrimental. Your statement would only be true if we assume your version of morality was the only that existed. The issue is that you would have to prove that an absolute morality exists, and then also prove that how you model morality is the standard we should use for all morality. We know that there is a whole objective world out there that we cannot perceive and thus, cannot test. In order to know if something is an objective truth it must be modeled and tested. Also, simply because we don't fully understand the nature of morality doesn't mean it exists outside the realm of human subjectivity. Morality could be a mechanism that arises from social behavior instead of survival. It could also mean that it exists in many forms, not in one objective form. The precise differences that we once could not detect still existed prior to our detection. Morality is no different. You don't know that morality would fall into this category. Trying to argue that morality exists outside subjectivity, is similar to arguing that objective beauty exists. What is the best and most beautiful thing in the universe? Science has. It’s simply that people do not discuss it in these terms, though we are beginning to. Science is not finding objective morality. They are modeling moral behavior and studying how morality arises. Those are very different things. is so incredibly complex that even though we’ve done it since forever, you believe it cannot properly be done. It's not that it cannot be properly done. It's that you are assuming morality can only exist in a very specific form. Especially one that can establish a best and most moral law. It can, though not precisely. A true statement need not be precise, or even consistent in all contexts, to be true. Yes, but doesn't mean an objective morality exist, especially one that exists outside subjectivity. A morality that can be used to establish the moral value of every single action and behavior. When you want to find the best and most moral law, you require a precise and objective way of measuring morality. For example, when we say something is cold, that's vague and subjective. When you say it's -20 degrees Celsius, there's is no confusion on what that means. Morality would need something similar in order for it to become objective. It doesn't suffice to say something is good or bad, moral or immoral. Saying something is cold is vague, but saying something is colder than something else is objectively true or false, regardless of the actual precise temperature. Morality does not need a precise measurement for us to reasonably discuss what acts are more or less moral than others, and to understand that some answer is objectively correct. The temperature was objective long before we could measure it, despite the fact that we once only knew it subjectively. Your statement would only be true if we assume your version of morality was the only that existed. I haven’t presented my version of morality. I have presented the manner in which morality as such is objective in its nature. The issue is that you would have to prove that an absolute morality exists, and then also prove that how you model morality is the standard we should use for all morality. Not so. I cannot illustrate that absolute health exists. Nonetheless we can show that some things are healthier than others. Some things are healthy for some people and not for others. Health is a matter of objective reality subject to scientific inquiry, and yet we cannot say what absolute health is. We can however say that some people are healthier than others. This is true for moral issues as well. We can say that some people live in a manner more conducive to their well-being and that of those around them. Others less so. In order to know if something is an objective truth it must be modeled and tested. Incorrect. One must only know that its existence is independent of experience. This does not require a model. It does not require testing beyond that which humanity has always done perceptually. As with temperature, we knew that it was hotter or colder and we could compare them qualitatively though not quantitatively. We didn’t have a model, we didn’t have a precise means to test, and yet we knew that temperature had an objective nature. Also, simply because we don't fully understand the nature of morality doesn't mean it exists outside the realm of human subjectivity. It’s not our lack of understanding that makes morality objective. It is the fact that it is an evolved trait. Through evolution, traits persist for their functionality to survival. Because of this we can estimate broad truths about morality, even if we can never know all relevant variables necessary to be precise. Morality could be a mechanism that arises from social behavior instead of survival. It absolutely arises from social behavior. We evolved in a social setting. Socialization creates culture, which can evolve faster than biology. This is necessary is rapidly changing environments which is, in part, the reason for our large brain (much of which is devoted to moral reasoning). The social element of morality merely adds complexity, it doesn’t remove objectivity. The analogy I use to explain the social aspect is language. Language is a trait evolved for communication, it is subject to socialization, and has substantial brain space dedicated to it. It is not a matter of opinion that some languages can communicate more information in more diverse ways than others. Some languages are better than others for communication. Some morality is better than others for human well-being. It could also mean that it exists in many forms, not in one objective form. Morality is always a system of propriety of conduct. It cannot, by definition be otherwise. Though the specifics of that system will vary. Trying to argue that morality exists outside subjectivity, is similar to arguing that objective beauty exists. What conduct is more conducive to well-being is not a matter of mere opinion. There are no objective ramifications to having bad taste in art. There are objective ramifications for truly incorrect conduct. The fact that people have false opinions about healthy diets does not mean that health is subjective. Science is not finding objective morality. They are modeling moral behavior and studying how morality arises. Those are very different things. As I said science has discovered the objective nature of morality, scientists simply do not discuss it in these terms. The study of how morality arises, and what role it plays, is a scientific endeavor. The discoveries made concerning morality demonstrate its objectivity Science has shown that morality plays a necessary role for humans and it exists because of evolution. These two facts are sufficient to know that morality is objective. It's not that it cannot be properly done. It's that you are assuming morality can only exist in a very specific form. You seem to think that I am arguing for what I find moral vs what other’s find moral. But I am discussing morality descriptively. You cannot present an example of morality that is unconcerned with mental or physical human conduct. The “very specific” form you are referring to is merely the descriptive definition of morality. Morality, in any form, is never not a code of conduct. Yes, but doesn't mean an objective morality exist, especially one that exists outside subjectivity. A morality that can be used to establish the moral value of every single action and behavior. I have established the objective nature of morality. Your response so far seem to be that you still believe it is subjective. I won’t deny the importance of subjectivity to morality. Just as I won’t deny the importance of feeling bad when you are objectively ill. But I want to know exactly what specifically you believe is subjective about what I have presented. I have provided specific responses to your objections, but now your objections seem to be “but it’s still subjective”. Which of these do you object to? Morality is a code of conduct/behavior. Morality is an evolved trait. Some conduct is more conducive to survival than other conduct. This need not be quantified to be true. To survive well is to thrive. The extent to which we do this is our well-being. 1
point
saying something is colder than something else is objectively true or false It's not an objective true or false, that's a relative claim. You are confusing logical statements with objective statements. Saying for example, the sun is colder than neutron star. While true, we would be dealing with temperatures so high it's absurd. But astronomers know this because they have a very precise way to measure this concept. Which again, it's not true of morality, even when it comes to making relative statements. temperature was objective long before we could measure it, despite the fact that we once only knew it subjectively. Just because temperature is an objective fact doesn't mean morality exists in the same form. Simply because temperature used to be subjective doesn't imply morality will stop being subjective in the future. I haven’t presented my version of morality. If I understand correctly, you are arguing that morality stems from evolution. If so, that implies a version of morality that differs from others. I cannot illustrate that absolute health exists. Nonetheless we can show that some things are healthier than others In science, bad health means a disruption in expected functioning, which is something you can measure. Two people living with AIDS can be tested to see which one is in worse health by measuring their T-cell count. Something you can't do with morality, or any moral dilemma. One must only know that its existence is independent of experience If you want to KNOW it's objective you need to model it and test it. Without that it doesn't matter if it's independent of experience. How would you even know that the reason something is hot is because it contains the element fire, and cold because it contains the element water. You have to model and test that model in verify it's validity. It is the fact that it is an evolved trait That doesn't make morality objective. Creativity is an evolved trait but that doesn't make it objective. For it to be objective it must exist outside the human experience. The second issue is that if evolution is our guide for morality you end up the issue that nature is full of things we find objectionable, like cannibalism, incest, rape, violence, etc. So even with that interpretation of morality it is still incredibly inconsistent. Some languages are better than others for communication. Some morality is better than others for human well-being. Languages are products of the culture they form in, they fit the needs of the people speaking it. That's also true of morality. There's no way to determine which is the "best" language as much as determining the "best" morality. Morality is always a system of propriety of conduct. It cannot, by definition be otherwise. Though the specifics of that system will vary. The specifics vary so much there's no way to determine what humans agree on. Like I said in my original post, incest being objectionable is about the few we all agree on. As I said science has discovered the objective nature of morality, scientists simply do not discuss it in these terms What scientists have studied doesn't tell you why - let's say - abortion is right or wrong. They are studying group dynamics and behavior, and what morality means inside a group. Science has shown that morality plays a necessary role for humans and it exists because of evolution. These two facts are sufficient to know that morality is objective. That doesn't make morality objective. Art has been very important to human tribal dynamics, that doesn't make art objective. The “very specific” form you are referring to is merely the descriptive definition of morality. Morality, in any form, is never not a code of conduct. I think you misunderstand what I'm arguing. Morality is a code of conduct, I'm not going to argue against that (maybe I caused some confusing earlier). What that code of conduct is - is something that is not objective, especially where that code of conduct comes from. You have an idea of where that code of conduct comes from, and you are using that to say that is is possible to find the "best and most morally valid law", what I'm arguing is that there's not. I have established the objective nature of morality. Your response so far seem to be that you still believe it is subjective. You have not established objective morality, far from it. You simply have used your own interpretation and using that to argue that your view of morality is objective when it's not. Like I've said before, in order to establish objective morality you would need to use a specific language to even approach the topic, relative statements don't suffice. I want to know exactly what specifically you believe is subjective about what I have presented. That you can establish a "best, most functional, or most morally valid law". The essence of such statement put you in the realm of pure subjectivity. There's no means to establish such law, even with relative statements. Even if we both agree that evolution is the source of all morality. It's not an objective true or false, that's a relative claim. It’s absolutely objectively true or false. If I say a thing is colder than another thing, I know it subjectively, but the truth of the matter is objective. We do not have to discuss far off astrological bodies for this matter. The snow outside is colder than my tap water. True. This isn’t logical statement, it’s a subjective statement based on my perception. It is also objectively true. Which again, it's not true of morality, even when it comes to making relative statements. This is a basic denial of my position without a refutation. You have to articulate how my position is incorrect, not simply deny it. You may consider stating my position in your own terms to show that you understand what I am trying to convey. Just because temperature is an objective fact doesn't mean morality exists in the same form. It doesn’t exist in the same form. I am using analogy to show that your specific counter-arguments do not logically hold in other situations where the same principle is applied. Some acts considered moral in some contexts are objectively detrimental to the well-being of the actor when compared to an alternative act. Those actions fail to serve the purpose for which morality evolved. Which is to say that some actions are morally flawed, outside of the realm of opinion. Just as some eyesight is flawed. Just as some diets are unhealthy. Just as some houses are poorly constructed. All of these analogies rely heavily on subjective opinion. They are even significantly aesthetic in nature. That doesn’t change the fact that we can make objective statements about their quality. The same is true for morality, for the reasons I have stated. Simply because temperature used to be subjective doesn't imply morality will stop being subjective in the future. Temperature was never subjective. Neither was morality. If I understand correctly, you are arguing that morality stems from evolution. If so, that implies a version of morality that differs from others. Morality stems from evolution, yes. This is the nature of morality, descriptively speaking. Shelters are meant to keep out the elements. This is the nature of a shelter. This does not mean that different kinds of homes do not exist. I am not saying that cabins are superior to pueblos, I am saying that some shelters are superior to others, objectively speaking. In science, bad health means a disruption in expected functioning, which is something you can measure. Two people living with AIDS can be tested to see which one is in worse health by measuring their T-cell count. Something you can't do with morality, or any moral dilemma. This is, again, beside the point. The comparative health of two people has always differed objectively, even when our measurements were imprecise. Even when our methods were superstitious. If you want to KNOW it's objective you need to model it and test it. Humans test constantly via senses and logic. We have always been scientifically minded in this way, even before rigorous models. We can already see the detriment of some behaviors compared to others. Social sciences already attempt to measure these on both a societal and an individual level. Furthermore, we already make moral decisions based on what the evidence of these sciences. As a result, general and individual well-being has significantly increased over recent history, and we simultaneously look at certain past moral constructs as abhorrent while we articulate their objective dysfunction. Without that it doesn't matter if it's independent of experience. The objective nature of a thing does not depend on your knowledge of its objectivity, by definition. Morality is objective in the sense that I have described, despite the fact that you don’t know it. That doesn't make morality objective. Creativity is an evolved trait but that doesn't make it objective. Some people are objectively less creative than others. Some people have new or innovative ideas and others have none. That’s objectively true. For it to be objective it must exist outside the human experience. That’s incorrect. It must exist independent of human experience. Everything that we know to be objective we know because of our human experience. All objective matters are known subjectively. The second issue is that if evolution is our guide for morality you end up the issue that nature is full of things we find objectionable, like cannibalism, incest, rape, violence, etc. I didn’t say that evolution is out guide to morality. I said that morality is our guide to conduct, and it arose through the evolutionary process. Well-being determines the moral status of conduct, regardless of how anyone feels about it. Regardless of whether anyone is aware of an actions effect on well-being. Bad things happening in nature have nothing to do with this fact. Languages are products of the culture they form in, they fit the needs of the people speaking it. That's also true of morality. Pueblos would never work for the Eskimos. Nonetheless, some homes are better than others for objective reasons. When language is insufficient for the needs of the people who speak it, they expand the language. Individuals who cannot keep up have poor language skills because they cannot communicate as effectively. This too is the case regardless of opinion. Just like morality. There's no way to determine which is the "best" language We can determine which languages communicate greater content, just as we can determine the quality of an individual’s language. A primitive and simplistic language is inferior for modern needs. It would be objectively detrimental to the goal of communication if we insisted on adopting a primitive language with less conceptual content. Similarly, it would be detrimental if we all communicated at the level of the least effective communicator. The specifics vary so much there's no way to determine what humans agree on. First, there is much that humanity agrees on. Second, scientific consensus is not what makes matters objectively true. Consensus didn’t put the Sun at the center of the solar system, it didn’t make trans fats bad for you, and it doesn’t determine what conduct is conducive to wellbeing. That doesn't make morality objective. It does. I would like you to address what I have said. Morality evolved because it serves is necessary for survival. Moral issues that hinder the ability to survive well are not serving the function of morality as well as a moral issue that enables us to survive well. Address this. Morality is a code of conduct, I'm not going to argue against that (maybe I caused some confusing earlier). What that code of conduct is - is something that is not objective, especially where that code of conduct comes from. You had said “you are assuming morality can only exist in a very specific form.” I haven’t argued for a specific code of conduct. I have argued that some conduct is more conducive to wellbeing than other conduct. That means that some conduct is more closely aligned with the purpose of morality, which is wellbeing (the evolved function of morality). People have all kinds of subjective opinions about wellbeing, much of it rooted in superstition. Nonetheless, some conduct actually is more conducive to wellbeing regardless of opinion. Furthermore, the standard doesn’t change even when the expression thereof is different in different contexts. Some people will have to conduct themselves very differently from others to maximize wellbeing. This makes morality relative to context, not subjective. You have not established objective morality, far from it. You have yet to debunk what I have put forth. You simply have used your own interpretation and using that to argue that your view of morality is objective when it's not. Again, I have not presented my view of morality. I have discussed morality descriptively. We are discussing morality as such. You do not deny that morality is evolved. You do not deny that it is a code of conduct. You have not addressed the point that some moral codes are better suited to the purpose for which morality evolved. You have not address that wellbeing is independent of opinion, much as health is. You have not addressed any of the meat of my position, you have merely denied it. Like I've said before, in order to establish objective morality you would need to use a specific language to even approach the topic, relative statements don't suffice. I have debunked this by showing that relative statements still hold a subjective truth to the matter. The snow is colder than the tap water. It’s objectively true. Some diets are healthier than other diets. A relative statement that is objectively true. Some conduct is more suited to the purpose for which morality evolved than is other conduct. I don’t need a numbered scale for this statement to be objectively true. That you can establish a "best, most functional, or most morally valid law". The essence of such statement put you in the realm of pure subjectivity. Pure opinion. If the objective fact of the matter were known, we wouldn’t need to discuss it. There's no means to establish such law, even with relative statements. Maybe not. But establishing the relative moral value of one law to one other law would be a start. Even so, we can estimate moral quality Yes we can but estimations differ depending on who is doing the estimating. It is easy to see that some individual or group behavior is detrimental to the continued survival of the individual or species, though it is not easy to see for all behavior. But groups differ in what is good and moral for their particular group depending on many factors Since morality is a guide to behavior, Your moral guide and behaviour would be different to a devout Muslims so is your moral code superior? evolved trait, behavior that fails to serve the function for which morality evolved, essentially surviveability, is morally incorrect. Yes it is an evolved trait and continues to evolve informed by societal changes , most groupings see their particular set of moral values as correct and right as it seems to have served them so far . Yes we can but estimations differ depending on who is doing the estimating. Sure estimates differ. Estimates differ on what constitutes a healthy diet as well. That doesn't mean everyone with an opinion is correct. Furthermore, the fact that people are different means that it's possible for two people to have very different opinions about what is a healthy diet for them and they can both be correct. But groups differ in what is good and moral for their particular group depending on many factors Groups actually differ, yes. They differ objectively. As such, conduct that is actually morally correct for one group or individual may not be actually morally correct for another. But then, there are some things are are actually morally incorrect in the majority of contexts. By morally correct, I mean conduct that is conducive to the function for which morality evolved. Your moral guide and behaviour would be different to a devout Muslims so is your moral code superior? No doubt the Muslim will conduct his or her self in some certain ways that is morally superior to some certain ways in which I conduct myself. No doubt the opposite is true for other certain behaviors. It is highly unlikely that any one culture or group is correct on all accounts. Neither is it likely that any one culture has the perfectly healthy diet. Though almost all will have something healthy to offer. Yes it is an evolved trait and continues to evolve informed by societal changes , most groupings see their particular set of moral values as correct and right as it seems to have served them so far . We have to feel that our conduct is correct, or else we change it in order to again feel correct. The social nature of morality makes it more adaptable than strict biology. There are always large unknown or unknowable factors. Whether a given behavior is actually conducive to wellbeing will often depend on unknown factors. But what it does not depend on is opinion. Sure estimates differ. Estimates differ on what constitutes a healthy diet as well. Yes and diets change almost weekly as in what constitutes a truly healthy beneficial one , morality too changes with societal change as to what we think is best That doesn't mean everyone with an opinion is correct. That’s true which is why disagreement abounds in all societies Furthermore, the fact that people are different means that it's possible for two people to have very different opinions about what is a healthy diet for them and they can both be correct. They can be both correct and incorrect , correct as in it feels good for them but medically speaking under testing proved to be damaging to them Groups actually differ, yes. They differ objectively. As such, conduct that is actually morally correct for one group or individual may not be actually morally correct for another. But then, there are some things are are actually morally incorrect in the majority of contexts The majority of contexts does not make such a claim objectively true .By morally correct, I mean conduct that is conducive to the function for which morality evolved. But the function of a given group evolves within its own people’s what is conducive for one group may not be so for another . No doubt the Muslim will conduct his or her self in some certain ways that is morally superior to some certain ways in which I conduct myself. No doubt the opposite is true for other certain behaviors. It is highly unlikely that any one culture or group is correct on all accounts. Neither is it likely that any one culture has the perfectly healthy diet. Though almost all will have something healthy to offer. Yes we can pick through the good or what we deem the good in each culture . We have to feel that our conduct is correct, or else we change it in order to again feel correct. Or it’s changed for us as in what the most up to date new trend is amongst our leaders or celebrities etc , etc The social nature of morality makes it more adaptable than strict biology. There are always large unknown or unknowable factors. Whether a given behavior is actually conducive to wellbeing will often depend on unknown factors. But what it does not depend on is opinion. But opinion is what changes a lot of given behaviors which were once deemed conducive to well being I note you stated in conversation with another ...... An objective standard, not arbitrarily determined, exists for morality It is possible to objectively evaluate morality itself, but that’s not the same as morality being objective. Yes and diets change almost weekly as in what constitutes a truly healthy beneficial one No, opinions in what constitutes a truly healthy beneficial diet changes almost weekly. What is actually good for you probably doesn’t change very quickly. Health is not subjective simply because opinions vary. Neither is morality. They can be both correct and incorrect , correct as in it feels good for them but medically speaking under testing proved to be damaging to them A thing cannot be what it is and it’s opposite in the same time and in the same respect. The fact that heroine provides an appealing feeling does not mean it’s healthy for you, regardless of opinion and regardless of sensation. The majority of contexts does not make such a claim objectively true A thing can be objectively true in only one specific narrow context. It would still be objectively true. But if a certain moral issue is objectively true in a wide variety of contexts, then it is more widely applicable and we are more likely to realize it. But the function of a given group evolves within its own people’s what is conducive for one group may not be so for another. So what? Igloos aren’t good shelters in the desert. That doesn’t mean every shelter is equally good at keeping out the elements, and it doesn’t mean we can’t tell what shelters better serve their function compared to other shelters. If you are not diabetic, it is not healthy to stick insulin in your body. Does that mean that diabetes medication is subjective? Of course not. It simply means that what is healthy will vary with context. Or it’s changed for us as in what the most up to date new trend is amongst our leaders or celebrities etc , etc What is actually correct doesn’t adjust with popular opinion. Fad diets can be wildly popular and still unhealthy. But opinion is what changes a lot of given behaviors which were once deemed conducive to well being What is deemed conducive is opinion, what is actually conducive is a matter of objective fact. Opinions will line up with the objective reality, or they won’t. Some diets are wildly popular (opinion) and it turns out they are actually healthy (objective fact). It is possible to objectively evaluate morality itself, but that’s not the same as morality being objective. If this is a denial of my position, it is lacking a refutation. The extent to which morality can be objectively evaluated is another question. The fact that some moral codes are more conducive to the evolved function of morality, which is to say they are more morally correct, is what is meant by morality being objective. We all have our opinions, but these opinions do not determine what is actually morally correct. The fact that moral conduct varies with context does not remove the objective nature of morality, since it is still not a matter of opinion if the given conduct is conducive to the function of morality. No, opinions in what constitutes a truly healthy beneficial diet changes almost weekly. Yes as I said “diets change almost weekly “ opinions on what’s a truly healthy beneficial diet differ with the expert who is advocating such a diet I never claimed health was subjective but opinions on what’s a truly healthy diet are indeed subjective , like morality A thing cannot be what it is and it’s opposite in the same time and in the same respect. But you’ve tightened up your argument by now inserting “in the same time and in the same respect “ which changes the nature of the original statement . I made no claims about heroin and it’s merits or lack off. On a side note something can be both right and wrong as in Schrödinger’s cat as an example of quantum superposition A thing can be objectively true in only one specific narrow context. It would still be objectively true. But if a certain moral issue is objectively true in a wide variety of contexts, But for a certain moral to be objectively true it must be so independently from individual subjectivity caused by emotion, perception or imagination otherwise bias enters into the equation which is why morality is indeed subjective
So what? Igloos aren’t good shelters in the desert. That doesn’t mean every shelter is equally good at keeping out the elements, and it doesn’t mean we can’t tell what shelters better serve their function compared to other shelters. If you are not diabetic, it is not healthy to stick insulin in your body. Does that mean that diabetes medication is subjective? Of course not. It simply means that what is healthy will vary with context. Morality varies with context yes What is actually correct doesn’t adjust with popular opinion. It certainly does , a sizable proportion of Americans believed blacks should be segregated up until recent times and this was supported by government who thought it “ actually correct “ to do so that changed with popular opinion . Fad diets can also be widely popular and healthy
What is deemed conducive is opinion, what is actually conducive is a matter of objective fact. Really? In previous times it was deemed conducive to use heroin in over the counter medicines , historically when we look back we see several examples of what people once thought were matters of objective fact now frowned upon Opinions will line up with the objective reality, or they won’t. Some diets are wildly popular (opinion) and it turns out they are actually healthy (objective fact). That can also be restated .....some diets are widely popular and it turns out they’re unhealthy ( objective fact ) If this is a denial of my position, it is lacking a refutation. You haven’t put forward your position in full you made a statement regarding morality as in .....An objective standard , not arbitrarily determined exists for morality .... You’ve yet to demonstrate or make a case for this position , maybe it would help if you gave your definition of objective morality as this seems to change from person to person and the whole debate disintegrates into a semantic tussle The extent to which morality can be objectively evaluated is another question. I can claim to evaluate morality objectively in certain cases but I need a framework that cannot be contradicted to do so . For example you challenge me to a game of chess I accept and you claim that you’re a stickler for the rules and will not tolerate any breaches of the rules of the game , you then attempt to cheat and deceive breaking many of the rules you claimed to rigidly adhere too , I can call you on it and my claims would be objectively true because we have the rule book for the game and it’s code of conduct . No such book exists for morality although many would claim otherwise The fact that some moral codes are more conducive to the evolved function of morality, which is to say they are more morally correct, is what is meant by morality being objective. If that’s your definition of objective morality then it’s at total opposites to where I’m coming from , for objective morality to be a fact then it would need to be some set of moral rules or guidelines that apply equally to all people regardless of culture , religion personal interpretation etc We all have our opinions, but these opinions do not determine what is actually morally correct. But they can and do , we as humans continue to evolve and correct our behaviors and adjust them according to societal change , how do you know that humans in 100 years time will not say that meat eating was morally repulsive? What if that became accepted as fact would that make it morally correct? The fact that moral conduct varies with context does not remove the objective nature of morality, since it is still not a matter of opinion if the given conduct is conducive to the function of morality. I will await your reply as it seems we both have differing views on what the definition of objective morality is I never claimed health was subjective but opinions on what’s a truly healthy diet are indeed subjective , like morality I won’t claim morality is subjective but opinions on what’s truly moral conduct are indeed subjective, like health. But you’ve tightened up your argument by now inserting “in the same time and in the same respect “ which changes the nature of the original statement . That’s not a tightening. That’s a clarification that actual contradictions don’t exist. I said that two different people can have two different opinions on what is a healthy diet for them and they can both be correct. Their opinions are subjective, but the fact that they are correct is objective. There’s no contradiction because they have different dietary needs. They are both correct in different contexts. On a side note something can be both right and wrong as in Schrödinger’s cat as an example of quantum superposition Schrodinger’s cat is not actually alive and dead at the same time. Nor is a superposition physically observable. That’s because it is mathematical in nature. A statistical tool. But for a certain moral to be objectively true it must be so independently from individual subjectivity caused by emotion, perception or imagination otherwise bias enters into the equation Exactly. Which is why morality is objective. Some things are actually more conducive to the function of morality, independent of perception. a sizable proportion of Americans believed blacks should be segregated up until recent times and this was supported by government who thought it “ actually correct “ to do so that changed with popular opinion . What people think is actually correct is not necessarily what is actually correct. A sizeable portion of your friends believing it is actually a good idea to jump off a bridge will not make it so. Fad diets can also be widely popular and healthy Sure they can be. But whether they are healthy does not depend on their popularity. Really? In previous times it was deemed conducive to use heroin in over the counter medicines , historically when we look back we see several examples of what people once thought were matters of objective fact now frowned upon Yeah. That makes my point. What people believe is good is not necessarily good. Sometimes what they think is good is actually bad. Other times it was good because of the context of the times. some diets are widely popular and it turns out they’re unhealthy ( objective fact ) Exactly. Because the fact is independent of the opinion. You haven’t put forward your position in full you made a statement regarding morality as in .....An objective standard , not arbitrarily determined exists for morality .... That was one of many statements I made regarding morality. If that’s your definition of objective morality then it’s at total opposites to where I’m coming from , for objective morality to be a fact then it would need to be some set of moral rules or guidelines that apply equally to all people regardless of culture , religion personal interpretation etc Morality is made up of rules or guidelines, though much of it is implicit, rather than explicitly written down. It does apply equally to all people, since all humans have evolved this trait. Some behavior is literally beneficial in a jungle but not in a tundra, so objective morality necessarily differs with context. Nonetheless, much of it is not subject to opinion, making it objective. But they can and do , we as humans continue to evolve and correct our behaviors and adjust them according to societal change , how do you know that humans in 100 years time will not say that meat eating was morally repulsive? In the context of 100 years from now, it may be morally repulsive. Cannibalism is morally repulsive, but if your plane crashed in the Andes and no rescue has arrived, cannibalism is morally permissible, not because of opinion, but because of the context of the matter. What if that became accepted as fact would that make it morally correct? Consensus doesn’t create facts. Accepted as fact does not mean actual fact. maybe it would help if you gave your definition of objective morality as this seems to change from person to person I have been very consistent. I’ll start with my definitions. Objective morality is morality independent of opinion or perception. Subjective morality is morality as perceived. While everyone has a subjective opinion about what is morally correct or incorrect, there is an actual truth to the matter, independent of these opinions. The key factor for morality is the fact that morality is an evolved trait. Evolved traits serve purposes, or they are not maintained. Morality serves our wellbeing as a guide/code of conduct/behavior. I should note here that morality serves wellbeing because it assists us in surviving and thriving. If it didn't it would not have evolutionary persistence. Wellbeing is the positive motion on the spectrum of survive/thrive. Just as with other evolved traits, if the given trait is not serving its evolved function well, it is dysfunctional, incorrect, or wrong. Your eyes are meant to provide vision. If they do this poorly, you have bad eyesight that needs to be corrected. Since morality is an evolved trait that serves a function, the degree to which this function is actually served is the degree to which is can be said to be correct, or functional. Since the trait in question is morality, it is reasonable to refer to objectively detrimental behaviors as morally incorrect. There are a significant number of confounding factors for morality arising in our lack of knowledge, complexity of evolution, unseen variables, and our complex human nature. I acknowledge that some behavior may strictly be a matter of opinion. My point is that it is foolish to continue with the old myth that one cannot derive an “ought” from an “is”. Doctors do it all the time. They aren’t always correct. But we are closer to correct than we would be without them. We can apply the same scientific rigor to the moral realm. Ok that’s explained your position with complete clarity and I think I get where you’re coming from as in that certain actions/behaviours, in practice or intention, produce objectively observable results that fit an objectively observable Criteria we call moral , would that be a fair assessment? If so then I would agree An objective standard, not arbitrarily determined, exists for morality I would disagree with the wording of this. For me objectivity and morality are misnomers. Objectivity demands a lack of emotional weighting or personal feeling or opinion, while morality demands a sense of "ought-ness". What "ought" depends largely on the individual, the society, the normalised behaviour of that society, the social stratum, the needs of the individual, the needs of the culture, the demands of circumstance etc. I would go as far as to say there is a common good which morality ostensibly exists to serve. If a thing does not serve a common good, it could, by weight of popular demand, be considered "immoral". But then what is "common good" depends on the society. Unfortunately, self preservation and the need to be dominated are usually a stronger set of impulses than preservation of some truly egalitarian, equal society. It's why Kings and Queens and leaders and CEO's and Prime Ministers and Presidents exist in a position of personal wealth and centralised power despite the detriment to social equality that necessarily stems from pyramidal systems. I don't necessarily find that kind of social structure to be moral, but unfortunately it seems to be the prevailing theme in human societies. All for one and one for one. What ought, as far as I have learned, is dependent upon whom has the best ability to convince society of what ought. Objectivity demands a lack of emotional weighting or personal feeling or opinion, while morality demands a sense of "ought-ness". Objectivity is independent of emotional weighting. Meaning the presence of emotional weighting, personal feeling, and opinion doesn’t change the objective facts of the matter. But for any objective facts to be known, they must be perceived from a given perspective, meaning they are necessarily interpreted subjectively. I hope this clarifies the way in which I am using the terms “subjective” and “objective”. While I agree that morality requires a sense of ought-ness, I maintain that the evolved nature of morality puts some oughts more in line with the purpose for which morality evolved, namely survival (for the purposes of this topic, surviving well is thriving. Positive movement along this spectrum is said to be improved wellbeing). Some conduct is more conducive to the function of wellbeing, and this is independent of opinion. For any more concrete evolved function, such as a specific organ, we commonly say that the organ is not functioning correctly (eyes are for vision and some eyes do this poorly), or it is functioning very well. We commonly talk about taking corrective action. If a given morally accepted behavior is less conducive to wellbeing than some other given behavior, then that aspect of the moral code in question is poorly serving the function for which it evolved. This is the case regardless off opinion. What "ought" depends largely on the individual, the society, the normalised behaviour of that society, the social stratum, the needs of the individual, the needs of the culture, the demands of circumstance etc. Here you are describing relativism, which is different than subjectivity. It can be the case that different people in different context must behave in different ways to achieve the enhancement of their own wellbeing, while very little of it may be a matter of subjective opinion. Lots of objective facts apply in one context but not in another. The best shelter for the Pueblo’s is not the best shelter for the Eskimo’s, but a well built shelter is not simply a matter of opinion. I would go as far as to say there is a common good which morality ostensibly exists to serve. If a thing does not serve a common good, it could, by weight of popular demand, be considered "immoral". Don’t you suppose that if a behavior lead to, or was itself, actually a common ill, that this fact would be the case even if no one knew it? Weren’t trans-fats unhealthy even before popular medical opinion declared it so? Unfortunately, self preservation and the need to be dominated are usually a stronger set of impulses than preservation of some truly egalitarian, equal society. I believe this last bit is going to get a bit off the topic at hand, but nonetheless… Whether or not a more egalitarian society is actually good for people depends on more than just opinion, does it not? Can’t people actually be better off or worse of individually and as a whole? It's why Kings and Queens and leaders and CEO's and Prime Ministers and Presidents exist in a position of personal wealth and centralised power despite the detriment to social equality that necessarily stems from pyramidal systems. There are certainly contexts wherein egalitarianism is detrimental to the whole. For nations, perfect social egalitarianism isn’t possible, and attempts to bring it about must themselves come from a centralized power. The egalitarianism achieved is equality is poverty. Most end up preferring wealth in social stratification because they are actually better off. There are also plenty of social units (perhaps most) that require the direction provided by leadership. While leaders need not be considered “better” in terms of human value, their opinion can’t be considered exactly on par with everyone else in the unit. That’s specifically not leadership. Thus leadership is often a net benefit to society, toxic power grabbers notwithstanding. 1
point
Oh, hi outlaw. How's your day going? Are you trying to sound intelligent ?????? No, even if I tried, I will never sound as intelligent as you. Dummy is Rape and Murder questionable in your mind ???????????? The question being asked is about finding the "most morally valid law", not why we find certain things objectionable. So let me ask you this. What makes murder wrong? If men were angels we wouldn’t need government. Even so, I disagree with your golden rule proposal. I would like if strangers bought me a beer, but I don’t feel that compels me to buy beer for strangers. I believe the silver rule would be more functional; do not do to others what you would not have done to you. 0
points
The function of "or" is so you can take your pick. Maybe you think your choice law is the best law for some personal reason. Maybe you think it's the most functional. Perhaps you feel your chosen law is the most morally valid. Whatever your think makes your preferred law superior, is fine. I'm just asking why. Why is it the best, or the most functional, or the most morally valid? Well, your usual tact is to constantly beg the question and push full burden of proof onto me non-stop. You rarely ever, in fact not even once, have shown interest in what I think or why I think it. Instead you relish in the sadistic agony I feel as you ask 'but why' 'but what about this' infinitely until the nitpicking is so minute that I don't want to spend my spare time wasting it on convincing a Libertarian sham of a debater end up 'winning' anything. You are everything that Nom says you are, it's just he is a different breed of troll and is worse than you in net-morality. So, tell me, Amarel, what faith or basis is there to gamble on you giving a single shit in a non-digging-for-the-sake-of-getting-a- I don't know why you feel agony at the back and forth of debate, but that's not the goal. I don't think we have ever interacted in any significant depth except with your position on subjectivity, which I find irrational. If I persisted with uncomfortable questions, it was to illustrate this. I think there was one other more in depth interaction that was perfectly cordial, at least from my perspective. You don't need to have faith that I won't ask "why". I probably will. The extent to which I give a shit about your answer, or anyone's here, is simply the extent to which I am curious. That's it. |
