CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Since we are human beings, and things can actually harm us in various ways (especially ourselves), I would say there is such a thing as objective morality. By this I mean there is actually a better and a worse way to interact. This doesn't mean that objective morality is known or has been discovered by each or any person. The various codes of conduct adopted are highly subjective, but this doesn't negate a "most effective" alternative. Which ever potential code is most effective in upholding, protecting, enhancing, and prolonging human life is the objective standard that all subjective interpretations measure against.
If a way of behaving is necessary for survival then it would be called instinct.
Also, IF morals are being practiced for survival, then it is a contradictory factor because an objective moral would cause, as you said, "prolonged human life" with prolonged HUMAN life there are negative corresponding factors(overpopulation, starvation, use of earths resources needed for survival, global warming.) which will basically destroy not only human life, but all life.
Lastly, humans can interact naturally(e.g. reaction off of emotion, male dominance etc.) without morals and would still survive. Why?; because it is instinctual. Name a species that has taken itself out because its moral system failed? Better yet, give me empirical evidence of a species with moral practices (not including human.)
S.N
Clarifying my point on the prolonged human life there is a positive correlation of life span and overpopulation.
The direct physical mechanism of life becomes multifaceted with complexity. The extent to which an animal can think long range and choose between alternative (think rationally, is the extent to which it looses instincts. Humans still have some instincts, and monkeys are not entirely instinctual. Morality becomes more required the more rational an animal is.
an objective moral would cause, as you said, "prolonged human life"...overpopulation, starvation...which will basically destroy not only human life, but all life.
wow, Seems that wouldn't prolong human life after all...That wouldn't fit the definition then would it.
Name a species that has taken itself out because its moral system failed?
Humans are the only ones capable of this. Off hand Easter Island comes to mind.
Animals survival rationalizations are no different from humans, they just do not rationalize about thing unnecessary to their survival(I said that twice to make clear if one did not understand the first way.)
"Morality becomes more required the more rational an animal is." I disagree.
I would just say an animal thinks more logically. Complex logic does not consist of 'it is wrong to kill someone' which is sufficient for morality, complex logic would just allow to rationalize by determining whether it is necessary to do something.
Make the distinction between 'necessity' and 'morality' then you can conclude that morality is not essential in survival. But sure morals would make people "comfy" everyone practiced them, but that does not mean end of humanity if they don't.
"wow, Seems that wouldn't prolong human life after all...That wouldn't fit the definition then would it."
By human life I meant in an individuals lifetime. If you prolong numerous amounts of human life(now and into the future), in a corresponsive way over time, would cause an eradication of human and a significant amount of other life. Aside from the meteor, humans have been the cause of all animal extinction. And that is with just hunting and deforestation. Imagine when the atmosphere becomes unlivable for humans and other species. See where I am going with this?
Humans are smart enough to know that we can't account for all factors required to know what is "necessary"(which implies a value structure btw). Intelligent life developed codes of conduct because, just like any concept, it allows us to categorize information. In this case the information is proper action under various circumstances. Morals aid in decision making. Some decisions are objectively worse than others, just like morality.
Because humans live in a world of space/time, we create morals that span time and generations. Though it is possible that we can't think long range enough to stop our own demise, it's unlikely.
Aside from the meteor, humans have been the cause of all animal extinction.
I don't know why you don't know that this is just false. Climate change is a property of this planet, even without humans (and this isn't a statement about current conditions, it's just historically true). Climate change has likely been the cause of most extinction since the meteor. Last I heard they could account for something like 4 mass extinctions on the level of that meteor, which was the most recent. Currently there is a higher number of species dieing out than before. This could be because there are more species now than there have ever been on earth by our best estimates.
Our species caused 322 animal extinctions over the past 500 years, with two-thirds of those occurring in the last two centuries. As of today 99% of threatened species are a result of humans. Which means in that 1% climate is the causation.
"Though it is possible that we can't think long range enough to stop our own demise, it's unlikely." - that in itself is incoherent, if it is unlikely that we cannot think long range to stop our own demise then why are we causing it, or, if it is likely that we can think long term to stop are demise then why are we doing everything but? We just keep inventing or immensely using things that are detrimental to the atmosphere and I am sure you know the corresponding factors with destruction of the atmosphere. Basically suicide and genocide. An example of such genocide and suicide is hurricane Katrina. Katrina would not have killed as many species as it did if humans did not cause all of the factors of global warming. Humans= global warming = immense storms = destruction + habitation = immense loss of lives which consist of humans and other species. Causation of the genocide/suicide are humans. So either decrease human intelligibility and rationality, or eradicate your notion of objective morality correlating to the 'expansion of generations'.
Our species caused 322 animal extinctions over the past 500 years
I bet that's a low estimate, but my point stands. The meteor was quite a bit more than 500 years ago. Today there are more species dieing than at any other time in human history. There are also more species than at any other time in Earths history according to our best estimates. (Does history get to exist?)
On our demise: why are we causing it
I took you for a Nihilist, not an alarmist. Even considering global warming, human demise has always been right around the corner. I don't understand this trait, but people want to believe it. If it wasn't Jesus returning it was the Russian Nukes. And now that I have considered global climate change (we use the proper lingo for these things), I heard a compelling theory that human beings developed our intellectual capacities to deal with a rapidly changing climate. It would kind of make sense if climate change made us so smart that we cause climate change. Must be good times ahead.
eradicate the your notion of objective morality correlating to the 'expansion of generations'.
That was your notion of my morality remember? To date the most affective population control has been material progress (this includes China's policies). An objective morality would indeed make us more "comfy", which would in turn reduce population growth, just as it has reduced among the "comfy" people of the world.
" There are also more species than at any other time in Earths history according to our best estimates."
No, more species have been discovered throughout exploration.(use your head) Unless you mean the time(different context) periods such as Precambrian or Jurassic etc.
"I heard a compelling theory that human beings developed our intellectual capacities to deal with a rapidly changing climate."
How so if we keep failing to survive effects that are results of our own cause? Katrina killed thousands in New Orleans. If humans had intellectual capabilities wouldn't they have survived? You say "to deal with" but yet the walls they built to deal with it collapsed. Why? Because the storm was too strong. Why? Because global atmospheric increase(warmth hence global warming) has a positive correlation to more immense storms. So the breakage of that wall showed that humans did not have the "intellectual capacity" to deal with climate change.
Also I am pretty sure comfort is not a positive correlation to reduction of life. Actually a lot of people/animals would think it reproduce more. A pride lions, for example would not have a growth in population if there is immense competition for food, water and hunting grounds. Females need food to produce milk for their cubs. Also, they need water for hydration. So in a distressful population(AKA not "comfy") population growth will be reduced.
Comfy = food being plentiful = less deaths = prolonged life = more reproduction. The longer one lives the more chances that they get at reproducing.
Every person will die. Human beings make mistakes. This doesn't mean that human evolved intelligence so that no person would ever die. It means that humanity can deal with an ever changing environment. That still means people will die as we learn how to deal.
Other species of animals may breed more the more comfy they are, but humans are different. The comfy nations of the world have significantly slowed their population growth. This is because people want to go out and enjoy the entertainments of modern life without the "burden" of children. Increased material wealth and education will save the world :)
You used intellectually capable in a sense that meant intellectually able. If so, for instance, Katrina miscalculations was not a simple mistake. People knew that by what would normally happen the walls would not have broken. But, because our "intellectual capabilities" could understand that our 'prolonged life', corresponding to, our 'objective morals' would cause the hurricane to be so intense. Mistake would be a loose screw or old wall.
This is because people want to go out and enjoy the entertainments of modern life without the "burden" of children
Should not objective morals prevent these feeling? Do not you think that way of thinking can be problematic if persist throughout our generations? Animal and/or humans inherently thinking of their offspring as something that causes them hardship and grief backfire your plan completely. And one may argue that people seek those entertainments to get away from their problems (non-comfyness.)
Being capable of or able to does not mean destined to. People never have all the information up front. With more information they can figure it out. People dieing in a really big storm one time does not mean that humanity is doomed.
I'm glad you concede that modernity is the key to population control. Even in modern society people choose to have children. They find it fulfilling. If all people found kids to be a burden, we already wouldn't be here. Regardless, people are having less children because the likely hood of the one or two they have surviving is so high...thanks to modernity.
one may argue that people seek those entertainments to get away from their problems
Entertainment "can" be an escape for someone, but entertainment as such is necessary to well-being. Try living life without any entertainment.
Being capable of or able to does not mean destined to.
There is some incoherency here. If an objective moral persist through our generations because of "evolutionary factors" (you said humans developed objective morals for survival perseverance ) then why does a large quantity of people not seem to be "destined to?" The western population is not decreasing despite immoral behavior. If lions learn to start climbing trees because it entailed there survival a little longer would some lions (once this trait becomes generalized) not climb trees? Unless, of course, it was not necessary. You say objective morality is not destined as if it can be optional. But waaait. If it is optional, then that means that person, most likely, did not believe in that moral. But waaait. If needs to believe in a moral then it is not so objective now is it?
First, humans didn't develop objective morals. Morals are still left undefined and very subjective to a very high degree. My point is that an objective morality exists and must be discovered/recognized, and then passed on. Some morals are actually the best objective morals, but people need to figure which ones and why.
An objective morality would exist regardless of belief. You could discover it over time, and that's what we have done to some degree, though not explicitly. The extent to which a society recognizes and accepts the objectively best morality, is the extent to which their livelihoods are enhanced.
People can't survive without some code of conduct. But they can survive with a pretty poor one.
My point is that an objective morality exists and must be discovered/recognized, and then passed on
Would you say that people need to recognize that destroying nature should "objectively" be a moral wrong doing?
An objective morality would exist regardless of belief. You could discover it over time, and that's what we have done to some degree, though not explicitly.
You can not use "belief" then go on to say "discover" if you use that for the western part of the world. They do irrational(I'm not saying immoral) things based off their religion. For them to "discover" it being, as you say, "objectively" wrong necessitate an eradication of religion. Do you see this as being possible? Especially when they are indoctrinating their children. What about America(and other countries) stopping with all the needless killings of animals and destruction of forestry. Do you see that happening? The way countries are setting up it is required for more destruction.
Would you say that people need to recognize that destroying nature should "objectively" be a moral wrong doing?
Wouldn't we have to kill all the beavers? Nature isn't destroyed, it's altered. To alter your environment to such an extent that it becomes unlivable wouldn't be to good for humans.
You can not use "belief" then go on to say "discover" if you use that for the western part of the world. They do irrational(I'm not saying immoral) things based off their religion.
Note that I said "to some degree". My use of the word belief was in reference to objectivity ("regardless of belief"). My guess is that an objective morality could be practiced by the religious and faithless alike. I know many religious people who are only irrational on Sunday morning.
What about America(and other countries) stopping with all the needless killings of animals and destruction of forestry. Do you see that happening? The way countries are setting up it is required for more destruction.
I don't necessarily see that stopping.
The world was round before anyone knew it. There can be a best possible path that no one follows.
Wouldn't we have to kill all the beavers? Verry asinine and petty question. You know there is a significant difference between an occasional beaver taking down a small tree versus humans cutting down 80% of the Earths natural forestry.
My guess is that an objective morality could be practiced by the religious and faithless alike. I know many religious people who are only irrational on Sunday morning.
You misunderstood. I meant religious people do (as you would say) objectively moral wrong doing for their religion. Not religious people doing "immoral" things just in general. So if a religious practice is objectively immoral then how can objective morals be practiced alike?
This is why I said on the west to avoid conflict in the argument.
The U.S. has nothing to do with my question. I am not using the U.S. as the facilitation of objective morality because the U.S. is not fundamentally relevant to overall objective morality.
Let's try this again without the extended distraction from the point.
If a way of behaving is necessary for survival then it would be called instinct.
If the organism doesn't "just know", then it isn't simply instinct.
Your second paragraph is mostly assertions about which concludes with the end of all life. Since I know that you believe this is happening, and I am not arguing that an objective morality is practiced, the potentially absurd statement is mute.
humans can interact naturally without morals and would still survive.
Humans need a code of conduct, especially under conditions of interaction. This internalized code becomes morality. What I am arguing is that humans need a code, not necessarily that they use the objectively best code.
I have argued (poorly) elsewhere concerning non-human animals. I don't consider morals concerning other animals since I have no way to know. However, some people have studied quite and "Recently, some comparative and evolutionary psychologists (Haidt, Hauser, De Waal) have taken morality, or a close anticipation of it, to be present among groups of non-human animals, primarily other primates but not limited to them."
Who says we need a code of conduct? That is a subjective ideal. All humans need to do is reproduce and raise the child then repeat. We do not need to interact cordially amongst one another underneath a code. I am still failing to see how this 'COC' necessitates objectivity...?
To reproduce and raise children one must live long enough. Humans don't have a sufficient set of instincts to live long enough. We have to use our intellect to survive, it's our primary tool. A COC provides guidance to the intellect by categorizing action. It is necessary for life as a human. As such, COC developed naturally.
My position is that holding Values is a property of the living, not a subjective choice. As living humans we must have a COC since our means of living is our intellect. When the COC is internalized (and it always is eventually), we call it morality.
How we feel about a COC is subjective, the fact that we need it is fact of reality. The notion that there is a better (and ultimately best) conduct for living is the idea of an objective morality. It does not require that we know what the best conduct is.
On your first part; explain "long enough". These "moral codes" that you assert cause people to believe that humans under the age 18-12 should not have children. But it appears to be the exact opposite in nature. When an animal is sexually able to reproduce, they do. Also, most species leave the 'nest' at that time (with some exceptions: orcas, female lions, etc.
.) So I'm trying to say, when you say 'long enough', just because we believe living as old as we do seems reasonable, does not make it necessary. So are you supposing that we need to live long enough as in 'raise a child till they're 18' long enough, or....?
These "moral codes" that you assert cause people to believe that humans under the age 18-12 should not have children.
Let's be clear, I have not asserted a moral code. Furthermore, I have never denied that moral codes develop over time, in fact that's part of my argument. The morally accepted age for reproduction has varied and shouldn't be taken out of context of survival conditions.
I thought it was a given, but I'll clarify. Go ahead and re-read my statement with this:
"Humans don't have a sufficient set of instincts to live long enough to reproduce."
Taking care of newborn offspring is objectively good.
Owning another human (slavery) is objectively wrong.
Slavery being acceptable in the past is not a measure of its subjectivity but a measure of how immoral people were in the past to have accepted it as a morally right thing.
Owning another human (slavery) is objectively wrong.
But doesn't the qualifier 'owning another human' render this a subjective case? If we were referring to a non-human creature with human intelligence, would the morality governing slavery cease to apply? I believe that it would not. What about cases of slavery where neither the master nor the slave is human? Several species of ants practice slavery with the remnants of conquered colonies, as an example there. What is a beast of burden, if not a non-human slave?
I would agree that human slavery is wrong, but I maintain that this is subjective morality, rather than objective morality. I assert that for it to be a truly objective system of morality it would have to apply regardless of whether or not humans are involved- and as I've demonstrated, it doesn't.
But doesn't the qualifier 'owning another human' render this a subjective case?
No. It wasn't a qualifier, it was an example.
If we were referring to a non-human creature with human intelligence, would the morality governing slavery cease to apply?
No. it was but one example. Slavery would still be objectively wrong in that case. As would rape and mutilation for instance.
What about cases of slavery where neither the master nor the slave is human? Several species of ants practice slavery with the remnants of conquered colonies, as an example there. What is a beast of burden, if not a non-human slave?
Yes, slavery would be objectively wrong in these accounts as well.
A sign of immorality for those who consider it acceptable on a moral basis.
I would agree that human slavery is wrong, but I maintain that this is subjective morality, rather than objective morality.
In what way is human slavery morally right?
I assert that for it to be a truly objective system of morality it would have to apply regardless of whether or not humans are involved
And it does. I provided one example originally but I assert that slavery on all accounts is objectively wrong.
- and as I've demonstrated, it doesn't.
You haven’t demonstrated that it doesn’t apply, merely provided an example of where slavery can be perceived to occur in non-human subjects.
I will maintain that slavery is objectively wrong on those accounts as well.
No. it was but one example. Slavery would still be objectively wrong in that case. As would rape and mutilation for instance.
I agree that slavery would still be wrong in this case, just not that it would be objectively wrong. This was mainly to test your qualifier/example used previously.
Yes, slavery would be objectively wrong in these accounts as well.
Why is a human using a beast of burden objectively wrong?
Why is a colony of ants taking slaves from a defeated colony objectively wrong?
What is the basis for objective morality?
Why, then, is it not considered an immoral act when an animal kills a human over territory, as compared to when humans kill one another over territory?
In what way is human slavery morally right?
Irrelevant. I can agree that human slavery is subjectively morally wrong under any and all circumstances, while still rejecting the idea of objective morality.
And it does. I provided one example originally but I assert that slavery on all accounts is objectively wrong.
Then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the existence of objective morality, specifically insofar as it applies to slavery, is it not?
You haven’t demonstrated that it doesn’t apply, merely provided an example of where slavery can be perceived to occur in non-human subjects.
I've demonstrated cases of slavery in areas where human morals have generally not been seen to apply. An animal does not gain informed consent from it's mate, but we don't consider it to be immoral the way we do when humans commit rape. An animal may kill another of its species over territory, food, or mates, and we don't consider it immoral the way we do when humans commit murder. An animal may enslave another animal, but suddenly we consider it immoral in the same way we do with human slavery? What?
I will maintain that slavery is objectively wrong on those accounts as well.
And if you feel it is objectively wrong, you have a rather tough burden of proof to handle, I'd say.
Why is a human using a beast of burden objectively wrong?
Why is a colony of ants taking slaves from a defeated colony objectively wrong?
What is the basis for objective morality?
I don’t think it’s necessary to detail specific instances in order to notice that there are things which are immoral regardless of who the victim is.
The basis for any morality is the wellbeing of thinking creatures. From that, we can determine right and wrong.
Why, then, is it not considered an immoral act when an animal kills a human over territory, as compared to when humans kill one another over territory?
Who says it’s not immoral?
Are you asking me why animals aren’t held to the same standard as humans in regard to acting morally?
Animals don’t have the mental capacity to comprehend right and wrong; it wouldn’t make sense that they be considered culpable for their immoral acts… coincidentally it wouldn’t be moral to place such blame.
Much in the same way we don't hold a mentally retarded person accountable for an immoral act; we don’t consider the act moral, we just recognize that they lack the ability to comprehend right and wrong.
Irrelevant. I can agree that human slavery is subjectively morally wrong under any and all circumstances, while still rejecting the idea of objective morality
I concede that to think of any situation where it would be considered moral is irrelevant.
However, if you agree that human slavery is morally wrong under any and all circumstances, you are in effect supporting the position of moral objectivity. Whether you reject the idea or not.
Then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the existence of objective morality, specifically insofar as it applies to slavery, is it not?
I would consider the burden shared. Granted, many people blindly accept the idea of moral subjectivism, it’s still an assertion which requires demonstrable proof. I will not invoke such a burden on you however; I would rather discuss moral objectivism from a secular standpoint. When the layman pontificates about moral subjectivity as is the current trend, its due time to inspire some critical thought on the subject.
I've demonstrated cases of slavery in areas where human morals have generally not been seen to apply.
Human morals? Is there a reason to consider them exclusively human? I did not posit such a thing, do you consider that to be a position worth supporting?
An animal does not gain informed consent from it's mate, but we don't consider it to be immoral the way we do when humans commit rape. An animal may kill another of its species over territory, food, or mates, and we don't consider it immoral the way we do when humans commit murder.
As I mentioned, these acts are not considered moral when the party lacks the ability to comprehend right and wrong. The party is just not considered culpable the same way a human could be.
An animal may enslave another animal, but suddenly we consider it immoral in the same way we do with human slavery? What?
There has been no double standard; I haven’t suggested that it was moral to begin with. I pointed out in my last response that what I gave was just one example and I maintained that it is immoral even in the cases you presented.
And if you feel it is objectively wrong, you have a rather tough burden of proof to handle, I'd say.
Not any more difficult than proving moral subjectivism I suppose. What would you consider acceptable proof anyway? A syllogism seems to be the only thing I could provide apart from citing other people’s views, hypotheticals, or anecdotes. It’s not exactly something which can be proved through empirical evidence.
At any rate I don’t think arguing the differences between humans and other animals to be on the right track to understanding moral objectivism.
I don’t think it’s necessary to detail specific instances in order to notice that there are things which are immoral regardless of who the victim is.
The basis for any morality is the wellbeing of thinking creatures. From that, we can determine right and wrong.
On the contrary; for something to be objectively wrong, there would need to be objective criteria as to why it is wrong. Is there any objective reason that a creatures sentience means that its own wellbeing trumps that of nonsentient creatures? I assert that sentient creatures have the capability to place their wellbeing over that of others, not any kind of entitlement to do so.
Who says it’s not immoral?
I'll acknowledge that I've only heard a few people specifically assert that such is not immoral, for whatever combination of reasons, but I've never heard anyone make the assertion that such is immoral, much less seen a case made for establishing that moral status.
Are you asking me why animals aren’t held to the same standard as humans in regard to acting morally?
Animals don’t have the mental capacity to comprehend right and wrong; it wouldn’t make sense that they be considered culpable for their immoral acts… coincidentally it wouldn’t be moral to place such blame.
Much in the same way we don't hold a mentally retarded person accountable for an immoral act; we don’t consider the act moral, we just recognize that they lack the ability to comprehend right and wrong.
Do we truly have the capacity to truly comprehend right and wrong on the level you suggest? Do we actually have any agency over our choices, actions, opinions, or knowledge? I believe that I have free will, but I freely acknowledge that there is no evidence to support this, and that what evidence is available suggests otherwise strongly (although not quite conclusively).
Human intelligence aside, I do know a bit about animal intelligence- and our understanding of it is that it is far from a binary thing. It's not 'intelligent' or 'unintelligent,' it's 'how intelligent.' In every non-solitary species, there is some form of corrective or disciplinary action taken by the herd (or its equivalent) in the event of undesired behavior; this is strongly supportive of subjective morality, as well as highly suggestive of morality being an evolutionary adaptation, rather than being rooted in some kind objective truth.
I concede that to think of any situation where it would be considered moral is irrelevant.
However, if you agree that human slavery is morally wrong under any and all circumstances, you are in effect supporting the position of moral objectivity. Whether you reject the idea or not.
Not exactly. I believe it is wrong under any and all circumstances because I find the concept itself utterly repulsive. This is based on my own subjective opinion, not some sort of objective truth. I'm not so arrogant as to think that my own concept of whats right and wrong is applicable to everyone else under all of their circumstances- which isn't to say that you are, just so we're clear. My morals are my own, and their specifics simply don't work for most others.
I would consider the burden shared. Granted, many people blindly accept the idea of moral subjectivism, it’s still an assertion which requires demonstrable proof. I will not invoke such a burden on you however; I would rather discuss moral objectivism from a secular standpoint. When the layman pontificates about moral subjectivity as is the current trend, its due time to inspire some critical thought on the subject.
I have to disagree on the shared burden. Objective morality and Subjective morality do not represent a dichotomy. It is already known and demonstrable that subjective morality exists; this very debate we've had is demonstrative of that. The existence of subjective morality is not under question here, and if it was, it's already been proven. The existence (or lack thereof) of objective morality does not have any bearing on whether subjective morality exists. If objective morality exists, those whos subjective morals don't match up are in violation of the objective morality. If objective morality doesn't exist, then... they aren't.
I don't need to prove subjective morality exists; it does exist, that's already proven, and that doesn't make the existence of objective morality an impossibility.
The only thing under question here is whether or not objective morality exists; subjective morality is only relevant to the topic insofar as I believe what you call objective is in fact subjective.
Human morals? Is there a reason to consider them exclusively human? I did not posit such a thing, do you consider that to be a position worth supporting?
Well, as I noted and touched on again later, we may not hold animals to the same moral standard that we hold ourselves, but pack animals themselves have something akin to morality and discipline, discouraging unwanted and detrimental behaviors when displayed. Our concept of morality is most likely this same basic structure, with a lot more hardware behind it (so to speak).
As I mentioned, these acts are not considered moral when the party lacks the ability to comprehend right and wrong. The party is just not considered culpable the same way a human could be.
I already touched on this before; I'll match your 'see above' and call.
There has been no double standard; I haven’t suggested that it was moral to begin with. I pointed out in my last response that what I gave was just one example and I maintained that it is immoral even in the cases you presented.
I don't necessarily disagree with you that it's wrong- but I believe that the assessment of it is innately subjective, I don't believe there is an objective standard to speak of here.
Not any more difficult than proving moral subjectivism I suppose. What would you consider acceptable proof anyway? A syllogism seems to be the only thing I could provide apart from citing other people’s views, hypotheticals, or anecdotes. It’s not exactly something which can be proved through empirical evidence.
You know, put it like that... That's tough. I mean, it's not as if I can imagine any sort of prediction you can make, predicated on the existence of objective morality, that would be able to actually control for subjective morality as a factor. This seems like a topic that is neither provable nor falsifiable. More philosophical in nature, which doesn't detract from it being an interesting topic in the slightest, but possible makes this type of debate format a poor medium in which to explore it.
At any rate I don’t think arguing the differences between humans and other animals to be on the right track to understanding moral objectivism.
Perhaps, but exploring these differences certainly has some potential for improving our understanding of morality, wouldn't you agree?
For something to be objectively wrong, there would need to be objective criteria as to why it is wrong.
For anything to be wrong, there would need to be some basis to place that assertion. The basis for objective morality is the same for that of subjective morality; the well being of thinking creatures. This is what anyone is ultimately alluding to when talking about “right” and “wrong.”
Proponents of subjective morality argue that morals are ideas of right and wrong which are made different depending on perception. Proponents of objective reality argue that what is right or wrong can be tested and studied to arrive at moral facts.
What is true of physical health in terms of what is healthy and unhealthy is not taken for granted. Cancer is still cancer regardless of what culture the ill person grew up in. Similarly, what is right or wrong in regard to societal well being can be measured and tested to arrive at moral facts.
Is there any objective reason that a creatures sentience means that its own wellbeing trumps that of nonsentient creatures?
Any reason you mean? It seems as though you assume there’s a substantial difference from that of subjective reasoning
I think on closer examination you will discover that the two are referring to the same thing as far as the basis and reasoning behind the subject of morality. One simply asserts that what is moral is relative to the individual.
To answer your question; I'm not is suggesting that sentience is superior to non-sentience. It’s just that the well being of thinking creatures is what we base answers of right or wrong on. Even when non-sentient creatures are involved (such as deforestation or flu vaccines) the basis of morality is in regard to how these things potentially affect sentient life positively or negatively.
I assert that sentient creatures have the capability to place their wellbeing over that of others, not any kind of entitlement to do so.
I’m not sure I understand your sentiment here; I don’t believe it’s a matter of entitlement. Perhaps we have different views on what constitutes thinking creatures. I think I agree that sentient would be an accurate synonym but I’m not sure if you have a different meaning.
When I say thinking creatures I mean life forms with the ability to think, not necessarily conscious or aware but enough to warrant consideration. Non-thinking life or non-sentient life to me would be plants, animals without brains, single celled organisms, etc.
Do we truly have the capacity to truly comprehend right and wrong on the level you suggest?
I’m not sure what you mean by “the level you suggest,” I wasn’t aware that I was suggesting any level of comprehension that hasn’t already been mutually understood or agreed upon. Morality is not hard to comprehend; small toddlers and even some animals understand the concept. Specific issues may require some higher level of comprehension but it is well within the ability of an average person’s intelligence.
Do we actually have any agency over our choices, actions, opinions, or knowledge?
While I believe they are thoroughly influenced by numerous causal factors, I believe we do have the ability to consider these things in a practical way, yes.
In every non-solitary species, there is some form of corrective or disciplinary action taken by the herd (or its equivalent) in the event of undesired behavior; this is strongly supportive of subjective morality
In what way is this supportive of subjective morality?
as well as highly suggestive of morality being an evolutionary adaptation, rather than being rooted in some kind objective truth.
I’m not sure if you understand the implications of this. If morality is an evolutionary adaptation, wouldn’t it then be based on an objective quality? Would you say there is an advantage of survival in the ability of a life form to have morals? Would that advantage increase depending on how effectively those morals protect and nurture the well being of the constituents? Couldn’t we examine behaviors within a society and discover demonstrable facts in regard the negative or positive effects of these behaviors?
Not exactly. I believe it is wrong under any and all circumstances because I find the concept itself utterly repulsive. This is based on my own subjective opinion, not some sort of objective truth. I'm not so arrogant as to think that my own concept of whats right and wrong is applicable to everyone else under all of their circumstances- which isn't to say that you are, just so we're clear. My morals are my own, and their specifics simply don't work for most others.
Its not a matter of arrogance to assert that a demonstrably damaging act be considered immoral. I argue that the specifics of your morals would work for others if they demonstrated to preserve the well being of others.
It is already known and demonstrable that subjective morality exists; this very debate we've had is demonstrative of that. The existence of subjective morality is not under question here, and if it was, it's already been proven.
How so?
I understand that its not under question, but if it has already been proved I don’t suppose it would be too much to ask.
If objective morality exists, those whos subjective morals don't match up are in violation of the objective morality.
Agreed. In other words, they would be considered immoral, or not acting or thinking in accordance with good morals.
I don't need to prove subjective morality exists; it does exist, that's already proven, and that doesn't make the existence of objective morality an impossibility. The only thing under question here is whether or not objective morality exists; subjective morality is only relevant to the topic insofar as I believe what you call objective is in fact subjective.
It doesn’t matter how often it gets repeated, saying “it just is” is not proof.
I acknowledge that this debate only asked about objective morality but you have since asserted that morals are subjective and invoked the burden of proof on me for my argument. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest both parties be subject to the burden of proof where assertions have been made without any justification. And I think that if you try you might understand why it’s a somewhat dishonest request due to the philosophical nature of the discussion.
I suppose I could construct some polysyllogism but I must ask how much weight will that actually carry as far as proof?
If a person goes to jail for child molestation and gets raped in prison - does our society generally perceive the 2nd rape equally as immoral as the first? Wouldn't our disparate attitude indicate subjectivity?
and mutilation for instance
If your goal is great tolerance for pain or great marathon runners mutilation could be seen as a good idea for achieving your goal.
The goal is always a subjective one based on a person's biology (evolution through present day), and their experiences (including their societal ones).
If they resulted in harm and pain, so? Why is that necessarily "bad"?
It’s not. Not necessarily. Good/bad, right/wrong are just concepts used in the topic of morality which are assumed to be self-evident when debating topics such as these. In this context, people may disagree on what is to be considered right/wrong, good/bad but there is an overall understanding to the nature of badness/goodness etc.
We have certain agreed upon terms we use which allow for effective dialog and meaningful discussion. If you feel the need to argue semantics or the extremely philosophical then perhaps someone else would be interested. Personally, I prefer a more practical discussion.
I am not arguing about semantics, I asked why any of these things are necessarily bad or good. If morality were objective, we'd be perfectly capable of explaining why they are objectively bad/good.
If you wish to prove that morality is objective, you must justify the premises.
I am not arguing about semantics, I asked why any of these things are necessarily bad or good.
If we are not arguing semantics, and we can concede that goodness and badness exist within different states of mind/wellbeing without needless philosophizing about the “nature” of these concepts, then I think we can maximize our discussion on moral objectivism.
Why are things like harm and pain bad? I would argue that it’s because there are states of mind/wellbeing along a continuum where neither harm nor pain exist.
Why consider moral objectivism? Because it describes a reality where the various states of mind/wellbeing are determined and constrained by natural laws within the environment where the physical owner/perceiver of that mind/wellbeing exists. Furthermore there are demonstrably right and wrong ways to move between a continuum where bad and good states of mind/wellbeing exist.
Not only is this fathomable within the context of rational interpretation, it is empirically measurable that certain behaviors, actions, cultures, opinions, etc. are erroneous or unconducive to achieving a “good” state of mind/wellbeing. There are political persuasions, economic systems, religious laws, etc which have observable detrimental effects on the wellbeing of their constituents.
The evidence is obvious that certain ideas of right and wrong lead to unnecessary suffering yet for quite some time we have had this widespread notion that ‘everyone’s opinion counts.’ Now, you wouldn’t say this about other observable information. You wouldn’t say that one cultures idea of gravity is just as relevant or true as another culture’s. Its dishonest to pretend that science has nothing to say about the way we ought to behave and to infer that what one culture considers right another culture might consider wrong, but both are valid on how people ought to behave.
The evidence is obvious that certain ideas of right and wrong lead to unnecessary suffering yet for quite some time we have had this widespread notion that ‘everyone’s opinion counts.’
Since we're arguing within the premise that suffering is "bad", I would agree. But if morality is something that is fundamentally objective, you should be able to prove why suffering is a bad thing in the first place.
Its dishonest to pretend that science has nothing to say about the way we ought to behave and to infer that what one culture considers right another culture might consider wrong, but both are valid on how people ought to behave.
But this is, again, entirely dependent on what we fundamentally see as "wrong". If we're arguing from the premise that suffering is wrong, then yes, science can tell us how to act. But morality needs an end goal (in this example, to reduce suffering), and I don't see how any end goal can be objectively proven to be the right end goal.
should be able to prove why suffering is a bad thing in the first place.
Suffering is bad in a few ways. First off it's bad by definition. A person can't want to suffer and have it still count. Suffering is to be avoided. Second, it's bad based on evolution. Mammals have nervous systems to help avoid that which is detrimental to life. When they are unable to avoid, they suffer. The nervous system is an objective property of human beings. Thus, the avoidance of suffering is an objective trait, a universal human value. It should be considered that morality is for living human beings. The avoidance of suffering is required for the maintenance of life. If life isn't valued, then you aren't part of the moral equations since you're dead.
EDIT: To clarify, basic values are properties of living things. They aren't valuable outside of the context of living things because that is outside of the context of value itself. Similarly, you can't discuss "red" outside of the color spectrum.
I don't see how any end goal can be objectively proven to be the right end goal.
The feelings of right and wrong that we associate with morality are only produced when a specific code of conduct is internalized. While a given code of conduct may have a number of goals or fundamental values, the most basic goal concerns life.
If you want to argue that life isn't an objective value, I would ask who values it. The answer is living things.
Specific actions must be taken to keep any given life going. If are not an organism with automatic mechanisms or instincts to do what needs to be done, you need a code of conduct. As humans we naturally internalize ours and call it morality. Thus a code of conduct, which we eventually turn into morals, is a required aspect of the human life, which is the objective end goal.
Suffering is bad in a few ways. First off it's bad by definition. A person can't want to suffer and have it still count. Suffering is to be avoided. Second, it's bad based on evolution. Mammals have nervous systems to help avoid that which is detrimental to life. When they are unable to avoid, they suffer. The nervous system is an objective property of human beings. Thus, the avoidance of suffering is an objective trait, a universal human value. It should be considered that morality is for living human beings. The avoidance of suffering is required for the maintenance of life. If life isn't valued, then you aren't part of the moral equations since you're dead.
You've only demonstrated that this is harmful to the individual undergoing suffering.
You have given me no motivation to actually care about said individual as an outsider.
So what if it's harmful? Why should I care? Why is it being alive or happy objectively a good thing?
If you want to argue that life isn't an objective value, I would ask who values it. The answer is living things.
not necessarily
look at many predatory animals, genocidal dictators, etc.
life is only valued by those who posses it, and even then, they usually only tend to value their lives.
Specific actions must be taken to keep any given life going.
You've only demonstrated that this is harmful to the individual undergoing suffering.
Correct, a trait that applies to all things in a category will also apply to each thing in a category.
You have given me no motivation to actually care about said individual as an outsider.
Nor have I attempted to. As a living entity your rational actions are based on what is in your best interests in accordance with your values. Since you don't have sufficient instincts to manage your actions, a rational code of conduct is required. Since people live among other people, a code of conduct that keeps others from harming you, will also keep you from harming them.
Why is it being alive or happy objectively a good thing?
Being alive is the metaphysically given. Being happy isn't inherently good. The "good" is a concept we created to express that which supports, promotes, enhances, etc our life. If you achieve the "good" then you may feel happy. Some people feel happy when they achieve the opposite of the "good".
look at many predatory animals, genocidal dictators, etc.
Each of your examples value their own life. If a thing actually doesn't value it's life, then it doesn't live much longer. Predatory animals are eating for the sake of their own life. Genocidal dictators are irrational. They value their own life, but their actions cause them to exist in paranoid fear, the next usurper around each corner.
Specific actions must be taken to keep any given life going.
why
This is the nature of living things. The highly organized pattern of complexity that is a living entity must acquire and process energy (value) in order to maintain the highly ordered pattern of complexity.
Put another way, Life exists. It won't exist if it doesn't take certain measures. Therefore, the existence of the "is" gives rise to the "ought".
I myself am a skeptic, but there comes a time when one must confess that the implication of some extreme skepticism renders a vastly incoherent discussion. It’s unfortunate that this type of thinking is viewed sincerely even in support of suffering, misery, malice and other admittedly egregious forms of moral decrepitude, but such is the predicament we are met with when people insist on extreme skepticism in any matter. Still, one must wonder why the same type of skepticism isn’t accepted or viewed as sincere when regarding other objective scientific claims such as in health or physics. You wouldn’t argue that a terminal cancer patient isn’t actually unhealthy even when there are subjective perceptions on health. Morality though? Who’s to say that kidnapping little kids and raping them is necessarily “bad?” It’s this sort of double standard that comes off as being intellectually dishonest.
I admit that I cannot provide any radical justification insisted by extreme skeptics as to why bad things are bad, good things are good, etc. If you don’t already accept that “not suffering” is a value worth considering then there doesn’t seem to be anything I could say to convince you that you should consider it a value. Similarly, if someone doesn’t see the value in respecting the rules of logic, there’s no logic one can give to convince them that they should respect it. But I implore you to seek me out if you wish to have a practical and meaningful discussion on the subject of morality.
You wouldn’t argue that a terminal cancer patient isn’t actually unhealthy even when there are subjective perceptions on health.
When the object of discussion is on the objectivity of health, I probably would, depending on the given definition.
If you don’t already accept that “not suffering” is a value worth considering
I do, but I must admit that it is not something objectively wrong. We consider it wrong for a variety of reason, all of which subjective.
Similarly, if someone doesn’t see the value in respecting the rules of logic, there’s no logic one can give to convince them that they should respect it
Again, dependent on endgoal. If said endgoal is the discovery of truth, then we have a reason there. But again, engoals are subjective.
Honestly, I don't see how you can have a discussion on the objectivity of morality while basing it on non-objective premises.
Taking care of newborn offspring is objectively good.
No. Instinctual. And replace good with right.
Owning another human (slavery) is objectively wrong
Slavery being right or wrong is subjective. The slave owner does not think it is wrong. So when you say "immoral people" you are subjectively classifying them in their own subjective beliefs. Why are you subjectively classifying them? Because I do not feel as though they were "immoral." They may be immoral to you but there morality is subject to belief.
Being influenced by instinct does not negate any moral objectivity. If anything it only solidifies the concept.
And why should I replace good with right (who made you the authority on the matter)? It doesn’t matter either way, I will humor you and assert that “Taking care of newborn offspring is objectively right” doesn't change my position in any fundamental way whatsoever.
Slavery being right or wrong is subjective.
No. Our perception of it is but the act of oppressively owning another human is wrong regardless of perception.
The slave owner does not think it is wrong.
Because they are immoral. This is not a measure of moral subjectivity; it’s a measure of moral awareness.
So when you say "immoral people" you are subjectively classifying them in their own subjective beliefs. Why are you subjectively classifying them?
No. I am considering slavery morally wrong on all accounts and asserting that anyone who considers it morally right to be immoral.
I would also consider rape as objectively wrong on all accounts.
They can have moral awareness. Their moral awareness may consist of owning humans being right. Your moral awareness may deem that wrong. Which is why it is subjective.
Say the slave does not want to be a owned. One might say the slave lacks moral awareness.
Their moral awareness may consist of owning humans being right.
I argue that what you call moral awareness in this instance would be a lack thereof in actuality due to the observable negative effects that owning slaves causes to the well being of the slaves and to the society for that matter.
How? Not negative effects on survival. Slave reproduce, eat, and sleep. Them workinkng is actually positive. Now mentally is a different story. I think the mentality is where subjectivity comes into play. Some slaves enjoyed being owned (albiet very rare).
Regardless, survival does not constitute the whole of “wellbeing” which would lead to the determination of things being right or wrong.
Now mentally is a different story. I think the mentality is where subjectivity comes into play. Some slaves enjoyed being owned (albiet very rare)
Some slaves enjoying being owned (however lacking in relevance) would constitute a subjective perspective which would have no bearing on the demonstrable proof which shows that slavery is detrimental to the wellbeing of a population.
If someone desires to be owned, and they can find someone who would enjoy owning them, then by all means. Although I would speculate as to whether this would actually constitute slavery at that point. Sounds like more of a sexual fetish ;)
I’m confident that just about any agreed upon (dictionary) definition of the word would suffice. Here’s Merriam-Webster’s and Wikipedia’s takes on it.
The slave is living, being taken care of, reproducing, and being productive, so...?
Yes. As long as they have permission from their masters. And one could argue that the conditions in which they lived, brought up children, and worked in were not conducive to their wellbeing.
BTW, if you’re growing as disgusted with arguing the merits of slavery as I am hearing them, feel free to change the subject.
This debate consist of intellectuality FAR beyond your mental capacity. You feel that way about slaves which makes it subjective. But simplistic subjectivity is incomprehensible to you. Because you are a woman you think your ideals are objectively right. Which is why I dislike engaging in debates the incorrigible.
This debate consist of intellectuality FAR beyond your mental capacity. You feel that way about slaves which makes it subjective. But simplistic subjectivity is incomprehensible to you. Because you are a woman you think your ideals are objectively right. Which is why I dislike engaging in debates the incorrigible. Spoken like a true priviliged sexist male. Women are just as capable as men. You must have a small penis because you sure are making up for your short comings. ;)
My penis is an average 5.? inches. And it is true women are more emotion than men. Biologically. Just like men are biologically dominant because of there size. Women, however, are able to deal with a lot emotional, and physical stress because of their sexual composition.
Well that was a strange tangent for a debate about morality. Dude, if you think a debater is not up to the task of making reasoned arguments, you either post a logical counter or you ignore. It's irrelevant to the debate and insulting to say "you don't have the brains for this topic" (I know that's not how you said it). Either way, that kind of response is unnecessary.
You must be very insecure. I merely just wanted to point out that because you are arguing erroneously, then that must mean you do not know enough about the topic. If you take truthful criticisms disdainfully or insulting, then that is your choice. I prefer being criticized because it helps eliminate the personal ignorant perspective of myself and to make sure that the next time a similar situation comes up I can think more carefully.
As for not responding, I am not sure what you mean. I do respond to any argument I am faced with. If I do not then it is probably because it did not show on "New Argument Activity"
or I simply just missed it. If I have no response I do not feel compelled to be always right. I will say that I have nothing further. But if I started the argument then I probably do have a response, it may take a while if I do not have enough knowledge to answer. As you said I answer with a logical counter. But if I am required an answer I will give one. Unlike some, I will not argue with complete ignorance of a topic.
Also, the time where I said "I typed a full response but clicked back on my phone" I gave a page long answer. I was infuriated when it got deleted. So all I did was point out what I thought was a quick logic failure. So do not profile me off of one incidence. If I fail to respond, just remind me in a different argument to go back and respond. I will gladly do so.
haha easy killer. That post wasn't in reference to me at all. There was quite a lack of communication there. My fault, I'll re-word it:
Dude, if you think a debater is not up to the task of making reasoned arguments, you should either post a logical counter or you should ignore.
The above is what I should have said. Here's kind of a far out example: Imagine someone comes to the this debate and says "Puppies are my personal objective morality". This doesn't warrant a response. You should ignore it. Consider your statement:
This debate consist of intellectuality FAR beyond your mental capacity.
You then went on to state your relevant position. The above statement is not relevant to any debate. If it's a true statement, it isn't something that anyone could improve. Furthermore, if you believe its a true statement, then why engage?
I merely just wanted to point out that because you are arguing erroneously, then that must mean you do not know enough about the topic.
I'm curious about which argument is erroneous. I'm not sure I have seen you point out ignorance yet. I have seen you make statements about intellectual capabilities quite a bit. In the above case at least you followed up with an actual response. I think this is progress.
I did not "engage" I informed. I did so because I left an emotional debate on fetuses with that person. I say emotion because all of that persons responses were emotionally derived instead of intellectually derived. Tis why I made the statement.
I have seen you point out ignorance yet
The IQ mini-argument, the wildlife argument, humans being intellectually capable of dealing with their impacts on GCC but yet die in the thousands when a correspondence of GCC hits. The respondence that we were intellectually capable of preventing... Anyway, what I meant by all of that is you do not seem to research your facts before displaying them.
The information may have been sent, but because of the nature of the information it was not likely received. Does it still qualify as informing? Regardless, it isn't necessary to the debate.
It occurs to me that there are a number of miscommunications. This may be from my imprecise use of language. Consider human beings living through a period of increased climate change. Through natural selection they evolve higher intelligence to deal with this situation. This means that humanity can "deal with" climate change, it doesn't mean that each human or group of humans are equipped to live through a climate based disaster. Your assertion that Katrina disproves this theory of development seemed outrageous until I considered the language I used in presenting it. (I leave out words like "should" sometimes too).
The definition of "morality" that I have been basing my position on is that it is a code of conduct. Having a standard of action is necessary for survival when one does not have instincts to drive decisions. This includes obvious situations as well as the not so obvious. Having the ability to be rational, the idea of adhering to rationality is itself a code of conduct and would be necessary to properly respond to the obvious. I assert that a property of human beings is desire to maintain ones own life, it's inherent. This assertion hasn't been a large part of the debate. If this assertion is correct, then one can conclude that there is some conduct that is more conducive to this trait than other conduct. Taken to it's logical end, there is some conduct that is most conducive. This is what I would call an objective morality. This doesn't mean that this conduct, most conducive to life, is actually entirely or consistently practiced.
My take on morality as code of conduct isn’t even that far from Jace’s position, though he disagrees entirely. This can only be because of a different use or understanding of definitions.
I do not think you seem to know exactly what I mean of non-existing time. Or the context that I am using time in.
That was entirely true. We must’ve been talking about time in different ways. For this reason I tried to explain what time is in different ways. Though you conform to a temporal language and understanding of events, you kept denying the existence of time. That is unreasonable from the view of time that I take (a view I hope I have conveyed by now).
you do not seem to research your facts before displaying them.
"Aside from the meteor, humans have been the cause of all animal extinction."
You must know this is ridiculously false right? When you said this, I immediately considered all of earths history. In this context you really seem to be missing something.
I assert that a property of human beings is desire to maintain ones own life, it's inherent
This is very rare actually. Most people do things that bodily needs call for. For example, most people do not eat because they know they need to in order to survive. People eat because they are hungry or just have a taste for something. I am sure you mean that people just 'don't want to die.' What I am saying is that there are no 'moral' actions that are involved in preventing death. If there is I would love to hear a few.
Though you conform to a temporal language and understanding of events, you kept denying the existence of time.
I meant prove times existence outside of just conception, the same with mathematics. You can't. Math and time are just 'fillers' when we need to better understand something. Although it is a generally accepted concept, it does not mean its existence.
"Aside from the meteor, humans have been the cause of all animal extinction."
I admit I exacerbated with it, but I was not ignorant to the actual number of animals that are extinct because of humans. I also failed in syntax by not wording it: "humans have been the cause for all 'unnatural' animal extinctions." But I can assure no ignorance was involved. More like miscommunication.
People eat because they are hungry or just have a taste for something.
Morality comes into play with what and how we gain our sustenance.
Math and time are just 'fillers' when we need to better understand something.
If you mean they are concepts (non-existent by your definition I think) that help us understand what we observe then I guess we have found our agreement.
humans have been the cause for all 'unnatural' animal extinctions
While I'm sure I know what you mean by this, I would like you to be a little explicit about something. If an species becomes invasive and kills out a few other species, is this unnatural? For my purposes here, the reason they have invaded is natural. Lets say a naturally changing environment.
If you mean they are concepts (non-existent by your definition I think) that help us understand what we observe then I guess we have found our agreement.
Again, I stated that a concept will exist the minute it is commenced. This does not mean that it existsphysically in reality. You profess that it does--which is where the discordancy stems from.
If an species becomes invasive and kills out a few other species, is this unnatural? For my purposes here, the reason they have invaded is natural. Lets say a naturally changing environment.
Give me one example of a species--other than humans--eradicating another. 350+, (and counting), is a bit extreme. And for you to say "naturally changing environment" implicating that pollution, in every form, is natural. Aquatic species swimming into, in their eyes, 'unidentifiable nets'. Or, aquatic species ingesting toxic foreign objects due to uncontrollable ignorance, is absurd. Humans creating a detrimental systematic effect on life- -along with correlational essentialities (in regards to life) such as, but not limited to, fresh water, atmospheric components, temperature requirements for life--is not "natural".
To my understanding, you are affirming the notion that because we are a natural species, it deems any action that we take as being 'natural'. Which means that all of these 'detrimental effects' I assert that follow suite, subsequently from human actions, would therefore be justified because of the origin of said species? Understandable. But the characteristics of humans can be thought of to, more than likely, have been influenced or injected by some external cause (I am not suggesting anything phantasmagorical). One would make this suggestion due to the fact that humans are unnecessarily killing off life(forms); and the fact that humans have specific qualities that no assumed life force has (avoiding reproduction, ideologies such as 'morality', etc.) Of course this is not conclusive, but neither is: a 'natural' negatively changing environment due to a natural antecedent inflicting this detrimental negativity unnecessarily.
I stated that a concept will exist the minute it is commenced
You never stated that in any conversation with me.
This does not mean that it existsphysically in reality. You profess that it does
I haven't in any conversation with you.
And for you to say "naturally changing environment" implicating that pollution, in every form, is natural.*
Not in the slightest. You have let your emotions on the subject take you so far off from my question that you can't seem to answer it. The ice age was natural (and "unnecessarily" detrimental or negative to some species). The subsequent thaw was natural. When temperatures change like this, species will move, when they do, some will become an invasive species. Invasive species tend to have an advantage as there is little or no predation in the new territory. Is this natural? Try to just answer the question rather than putting words in my mouth.
Right. So you never said time exist out of perception? Space/time? My apologies. I let my imagination get the best of me.
The ice age was natural (and "unnecessarily" detrimental or negative to some species). The subsequent thaw was natural. When temperatures change like this, species will move, when they do, some will become an invasive species. Invasive species tend to have an advantage as there is little or no predation in the new territory. Is this natural?
I am not clear on the point you are trying to make. Of course those said events are natural. Nothing intentionally caused them (presumably). The problem is that unnecessarily detrimental effects being commenced now, is not natural. It has a causation that is consciously aware of the destruction it is causing. Consciously aware of what is natural and what isn't. So, yes, the destruction being caused by a natural occurrence (humans) is unnatural. (I.e. oil should not be in the ocean it should be in the ground, but something is intentionally[consciously] placing it there.)
You have let your emotions on the subject take you so far off from my question that you can't seem to answer it.
You have let your viewing, of a previous argument with an entirely different person, impose on my intentions. So stop being a follower/copycat, and focus on my intentions. This is not emotional, so I will politely ask you to change your perspective, please. I made that statement because I was under the impression that you were implying: 'because (from my assertion) the detrimental effects are being caused by something natural (humans), then one could say that these effects are natural' due to the fact that the causation is natural. Therefore, is such was the case, humans (a natural cause) polluting anything would be naturally done because is was done by a natural cause. This is why I clearly stated: "to my understanding" to not make an objective assumption.
Right. So you never said time exist out of perception? Space/time? My apologies. I let my imagination get the best of me.
You seem to read too much into some statements and not enough into others. What I stated just a couple posts ago was that concepts help us understand what we observe. Concepts aren't the thing outside of perception, but the observed is there regardless of perception.
I am not clear on the point you are trying to make.
It was a question, not a point. Furthermore, it wasn't about climate change, that was a premise to the hypothetical question, which you still haven't really gotten around to. On a side note, oil spills through fissures on the ocean floor all the time.
You have let your viewing, of a previous argument with an entirely different person, impose on my intentions.
Perhaps you can explain to me how my viewing of something can impose anything on anyone. I'm not really sure what it is you think I have viewed, but my analysis of your response as "emotional" was something I managed to come up with all by my self. Neither the emotion nor the assertion are uncommon on this site.
Your hypocrisy is a tad bit amusing though.
And I am sure quite apparent to any observer. Since you never directly answered the hypothetical, but instead respond to everything (real and imagined) that surrounds the hypothetical, I percieve emotions clouding your view of the subject.
You seem to read too much into some statements and not enough into others. What I stated just a couple posts ago was that concepts help us understand what we observe. Concepts aren't the thing outside of perception, but the observed is there regardless of perception
You claimed that you never said anything of the sort (I think), I just pointed out an example.
It was a question, not a point.
-_- ... Obviously. Your question was suggesting a point, that of which I was unclear of. So to refrain from answering the question fallibly or problematically, I wanted a clarification of the point. And still, I gave an answer to the point I assumed you were trying to make so...
On a side note, oil spills through fissures on the ocean floor all the time.
Because of who? You act as if this is some sort of natural occurring event...? What was the point of that, to further remind me of the unnatural/unnecessary destruction of the earth?
Perhaps you can explain to me how my viewing of something can impose anything on anyone.
You scrutinizing my debate with (the name lost me) about rational suicide, and seeing how the opposed claimed my rationale was composed of "emotion", one would only believe, in never seeing you use such terms until after that debate, that you were influenced by that view which caused you to think of such terminology when you get an answer to a question that was similar to an answer I gave the opposed when the unjust emotion, in his point of view, was stated. So thinking that your strong blatant assertion, (which was false), not being apart of this portrayal of your (presumed) 'creativeness', would be reasonable given the events. You scrutinizing that debate, then taking the opposed "emotional" viewpoint into consideration (seeing as how you were in his favor), therefore, (maybe inadvertently), constructing a profile towards me in regards to 'detrimental effects', is imposing. You impose emotion, more than likely, due to my explanation above.
Since you never directly answered the hypothetical, but instead respond to everything (real and imagined) that surrounds the hypothetical
All seriousness, I forgot the question. So if you would please, ask me again.
This does not mean that it existsphysically in reality. You profess that it does
I claimed that space and time exist in reality. I claimed that they were axiomatic for physical reality, I never said they are physical themselves.
Your question was suggesting a point
How can you know this, and in the same post, not know what the question was? If you decide to answer the question, you can scroll up to refresh your memory. It's still there.
Concerning the oil: Oil does get into the ocean naturally as a result of naturally occurring fissures. I know that humans spill, but it is not the only way oil gets there. I guess my point is that certain aspects of nature are destructive to other aspects. Humans are destructive, but we aren't the sole source of destruction.
I think there are morals that nearly all agree on, but that is not "objective morality" - even if everyone agrees, that would not make it "objective" only provide evidence that it might be.
Taking care of newborn offspring is objectively good.
If you only have enough resources around for the children that already exist and keeping another child results in the death of that child and another, might it be more moral to let the infant die?
If a newborn has severe deformations and will not live long and is in intense pain, would it be moral to end its suffering.
If there was an objective morality, I would expect it to be more prevalent than one or two possibilities (which I have never seen).
Owning another human (slavery) is objectively wrong.
It depends on what your goal is, and the goal is always a subjective one. If your goal is minimize human suffering, etc. it would be seen as morally wrong. If your goal was the maximum human output, etc. then it would likely be preferred over some other systems.
Slavery being acceptable in the past is not a measure of its subjectivity but a measure of how immoral people were in the past
If you only have enough resources around for the children that already exist and keeping another child results in the death of that child and another, might it be more moral to let the infant die?
No. It would be prudent to recognize this type of scope before one brings new life into the world.
If a newborn has severe deformations and will not live long and is in intense pain, would it be moral to end its suffering.
If it will not live long then it's suffering will soon end won't it?
It is not to say that the same answer for one moral question is the same for others which have different considerations. The morally correct answer for newborns born with deformities is not the same answer for newborns born without. But in situations where deformities exist there would be a morally correct answer in regard to the well being of the parties involved.
If there was an objective morality, I would expect it to be more prevalent than one or two possibilities (which I have never seen).
It is. I'm sure you have seen it but are just conditioned to recognize it in a certain way.
It depends on what your goal is, and the goal is always a subjective one. If your goal is minimize human suffering, etc. it would be seen as morally wrong. If your goal was the maximum human output, etc. then it would likely be preferred over some other systems.
I would argue that those systems which are built upon the suffering of others are immoral. It may not be realized until a new system is discovered, but looking back it would be recognized for it's immorality.
It isn't necessarily proof but it is evidence.
No. It is not proof and using a synonym doesn't make it any more apparent.
Not every pregnancy is a planned one. If a woman finds out she is pregnant in the above scenario, what is the moral thing for her to do?
You keep bringing up different scenarios and seemingly assume that there's one resolution to solve them all.
Just because their exists an action which would constitute the most moral thing in any give situation doesn't mean we know what they all are. It's a learning process.
Does the length of time impact its morality?
I admit that I was being facetious in the remark this addresses.
Right, because it is subjective. The "considerations" will always be from a certain perspective.
No. it's not any different from incorrectly assuming that objective morality means that the answer to "should one steal" is the same answer to "should one give."
It's asinine quite frankly.
When you keep altering the scenario it should be no surprise that you get a different resolution, not because of subjectivity, but because your altering the scenario.
Objective morality does not imply that there is only one answer to cover all topics and factors no matter how different they are. It's the idea that where questions exist pertaining to what ought or ought not be done, there exists a measurable effect which would not be affected by mere opinion.
Is there an objective reason why not? (Keep in mind that we are all born imperfect.)
I don't know about objective reason. But sure there's a reason.
I haven't implied that anyone was born perfect or imperfect and I'm unsure where you're going with that.
Can you name it? Do you believe it applies to most situations, or all? Do you think the existence of moral dilemmas is evidence against it?
I'm not sure what your asking here. My "it is" response that you quoted was in response to when you said "If there was an objective morality, I would expect it to be more prevalent than one or two possibilities."
It is. As in "it is more prevalent than one or two possibilities."
Right, you would "subjectively" argue it - you would not be able to prove it objectively.
I don't subjectively or objectively argue it... You seem to feel the need to interject those words randomly throughout your dialog, it only leads me to believe you don't quite understand how to use them.
I may not personally be able to prove how any system built on the suffering of others is immoral but that doesn't mean that such a system would not have a measurable effect on the well being of the constituents.
Those measurable effects are what would ascertain it as moral or immoral whatever the case would be.
Just because their exists an action which would constitute the most moral thing in any give situation doesn't mean we know what they all are.
So, your claim is that that universal morality is both prevalent and hidden?
It's a learning process.
Then how do you know when you have it right?
When you keep altering the scenario it should be no surprise that you get a different resolution
Does a statement like "[t]aking care of newborn offspring is objectively good" allow for such nuance?
I haven't implied that anyone was born perfect or imperfect and I'm unsure where you're going with that.
You said "[t]he morally correct answer for newborns born with deformities is not the same answer for newborns born without", and I am pointing out that "deformity" is a continuum - everyone is imperfect, it is just a matter of degree. If the degree of deformity, and all of the other inputs - probability of longevity, pain, happiness, etc. and the value that the interested parties put on life vs quality of life vs resources are all based on (subjective) perception - doesn't that describe subjective morality rather than something quaint like "[t]aking care of newborn offspring is objectively good"?
it is more prevalent than one or two possibilities
Then name them. If a specified moral has exceptions, then it is not universal, correct?
You seem to feel the need to interject those words randomly throughout your dialog
In a discussion about objective vs subjective morality, I keep using the words objective and subjective - fancy that...
Those measurable effects are what would ascertain it as moral or immoral
In order to "measure" a moral's rightness, you need to be able to gauge its progress toward some goal - preservation of the most humans, the most utility of resources, maximization of happiness, etc. There is no evidence of an objective goal, nor from whence it would come. There is, however, good evidence that our morality has evolved from primates who survived by balancing cooperation and competition.
In the end you can't completely disprove the existence of something like God or objective morality; you can only offer evidence against it - inability to so far name one universal moral, the existence of moral dilemmas, etc. In addition I would mention that even if universal morality does exist, it is basically useless - if humans can't access it, what good is it exactly?
So, your claim is that that universal morality is both prevalent and hidden?
I think what I said (Just because [there] exists an action which would constitute the most moral thing in any given situation doesn't mean we know what they all are) was more clear than what you reworded it as. You’ve taken a simple response and clouded it in ambiguous terms.
I hope you do not intend to undermine me by misrepresenting my replies, if this is the case I will back off and leave you to your stage.
”It's a learning process”
Then how do you know when you have it right?
Just because we don’t have an answer for ‘how many people in the past 30 minutes were killed by a DUI/DWI related incident” doesn’t mean that there isn’t data on that to measure. As we approach questions which have measurable effects we can examine the data in such a way to lead to the best possible course of action, moral questions are no exception. These measurable effects constrain personal opinions about right or wrong.
Does a statement like "[t]aking care of newborn offspring is objectively good" allow for such nuance?
When you ask different moral questions, such as “taking care of newborn offspring in general” vs “taking care of newborn offspring in an environment with limited resources” or “taking care of deformed newborn offspring,” you could arrive at a different answer for each one. Objective morality is the idea that for any moral question, there exists measurable qualities which are not contingent upon perspective but on demonstrable effects.
You said "[t]he morally correct answer for newborns born with deformities is not the same answer for newborns born without", and I am pointing out that "deformity" is a continuum - everyone is imperfect, it is just a matter of degree.
No. “deformity” in this regard would be a medical diagnosis. You’re equating it with an abstract concept such as imperfection only reflects poor reasoning.
If the degree of deformity, and all of the other inputs - probability of longevity, pain, happiness, etc. and the value that the interested parties put on life vs quality of life vs resources are all based on (subjective) perception - doesn't that describe subjective morality rather than something quaint like "[t]aking care of newborn offspring is objectively good"?
If they were based on subjective perception then that would suggest subjective morality and this debate would be over.
Degree of deformity, longevity of suffering, pain, happiness (and other states of mind), the value of life vs quality of living life with deformities, the amount of resources needed to support a new life vs the amount available… all are measurable qualities which could be verified and examined to arrive at an objective answer regardless of (subjective) perception. Whatever moral questions arise at that point would be based on verifiable data, constraining personal opinion on the matter.
Then name them. If a specified moral has exceptions, then it is not universal, correct?
I don’t have to name all possible answers to all of life’s moral questions in order to posit the existence of moral objectivity as I explained above. You seem to assume that claiming moral objectivity means that one has the answers to everything, or that there is one answer to address all possible moral questions.
If a specified moral statement has exceptions then it is not absolute, correct. I assume that is what you understand “universal/objective” to imply? Not all forms of moral objectivism are absolutist; I prefer to think in practical terms.
In a discussion about objective vs subjective morality, I keep using the words objective and subjective - fancy that...
Yes. It would be odd if I were merely objecting to your general use of the words. My contention was that you seem to feel the need to randomly insert them in unnecessary places.
Again, if you intend on misrepresenting my comments I’ll gladly leave you to your stage.
In order to "measure" a moral's rightness, you need to be able to gauge its progress toward some goal - preservation of the most humans, the most utility of resources, maximization of happiness, etc. There is no evidence of an objective goal, nor from whence it would come. There is, however, good evidence that our morality has evolved from primates who survived by balancing cooperation and competition.
Just because you cannot think of one doesn’t mean there is no evidence of one. If there is good evidence that our morality has evolved from primates which helped them survive then perhaps survival is the goal you impose on this criterion to prove objective morality. I find that moral questions allude to the simple wellbeing of thinking creatures, but I also don’t assert such a requirement need exist to posit moral objectivism.
even if universal morality does exist, it is basically useless - if humans can't access it, what good is it exactly?
The usefulness becomes apparent when we recognize that moral questions which potentially affect the outcome of our behavior can be answered practically and validated with data and facts which would render peoples’ personal opinions nothing but.
We have the means to test and examine the factors underlying moral issues. We use science to determine the most accurate explanations thus far about reality and the universe; we can apply the same method of verification to moral conduct.
You said "doesn't mean we know what they all are" intonating hiddenness and when I said I would expect objective morality to be more prevalent, you said "It is".
Thus my question of whether you consider it both prevalent and hidden - am I missing something here??
I will back off and leave you to your stage.
Grow up.
As we approach questions which have measurable effects
See below at 'measure'.
When you ask different moral questions
I didn't ask different moral questions - you presented an attempt at an example of an objectively moral action, and I showed there was an exception.
"deformity" in this regard would be a medical diagnosis.
'deformity' is not a single boolean attribute, but a perceived distance from a norm.
clubbed foot, down syndrome, anencephaly, or an extra pinky toe all may count as deformity to some degree. Each one might influence the question differently.
If they were based on subjective perception then that would suggest subjective morality and this debate would be over.
Indeed, seemingly self-evident statements tend to be less than useful in ending debates on this site.
all are measurable qualities which could be verified and examined to arrive at an objective answer regardless of (subjective) perception.
See below at 'measure'.
I don’t have to name all possible answers to all of life’s moral questions in order to posit the existence of moral objectivity
I am not asking for "all", only "any". I believe I have addressed every one you have presented thus far.
I assume that is what you understand “universal/objective” to imply?
I consider objective morality basically to be morality outside human ontology.
you seem to feel the need to randomly insert them
I used them as adjectives and everything. Maybe you should explain why you think they are not used properly.
If there is good evidence that our morality has evolved from primates which helped them survive then perhaps survival is the goal you impose on this criterion to
prove objective morality.
I think natural selection produced survival, not morality - keep in mind that it also produced all animal actions which you might consider immoral: rape, slavery, eating the young, etc.
Who is to say "objectively" that human survival for an individual, group, or as a whole is an unqualified "good"? If your goal was maximizing life, you might think that human destruction of other species and their environments might not be "good".
I also don’t assert such a requirement need exist to posit moral objectivism.
What do you assert is required exactly?
The usefulness becomes apparent when we recognize that moral questions which potentially affect the outcome of our behavior can be answered
Is there some moral question that you can claim to answer?
measure:
more than just the questions of perspective like who is doing or interpreting the measurements - which would eventually need to be dealt with, the most important thing to remember every time you use the word measure is that more than just measurement is needed. You need to be able to show how any measurement advances toward a specified moral. The goal is antecedent to the measurement.
Minimizing pain, maximizing happiness, preserving life, the most for the greatest number, (or for scientologist: the most for the greatest number "of dynamics"), etc.
These goals will inevitably run counter to each other (or even be internally at odds).
You said "doesn't mean we know what they all are" intonating hiddenness and when I said I would expect objective morality to be more prevalent, you said "It is".
Thus my question of whether you consider it both prevalent and hidden - am I missing something here??
Yes… my point. You’ve taken a simple statement with a succinct meaning and replaced it with obscure terms in what seems like an attempt to debase me.
My point was not so daft as to summate it as “universal morality is both prevalent and hidden.” You said you would expect it to be more prevalent. I said it is and you insisted that I “name them.” A dishonest request and you know it.
I didn't ask different moral questions - you presented an attempt at an example of an objectively moral action, and I showed there was an exception.
I never claimed moral absolutism. The existence of exceptions is expected.
clubbed foot, down syndrome, anencephaly, or an extra pinky toe all may count as deformity to some degree. Each one might influence the question differently.
Ok. But do these exceptions detract from the question on a macro level?
Some people will get sick if they eat a food they are allergic to. This doesn’t cause us to claim that there are no facts to be known about nutrition.
It is unreasonable to assume that the existence of exceptions of differences of opinion means that there are no objective facts about morality.
I consider objective morality basically to be morality outside human ontology.
To be honest, it doesn’t sound well-intentioned or even practical to debate such a thing. I acknowledge that that seems to be the religious view of objective morals, but I trust that your skill is sufficient enough to see that that is not what I am arguing.
Perhaps we can concede to what secular moral objectivists consider it to be?
“scientific terms refer to real features of the world, and the sciences provide us with successively more and more accurate knowledge of the world. In a similar way, moral realism asks us to take moral claims literally, as claims that purport to describe the moral properties of people, actions, and institutions—properties that obtain independently of our moral theorizing. Moral realism is roughly the view that there are moral facts and true moral claims whose existence and nature are independent of our beliefs about what is right and wrong.” - David O. Brink, Moral Realism and the Foundations of Ethics
“If our well-being depends upon the interaction between events in our brains and events in the world, and there are better and worse ways to secure it, then some cultures will tend to produce lives that are more worth living than others; some political persuasions will be more enlightened than others; and some world views will be mistaken in ways that cause needless human misery.” - Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values
I think natural selection produced survival, not morality - keep in mind that it also produced all animal actions which you might consider immoral: rape, slavery, eating the young, etc.
I wasn’t the one who brought up morals having evolved from chimps; I assumed that if they were passed on to us through genetics that they would have served a purpose to survival.
Who is to say "objectively" that human survival for an individual, group, or as a whole is an unqualified "good"?
On an individual level, I suppose anyone who would favor being alive over being dead.
I wouldn’t claim that it’s an unqualified good, but in terms of moral objectivism survival versus death could be considered good. I am not an absolutist.
If your goal was maximizing life, you might think that human destruction of other species and their environments might not be "good".
Ok? Destroying life would be counteractive to maximizing life, that’s true.
”The usefulness becomes apparent when we recognize that moral questions which potentially affect the outcome of our behavior can be answered” - Coldfire
Is there some moral question that you can claim to answer?
You seem to have left out a few details.
”… practically and validated with data and facts which would render peoples’ personal opinions nothing but.”
Can moral questions which potentially affect the outcome of our behavior be answered in a practical manner and validated with data and facts? Yes.
Whether or not I, personally, meet your demand is irrelevant to this.
the most important thing to remember every time you use the word measure is that more than just measurement is needed. You need to be able to show how any measurement advances toward a specified moral. The goal is antecedent to the measurement. Minimizing pain, maximizing happiness, preserving life, the most for the greatest number
The goal of measuring some thing could be simply to find out the things dimensions. No greater purpose need exist.
If you insist that there must then I will humor you with a hypothetical.
“Rape is wrong.” We can examine the effects that rape has on people and potentially conclude that it is physically, emotionally, and psychologically damaging. We can use this data to base our assertion that it is morally wrong to rape someone. The goal in measuring these effects? Other than simply to arrive at a truth based claim, the goal could be to use this data to help establish demonstrable evidence against such behavior in order to prevent/decrease rape through whatever means are demonstrably effective. ‘What is the most moral means which should be used to curtail such behavior?’ could be another moral question. We could examine various methods in conjunction with neurology and additional factors to arrive at “the most ethical means.” And so forth.
These goals will inevitably run counter to each other (or even be internally at odds).
Not always. And there isn’t just one answer to any one moral question. There could be multiple peaks of wellness and multiple peaks of illness which result from several different methods. This isn’t to say that there are no moral facts that can be drawn from the study of these methods.
I didn't really think "hidden" or "prevalent" were obscure or debasing...
"name them." A dishonest request and you know it.
If you posit that objective morality exists, how is asking if you can name one objectively moral thing "dishonest"? You may argue that it isn't necessary to be able to name one, but it would be pretty hard to argue that it is a trick question.
do these exceptions detract from the question on a macro level
If they change people's opinion on what the "right" action to take is, then yes.
objective facts about morality
'objective facts about morality' is not the same thing as 'objective morality'.
Being able to measure some aspects of an actions propensity to advance a given moral says nothing of that moral's rightness or wrongness (or its relation to other potential morals), nor is a subset of measurements of past actions necessarily sufficient for judging an actions contemporaneous or future moral impact nor the "right" weight for balancing the present and the future.
I wasn’t the one who brought up morals having evolved from chimps
Why not? It is fairly evident that they did.
What I was pointing out was that some animals rape, some don't; some employ slavery, some don't; some animals eat their young, some don't. Nature didn't produce morality, certain behaviors were just more likely to survive a given environment. It says nothing of the morality of the survival of a given species.
We just happened to have evolved from the animals that we did; primates exhibit altruism, kinship, sharing, etc. - things that we adapted/refined and reflectively called morals.
anyone who would favor being alive over being dead
That is a subjective preference.
I acknowledge that that seems to be the religious view of objective morals, but I trust that your skill is sufficient enough to see that that is not what I am arguing.
I have to admit that I did think you were defending the position akin to the religious view. I had only read a subset of your posts before creating a response.
I wish it had been phrased as moral realism since the religious sense is just far more common to be the case on this site. I swear I had this same thing happen 2 or 3 years ago. My apologies.
I do think moral realism shares some weaknesses of the religious version in that it prefers a belief in something not known to exist (actually true moral claims), it is unfalsifiable, and that without such actual attainable morals it is useless for anything other than philosophical discussion.
With many claims of objectivity, once you resolve linguistic ambiguities you are generally left with tautologies (pain is bad because it specifically denotes a perjorative, well-being is good, etc.)
In terms of moral realism specifically, I don't believe in the ability to reduce a moral's rightness or wrongness to objectively true or false.
Re: Sam Harris, et al.
If I had to limit myself to one critique of the debates Harris, Hitchens etc. participate(d) in, it would be how they handle(d) morality. Hitch often said something like "innate" and Harris seemed to shoehorn a well-reasoned morality into an 'objective' one. I would have preferred that they pursued the route of showing that since the mind of God is unknowable, humans are still left with a subjective morality even on the God hypothesis.
I have several Hitchens books and I have been thinking about picking up this one by Sam - did you like it?
From your link: "Moral objectivism is the position that moral truths exist independantly[sic] from opinion."
How is that much different than my description of "morality outside human ontology."
Can moral questions which potentially affect the outcome of our behavior be answered in a practical manner and validated with data and facts?
That is morality, not "objective morality"
The goal of measuring some thing could be simply to find out the things dimensions.
If your goal is to advance towards a certain position, more than just speed is needed to know if/when you will get there - you also need to know direction.
Rape is wrong.
As I mentioned in my other post, rape certainly isn't considered to be as "wrong" when it is done in prison to a child molester. There are also borderline cases like acting out rape fantasies, etc.
Also, when it is done by animals is it considered "wrong"? Should (objective) morals be anthropocentric?
I have several Hitchens books and I have been thinking about picking up this one by Sam - did you like it?
Reading it basically marked the turning point for me of when I went from a hard proponent of subjective morality to one of moral objectivism… and I am not easily swayed without good reason.
Harris would be able to explain it much more effectively than I could. Here’s a video, I will say that if you still have some contentions with this lecture to read his book and see if he clarifies anything.
I believe there's also an author who wrote a critique of the Moral Landscape but it might have been on one of his other books.
Good = Good (well-being) for those that can perceive good (conscious beings).
Partly it does not fully describe morality:
It is not always good to do good to those that perceive good - therefore there are other undescribed factors (current vs future well-being, collective vs self well-being, etc.) which are vectors for subjectivity to be required inputs of morality.
Basically, he presents necessary (if tautological) factors for morality, but not sufficient conditions - (see also: agency vs determinism)
Probably will pick up the book, just to have a fuller view of his opinion and be able to provide a more comprehensive critique, but I haven't really seen much in the way of new argument there that would change my mind so far.
Thanks though for the recommendation, and for all your time etc.!
Also wanted to mention that I think he does persuasively speak to how a strong foundation can be made using subjective morality and that is a good thing in my opinion. For people to not need a god for their morality to seem solid, we will need more discussion like this. Thanks again.
I believe the debate creator was using "objective" to indicate something that exists in actuality independent of our perception that it exists. You do not need necessity in any form at all for something to exist objectively (or subjectively).
Living things objectively exist. But unlike other things in the universe, living things won't continue to exist unless they do the things necessary to continue.
Describing what must be done to survive as necessary inherently presumes the necessity of survival itself. There is no objective foundation from which to advance such a values based claim.
We aren't necessary to the universe, we just are. We hold things to be necessary based on our values. The ability to hold values is a property of living things. (I don't care if you want to argue "not all living things", it's a minor point). Living things with values, first value their life. Since living things are the only thing that can value, and what they fundamentally value is their life, life is the only thing that could reasonably be said to have intrinsic value (in, of and by itself). I may have said this part, sorry. Since life comes in many forms, this value must be considered in context. Our context is humanity.
One property of a living human is that they value their life. This is universal for all living humans (when people loose this value they stop living). This is the fundamental basis of what I would call an objectively derived morality. From this basic value we can determine rational principles which, if maintained, would serve the purpose of this fundamental value. The idea of an objective morality is that there actually are principles which would serve this purpose, regardless of opinion.
Side note: My account doesn't show my activity in any predictable order. Usually I see very old activity only. As such I have to find each argument I made to see if anyone replied. Also, when I "jump to debate" it only takes me to the page so I have to really search. Apparently I have left some rebuttals unaddressed. This doesn't mean I have given up or ignored it. I haven't had time to find it. My apologies.
Your argument remains that our subjective self-valuation somehow translates into an objective value simply because it exists. That does not follow. That we (generally) place value on our lives is entirely irrelevant to that value existing outside of our own perception of that value. The very definition of objectivity is that it exists external to our perception of it; personal feelings of value do not meet that criteria (no matter how universally perceived they may be).
Consequentially, if you derive a system of morality from the basis of that subjective value then the system itself is inherently subjective even if objective approaches are applied therefrom. The premise, the very foundation, is an assumption of subjective experience; the derivation is not objective.
Side note: Noted. Have you told admin? That is not the way mine functions... and I do not believe it is supposed to either.
Your argument remains that our subjective self-valuation somehow translates into an objective value simply because it exists.
My argument is that things have properties and that a property of living things is that valuation of life. Without it, there would not be living things. Nothing outside of the living is capable of valuation. How values make you feel is subjective, but their presence is an objective property.
The human formulation of codes of conduct is what is required by human nature to maintain the property of valuation. A code of conduct in this instance is not subjective to humans, but a property of life in the context of humanity.
Since I am arguing that self-valuation is a property of life, it isn't subjective. "How" the valuation is perceived/felt/acted on is subjective, "that" it is perceived is an objective property.
Side Note: No I haven't. I will do that. In the mean time, if you have any unanswered posts that happen to come to mind, please remind me here. Otherwise, I will get it when I get it, or not.
And I keep saying what ever action is necessary for survival is instinctual or obvious. I do not combine instinct and obviousness with morality. Instinct and obviousness coincide. Lets say, for example, a lion walks to the edge of a cliff. When it gets there is knows not to keep going(instinct) or it will fall and die(obviousness.)
You're right, that debate is relevant to this. It seems stupid to say that things are necessary to themselves, except when you consider that life is unique in that it can go out of existence. For this reason, living things have to value life and have to actually take action to maintain life. Some actions are objectively detrimental to that life, while other actions enhance. These things are objectively "good" and "bad".
None of this means that morality is in fact objective, only that there is such a thing.
Some actions are objectively detrimental to that life, while other actions enhance. These things are objectively "good" and "bad".
subjectively good and bad.
Fighting is detrimental to life. But yet humans/animals fight. By your logic, it is objectively wrong to fight. Animals will fight knowing they might not possibly survive. Because of it being detrimental to life then one should not do it. Yet of course this is false because fighting is used for surviving.
You stated earlier that an objective moral would persist through generations for prolonged life. But why would one commence an action that is problematic with survival? I forgot, because that does not mean that they are destined to follow an objective moral. But that can't apply because most male species of any kind fight. A lot to the death.
Fighting is not inherently detrimental to life. As carnivores, violence must be done to acquire food. Engaging in sports can be life affirming, this would include combative sports.
As violent creatures capable of rationality, though commonly subject to irrationality, we bring violence to each other. The initiator of violence is being irrational. The defender against violence is reasonably protecting himself. Both are fighting, only one is wrong.
most male species of any kind fight. A lot to the death.
Animals don't have a code of conduct. Humans are deficient in instinct. This is why morality is important. People do lots of stupid things, People also die a lot. The objective morality would be that code of conduct which best suits individuals to society (since as social creatures we value society). Some morals fit, some don't.
Claiming that there is an objective morality isn't a claim that people are moral
The initiator of violence is being irrational. Subjective
Humans are deficient in instinct. This is why morality is important. Subjective. Humans survived and multiplied when there were no "moral codes". When humans were barbaric they still lived successfully. I believe (not 100% sure) that your idea of "objective" morals came into play with religion. A lot of your ideas on objective morality stem from religious ideas.
There can be no subjective experience without objective reality. By stupid, I mean "not conducive with rational thought".
The initiator of violence is being irrational based of the premise you laid out in the post I was responding to. Violence is often detrimental to ones own life, therefore the initiator of the violence is the irrational actor. To support life, the defender must respond with physical force (not always). This simply means that fighting is not inherently irrational, though irrationality may have caused it.
Humans survived and multiplied when there were no "moral codes"
Morality is a code of conduct. It is a standard of action. Without instincts, people must have a standard of action. Properly responding to "obviousness" as you call it requires a standard of action. Humans can survive on a code of conduct that is not the best code of conduct available. A better code of conduct results in a better life.
The use of words like "best" and "better" are used to relate to the valuation of life and living (quantity and quality). The are not subjective in the context of a stated goal. example: If you want to get somewhere quickly, a car is "better" than a bike.
the initiator of the violence is the irrational actor.
Not always. One can initiate violence for a rational reason. If I kill you because you walk to close to my house and I had a feeling I was in threat, that is rational. Animals will bite/sting/maul if you get too close. Humans are animals. Humans defend when they feel threatened. For you to say it is wrong or irrational for someone who initiates violence based off of their own rationalizations is your opinion.
Context is important, though doesn't prove a subjective nature.
If I kill you because you walk to close to my house and I had a feeling I was in threat, that is rational
It is not necessarily rational. The context would determine the rationality of your action. The principle is the same. If I actually AM a threat, then you are defending yourself.
A child walking near a lion is not a threat from your perspective but to the lion it is. Basically a threat to ones home, whether you think it is or not, is up to that person to decide. It could be a 10 year old girl, if one thinks she is a threat then one would rationally assault her.
If you want to get somewhere quickly, a car is "better" than a bike.
That sophistic exemplification was a prevaricating sly one. Obviousness as I stated before. But if a car wants to get to the other side of the street and there is traffic then a bike would get you there quicker.
But if a car wants to get to the other side of the street and there is traffic then a bike would get you there quicker.
That's true. If the value in question is "getting somewhere quickly", then context can show that two opposing decisions adhere to the same value. This is an example of how objective morality would work in practice.
A moral relativist holds morality to be relative. An absolute relativist would hold all things relative, including but not limited to morality. So... a moral relativist could hold morality relative but claim that there objectively absolute facts, whereas an absolute relativist would hold both morality and the idea of absolute facts to be incorrect.
I cannot actually think of anything that exists both subjectively and objectively, so I would have to say no. That said, if it were possible for something to exist simultaneously as an objective and subjective phenomenon then I would affirm you question. If the thing exists as an objective absolute (i.e. in reality it is a constant universal), but is perceived to be a subjectively relative phenomenon (i.e. it is perceived to manifest in many ways) then it would be both. That said, the discrepancy would be a consequence of misperception.
All of that said, I think my larger point may have been poorly conveyed. What I was attempting to get at was that someone can think morality is relative, but not consider all things to be relative (e.g. they could consider gravity to be absolute). Does that make more sense?
Punching a baby is a universal wrong. Sometimes there are exceptions in which it might be considered morally okay but there is an assumption that it is not in every society (I am assuming a little when I say every, I realise). There there must be something objectively wrong in that act and the interesting thing is arguing what that is.
Your assumption is not an insignificant one; you are asserting universality from a self-professed fallacy. If there are exceptions, either circumstantial or by the individual, then the moral is not universal and consequentially inconsistent with any objective constant.
Further, it is a leap of logic to extrapolate from a single moral to morality as a whole (which is what this debate subject discusses). Even if you could demonstrate one moral to be actually universal, this would not speak to the entirety of morality.
Additionally, I would contend that nothing is objectively ever "wrong" or "right" in actuality. (Dis)advantageous or harmful/beneficial, certainly; but the moment we attach a moral value judgement our perception becomes subjective.
If the principle that allows for punching the baby is that same principle that forbids it under normal circumstances, then you have an objectively based morality. It would never work if morality is so rigid as to not account for context. If you found the underlying principle here, I am sure it would apply to many other moral situations. You may begin to have something like an objective morality.
but the moment we attach a moral value judgement our perception becomes subjective.
The moment you hear noise it becomes subjective. We should remember that subjective doesn't necessarily mean false. I think I said this above, but if you created a code of conduct based on these principles you are laying out, it would eventually be considered wrong/right good/bad etc. Subjective reality doesn't exist without the objective one.
If the principle that allows for punching the baby is that same principle that forbids it under normal circumstances, then you have an objectively based morality.
Nice assertion; now explain why that is the case. You have not only assumed that it is the same principle at work, but that the principle itself is objectively derived.
Further, this in no way counters my contextual observation that if there is an exception to the moral statement that punching a baby is wrong then that particular moral is not a universal moral (even if it did belong, as you claim, to a universal morality).
The moment you hear noise it becomes subjective.
The objective existence of the noise does not become subjective, though our perception of the noise is itself subjective.
We should remember that subjective doesn't necessarily mean false.
I never claimed that it did.
I think I said this above, but if you created a code of conduct based on these principles you are laying out, it would eventually be considered wrong/right good/bad etc. Subjective reality doesn't exist without the objective one.
I addressed this in my other response to your more thorough presentation of this argument on this debate.
Nice assertion; now explain why that is the case. *
A different example to illustrate. Imagine the moral principle is "getting somewhere", this is the "good". It would be right to choose a bike over walking to get down the street, it would be right to choose walking over a bike to get across the room. The same principle directs one to opposite conclusions based on context. Contextual difference isn't the same as subjectivism.
I think you argued with HarvardGrad about the difference between "right" and "correct". Unless you mean that you responded to my example in which case, I don't believe there is a response.
That particular post is a bit of a side topic about context and subjectivity. I haven't read a response concerning that either.
Side Note: At some point I'm going to copy all the threads on this page and respond in one post. I've contacted Andy.
Some actions and behaviours just are bad as they are things that almost everyone with the exception of psychopaths and sociopaths can agree are bad. Physically abusing someone unprovoked is bad as any one with a healthy mind reacts badly to it and feels empathy for the victim and feels hostility to the perpetrator.
objective- not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased- dictionary.com
That definition never said that something objective has to be tangible. It probably has to have some basis on something tangible, in order to be based on fact. But no where in that definition does it say that something objective is tangible, physical, or empirical.
Therefore, it can be a concept or practice, such as a mathematical concept, a computer science concept, a comedy routine, etc.
No, based on facts doesn't have to mean that its true. Its only physical if its true, and even then it doesn't really have to be an object. Technically, its objective to arrest someone for killing JFK. That's an objective. Morality would mean justice for that person in that case. If you arrest the wrong person, you are dealing with objective morality.
It sounds like it fits your logic, but let me put it this way. I think "objective morality" doesn't have to literally mean "objective morality." It means morality based on the objective. The objective is to arrest the right person. The moral question is "do they deserve it."
If you don't agree with me, and think my objective morality is inherently not objective morality, then we've made progress in this debate. You can only have morality based on a situation, and that situation is composed of objective things, places, and people.
So logically, IMO, either all morality is objective or it isn't.
Correct. I always give exact comparison of 'time' and 'morality.' Problem is when I say time does not exist people think I speaking some sort of "philosophical hypothesis" when in fact time does not exist! But that is another topic I will post tomorrow and see who are the intellectuals and who are the... You know.
The inability to explain an intellectual complexity is itself a failure of the intellect. Denying the self-evident and the scientific on the basis that it just is, and then saying that whomever disagrees is "...you know" stupid, doesn't make you more intelligent, it just makes you a less intelligent jerk.
Intellectuality is in the conscience. We cannot explain consciousness but we are consciously aware of its existence. I never said you cannot explain time. I said that you cannot physically describe time. Simple-minded (non-intellectual) people are incapable of understanding what I mean when I say time does not exist. So that is why I made that statement. You are exacerbating my statement by saying stupid. Complex intellectual incapability does not make someone stupid. That was rather petty of you to say that. There is a reason ones intellectuality can be complex. If it was so easy to complexly think intellectually then it wouldn't be called complex now would it? And intelligence and intellectuality are different(what grade are you in?) The whole "jerk" comment in regards to "...you know" by "you know" I mean intellectually incapable which, as I said before, does not make you stupid. For instance, I have a 177 IQ. 1/7,130,000 have an IQ this high. That does not mean the 1,340,000 people are stupid because it can not be helped. I do not believe anyone (except retards for medical reasons) is stupid. Do not interpret.
The inability to explain an intellectual complexity
I was referring to a different debate where you said that you could not explain things that are intellectually complex. Maybe I did jump to conclusions about ..you know. But I'll go ahead and tell you now, if you can't make reasoned arguments then no one here will care about your screen name or your IQ. Some of your arguments hold water, not one of them concerning time.
When your response to reasoned arguments is simply that I am intellectually incapable, you are loosing on intellectual grounds. Your appeal to personal authority falls flat when crowds of authority and reason itself disagree with you.
I was referring to a different debate where you said that you could not explain things that are intellectually complex.
I can explain them. The person I am explaining to can or cannot intellectually understand my meaning. Certain explanations necessitate complexity. I am refraining from being esoteric by saying I cannot explain.
I'll go ahead and tell you now, if you can't make reasoned arguments then no one here will care about your screen name or your IQ.
I cannot make a reasoned argument will someone intellectually incapable of even understanding my point. In regards to the screen name I did not create the screen name for "authority" you choose to imply authority because of the name. Harvard is just a school to me. I have met plenty of simple minded students in Oxford who could not last 5 minutes in a debate with me. You have never heard me invoke my IQ or School in an argument. Just intellectuality.
P.S. factually you IQ measures your critical thinking and reasoning skills, which means my reasonings are 9/10 sensible.
So someone with an average IQ saying that someone with an extremely high IQ reasonings are not sensible would be questionable. Not to be boastful but there is a reason when someone has a certain IQ they are a certified genius.
I cannot make a reasoned argument will someone intellectually incapable of even understanding my point.
That is similar to saying "if you don't know, then I can't explain it"
Simple-minded (non-intellectual) people are incapable of understanding what I mean when I say time does not exist… in fact time does not exist!
Countering an axiom with an anti-axiom. A= -A. That was the sum total of your reasoned argument.
Assuming your target audience's inability is unreasonable. Using this assumption to neglect to mount an argument is worse than unreasonable, it's intellectual dishonesty.
factually you IQ measures your critical thinking and reasoning skills, which means my reasonings are 9/10 sensible.
This was your argument against my statement of your lack of reasoning skills. Your IQ will not make unreasonable arguments become reasonable. Quoting your own IQ is not proof that your logic is sound. It may have other unrelated indications.
That is similar to saying "if you don't know, then I can't explain it"
It is similar to a physicist explaining advanced physics to an American elementary school. They will most likely have not a clue what he is talking about. It does not mean they are stupid. There knowledgeability in physics is not at that level yet therefore his explanations would lead to more confusion. When I do explain you still do not get it, and I simply said I cannot explain to someone intellectually incapable because of their lack of understandings of my explanation. Intellectuality requires someone to think. You can know everything and still not be a intellectually competent.
This was your argument against my statement of your lack of reasoning skills. Your IQ will not make unreasonable arguments become reasonable. Quoting your own IQ is not proof that your logic is sound. It may have other unrelated indications.
You say lack reasoning skills but yet understand the correlation of IQ and reasoning? You missed what I said completely. I never said my IQ would make unreason = reason. I said the probability of my reasonings being unreasonable is low. My IQs correlation with logic is positive. The higher the IQ the more logical someone is.
It does not mean my logic is 100% accurate, no, but it does mean my logic is least likely to be anything but.
Brief note; I try and oversimplify up here to not cause confusion. When I am debating with my professors I talk how I normally would because they can understand my "complex" syntax. So when I talk to everyday people I try and talk to them on a level of their comprehension. By doing that I may "mess up" sometimes but that is only because if I say it to them my normal way then they would be highly confused. This is why I refused to talk to most kids high school because they felt "inferior" or "dumb" when I tried. So now I make a habit of oversimplification. I will get one of my favored professors to create an account so they get my meaning across if I cannot seem to.
I said the probability of my reasonings being unreasonable is low.
Perhaps you should play the lottery. The probability of reason for the arguments you will post have no impact on the fact your previous posts lack reason. It may be that a survey of your posts would show that the probability of an unreasonable argument is quite high from you. Your IQ has no impact on the actual quality of any given actual argument you have posted.
It does not mean my logic is 100% accurate, no, but it does mean my logic is least likely to be anything but.
I have shown that the abandonment of axioms is the abandonment of logic itself. You haven't even attempted to argue your position on time. You failed to refute that time is axiomatic. Your IQ is irrelevant.
I try and talk to them on a level of their comprehension.
Syntax: the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language.
Almost everyone on this site can understand a well-formed sentence.
It is similar to a physicist explaining advanced physics to an American elementary school. They will most likely have not a clue what he is talking about.
You have 0 cause for assuming the level of intellect of any individual on this sight.
If this is the analogy, then it is more like arguing with an elementary student, becoming embarrassed when you are loosing, and then abandoning the argument to explain to the student that his argument is false by virtue of the fact that you are smarter than him.
If this next attempt fails to show you what I mean (a failure on my part), take it to your professor to explain it to you.
1. Refusal to provide reasoned arguments on the basis of presumed higher intellectual ability is STILL a failure to provide a reasoned argument and suggest something OTHER than a higher intellectual ability.
2. Probability has no impact on the past. Your arguments are either reasonable or not REGARDLESS of your IQ. Having reasonable arguments indicates a high IQ, not vice verse. Reversing this relationship indicates something other than a higher intellectual ability.
3. If Einstein were here arguing with a low level accountant, he would probably loose. His IQ would be irrelevant. Hopefully he wouldn't say "I am so much smarter than you, that even though I am loosing this debate, I must still somehow be right."
I have shown that the abandonment of axioms is the abandonment of logic itself. You haven't even attempted to argue your position on time. You failed to refute that time is axiomatic. Your IQ is irrelevant.
Let me put this simply. Knowledgeability and IQ do not correlate. What I do with my knowledge (e.g. put together logically, reasonably, creatively, and intelligently) does correlate with my IQ. Now I am only saying this not because I do not know how to refute your position, I am saying I have not had the chance to look further into your position. I will not give a refutation composed of ignorance. My responses are based off of my knowledge, so if I need to refute something (with out it being unnecessarily flawed) then I will further research it.
Your IQ has no impact on the actual quality of any given actual argument you have posted.
If it composed of critically thought out reasonings then yes it does. IQ measures Critical thinking and reasoning. Now I understand if I misread/interpreted and posted a response, yes you would be correct. I will challenge you to debate someone with a 70 IQ and see there responses. I can assure you if they even understood your question they will probably respond with answers beyond reason and logic. The best philosophers that constructed near-indestructible arguments had extremely high IQs. To put together a profound argument requires critical thinking, reasoning, and logic. All of which an IQ measures.
well formed does not mean they can understand well formed logically complex syntax. Sort of like old philosophy. A lot of it needs to be re-written because of logic complexity. Now of course Ivy League school philosophy profs force you to understand the complex logic and eventually you do! But everyone up here did/does take Ivy League philosophy courses.
Prior to college I formulated my syntax like that anyway so it is hard to transition from writing/typing syntactically complex to syntactically simplistic.
In reference to IQ correlation. If it composed of critically thought out reasonings then yes it does.
If your posts are not composed critically or if they lack reason, you make another error by assuming the given argument must have been reasonable because your IQ is so high. The causation goes one way, not the other.
The best philosophers that constructed near-indestructible arguments had extremely high IQs. To put together a profound argument requires critical thinking, reasoning, and logic. All of which an IQ measures.
This is my point exactly. When you fail to put together a sound argument, on the grounds that I won't understand anyway, you fail to display what the IQ suggests. This failure is not reversed by your IQ, rather your honesty of your declared IQ is in question. This situation is made worse when you in fact make an argument that lacks reason only to claim that it probably actually is reasonable.
Now of course Ivy League school philosophy profs force you to understand the complex logic and eventually you do!
Fortunately for you, Ivy League schools put their courses out for free now. Given the type of person attracted to this kind of site, you are more likely to find people who have taken advantage of a free Ivy League education.
well formed does not mean they can understand well formed logically complex syntax.
"I will not argue very well because if I did it would be so amazing and beyond you that you would not understand me."
This is like claiming that I don't box because I'm better than Muhammad Ali. It's a very convenient statement that requires no punches from me.
This is my point exactly. When you fail to put together a sound argument, on the grounds that I won't understand anyway, you fail to display what the IQ suggests. This failure is not reversed by your IQ, rather your honesty of your declared IQ is in question.
I said that I attempt to put an argument together in a way all can understand. I am infamously known as being esoteric when I debate at other schools. And as a result, people take more time evaluating my responses while trying to construct their own. I also had this problem with my teachers when I was to write a simple essay . They had to scrutinize my papers more than others. From their inadvertent responses I could tell it was annoying. My philosophy professor could understand my situation and gave me a few pointers on writing and debating. The reason I avoid writing on this website like I would normally do is to not confuse anyone to the point that can cause a response that resulted from confusion. I also exemplify most of my points so I can get it across even easier. I will exemplify my meaning of writing simply vs. my version. This analogous to speech is to not be taken literal.
My version of saying 1+1=2 in comparison to writing would be; in order to find the numeric term "two" within the circumambiency of the first three numeric terms to include zero, one(personified) would need to enumerate constituents of the first two numeric terms, abstract the first, replicate a summation of the following, upon summation one (personified) would come to a revelation of the numeric term two! Now imagine that complexity in an already complex argument. And my exemplification was simple because I said 1+1, I could have used a complex algebraic exemplification and it would be even more confusing. My point is I oversimplify to make debating fun and easy. I have learned to do so when I travel to debate at various schools. Now sure, I can be esoteric while I debate at competitions but what fun is that if they are struggling to understand over complex logic that they, more than likely, just started learning? My goal is not to shut people up by revealing inferiority (sometimes I do when there is a smartass calls for it.) You, just like most, do not understand my intentions so you profile me as being someone trying to express prestige. When all I am doing is being informative.
As for the Ivy league courses. The post I have seen do not confirm this. These people, for the most part, seem educated, but not at Ivy League level. Maybe one or two, but not most.
As for your last remark. There you go again with an exacerbating exaggeration. I said before, not everyone can comprehend the complexities with certain statements. Even if you or a few other can, it does not mean everyone can. And I assumed this website was public for all to see so if a respond then my response is going to be literarily eligible for anyone to read, not just the "literary logical elites".
Also you keep referring to my arguments as being "poor". I'd say that's a bit disdainful and I would disagree. I feel as though my arguments gets my point across, consists of facts, and concludes with an understanding of the purpose. I have several messages of confirmation of me being well argued. You habitually argue erroneously based off of what you think. You have disagreed with several facts based off of these thoughts. At least I have admitted that I might not have an immediate response if I have not done the research.
You're right, that's a terrible way to explain 1+1=2 haha.
I think that complex language structure is more problematic than the logic. Also, one could fail to understand esoteric language without having deficient intellectual capabilities.
My point is I oversimplify to make debating fun and easy.
I think this may have it's own set of problems. When something is actually oversimplified, part of the message may be lost. As a result, the audience can miss the context of your position.
In the future I will refrain from stating your arguments are poor before considering as many possible contexts as I can. I will also aim at more precise language in order to avoid confusion.
That's true, if by "something" you mean some moral action. An objective reality therefore, would need to be based on conceptual principles, rather than a rulebook of particulars. Also, since morality is meant for general living, objective morality would be put aside for situations that will never happen such as the trolley thought experiment, or you in a life raft. In these cases, just do whatever. Amorality should be left to areality situations.
That's true, if by "something" you mean some moral action.
It is true for anything that can be deemed right or wrong. Which is the subject of objective morality. Since we are discussing objective morality it is valid to discuss moral actions, so I don't see how this is any kind of objection.
An objective reality therefore, would need to be based on conceptual principles, rather than a rulebook of particulars.
These conceptual principles always require some kind of subjective reality.
It's a dispute because I am arguing for an objective morality. I assumed you meant that the same action deemed moral in one case would be wrong in another. I agree with this part.
"Good" and "bad" are only relevant to living thing (since the fundamental concern is with continued or enhanced life). We can discover principles that can be objectively determined to aid the continuation or enhancement of human life. While it is true that the particular execution of a given moral principle would be subjective, the standard would still be objective.
It's a dispute because I am arguing for an objective morality. I assumed you meant that the same action deemed moral in one case would be wrong in another. I agree with this part.
If you agree with that, I don't understand how you can dispute me.
"Good" and "bad" are only relevant to living thing (since the fundamental concern is with continued or enhanced life).
That makes it not objective right off the bat.
We can discover principles that can be objectively determined to aid the continuation or enhancement of human life.
There is always a conflict. Punishment doesn't enhance someones life, but it must be done in certain circumstances. It is subjective.
While it is true that the particular execution of a given moral principle would be subjective, the standard would still be objective.
If it is too vague to execute at an objective level is it really objective?
Living things exist, objectively speaking. Life is the only thing that won't necessarily continue automatically. Good and bad things being relevant to only living things is a statement of the nature of life. A thing having a nature that is different from the nature of something else, does not make it subjective. A comet, in proximity to a star, has a tail. That's part of it's nature. A planet does not. Comet tails are not subjective. Neither is life's values. Both are inherent in the things nature.
I know there is conflict with morality. There is also quite a bit of subjectivity. Some moral ideas are not that vague, and as such they are fairly common across cultures. But the vagueness (lack of clarity) of the subject as a whole is not a refutation of objectivity, but rather a criticism of our lack of inquiry and study.
the same action deemed moral in one case would be wrong in another
I should clarify this. A dictate of specific actions would not be a moral code for the reason you mentioned. An objective morality based on principles would lead to different actions depending on the context. Example:
The moral principle of respect for the human life stemming from respect for your own life will lead you to not kill people on a regular basis. In the context of being attacked however, it will lead you to kill the attacker out of respect for your own life. These opposite actions are based on the same principle.
(since the fundamental concern is with continued or enhanced life).
What non-objective moral action can prevent life. Just try and think of a world where you ideology on morals does not exist. Life will still continue. Sex is not a moral. Instinctual protection of a baby is not a moral. A child being belligerent and barbaric (assuming the child has no moral guidance) would not guarantee failure of survival. So how are objective morals a necessity for survival? Specifically name one objective moral.
I suppose the key would be "enhanced". And by life I should have been more specific, I was referring to human life. Morality is a code of conduct, and we need this to survive since we lack instincts. Consider that "adherence to rationality" is a code of conduct. Since the goal of the living human is continued and enhanced life, you need to discover what ever conduct best serves this purpose. There will be certain principles of conduct that can be universally applied to each human being to serve their goal in living.
Morality is a code of conduct, and we need this to survive since we lack instincts.
No, it is not. As I've said before, animals do not have morals. They survive. Before morals were discovered by humans, or Homo-Erectus and so on, we survived just fine. And, if morality were to be eradicated, humans still have survival instincts. Also, humans have instinctual habits of reproducing. It might not be as clear right now, but it is still there seeing as how, before the introduction of morals, our ancestors reproduced just fine.
Morality is a code of conduct. Reply No, it is not.
It most certainly is. All morality is a code of conduct, not all codes of conduct qualify as morality.
If any given code of conduct is fully accepted and internalized, it becomes morality. People will acquire feelings of moral outrage if their given code of conduct is ignored or improperly adhered to. Different people have different overall codes, hence moral subjectivity.
The idea of an objective morality is that you determine what values are required by all humans for living, determine what principles of action are best for achieving said values, then internalize these given principles.
Before morals were discovered by humans...we survived just fine.
Any group will develop a code of conduct (whether explicit or implicit) and it will be enforced by the group. The emotional attachment that we have to our codes of conduct is what makes morals seem different than any given moral code.
I can't prove it, but from my understanding of groups as stated above, humans have never been without some code of conduct.
Morality exists as a form of value judgement and ascription. It is premised upon the subjective perception that value itself exists objectively, which it does not. "Good" and "bad" are just ideas that we made up to understand our world and to codify our interactions. They do not actually exist.
Values are those for which one takes action to gain and/or to keep. Only and all living things value. If living things exist objectively, and they have values, then values exist objectively. "Good" and "bad" applies to the living, just like values. "Good" and "bad" things are those which "aid" or "threaten" the life respectively. Regardless of what I believe is good or bad, there are some things that actually objectively are.
Values are those for which one takes action to gain and/or to keep.
Values are about far more than motivators of action towards gaining and retaining. They are motivators that ascribe an abstract notion of "good" and "bad" to the equation.
Only and all living things value.
Not all living things value. A snail does not value; it just does.
If living things exist objectively, and they have values, then values exist objectively.
If living things exist objectively, and they think unicorns are real, that does not mean the unicorn exists objectively. Only the subjective idea of the unicorn exists objectively. Now, simply insert morality/value for unicorn and perhaps you grasp the concept. There is a difference between an idea occurring objectively, and that idea representing something that objectively exists itself.
"Good" and "bad" applies to the living, just like values. "Good" and "bad" things are those which "aid" or "threaten" the life respectively. Regardless of what I believe is good or bad, there are some things that actually objectively are.
The problem with words like "good" and "bad" is that they so intermingle subjective value judgements with objective truth that one cannot use them strictly to reference what is objectively (dis)advantageous. If we are discussing (dis)advantage or harm/benefit, then we should use the language that discusses that explicitly - (dis)advantage and harm/benefit. To say that a disadvantage/advantage is bad/good attaches an additional, subjective value statement onto the objective observation. Consequentially, you end up saying things like "there are some things that actually objectively are" good or bad... instead of simply observing what actually is objectively (dis)advantageous from the offset. Why should we cling to a moral value system that is so inherently imprecise, and not abandon it instead for a direct, amoral consideration of (dis)advantage?
Concerning the definition of value, I am arguing it elsewhere in this debate. See other.
Mammals have nerves. These nerves allow us to feel pain. The is a property of mammals. The avoidance of pain is an objective value even though the experience of pain is subjective. Just as "red" creates a subjective qualia, it objectively exists (as a position on the light spectrum). Pain is different from a unicorn the same way that values are.
Your argument for creating a system based consideration of (dis)advantage wouldn't keep out words like good and bad. If your system worked, it would be internalized and felt. People would have a subjective experience and call it good if it did what it's supposed to. Then they would call it morality. The consideration of advantage, benefit, etc would have to be based on fundamental human values if advantage is to mean anything.
Concerning the definition of value, I am arguing it elsewhere in this debate. See other.
Not with me you are not, and as stated in my other response to you I am not going to waste my time wading through every post on this debate looking for it. You can make it in direct, contextual rebuttal to me or you can expect me not to factor into our debate.
Mammals have nerves. These nerves allow us to feel pain. The is a property of mammals. The avoidance of pain is an objective value even though the experience of pain is subjective. Just as "red" creates a subjective qualia, it objectively exists (as a position on the light spectrum). Pain is different from a unicorn the same way that values are.
The avoidance of pain is not an objective value, but rather an objective reality. While the experience of pain (i.e. our perception of its severity) is subjective, pain itself is not as it can be externally identified and observed through scientific means. "Red" does not exist as an objective idea; it is a subjective descriptor projected onto the objective phenomenon that we describe as "red". The idea of "red" exists only in our minds, whereas the phenomenon it describes exists objectively. Even if you were right about pain and "red", observations specific to those phenomenon cannot be extrapolated from in defense of your stance on values. You need to prove that values themselves exist as more than ideas, which you have not yet done.
Your argument for creating a system based consideration of (dis)advantage wouldn't keep out words like good and bad. If your system worked, it would be internalized and felt. People would have a subjective experience and call it good if it did what it's supposed to. Then they would call it morality. The consideration of advantage, benefit, etc would have to be based on fundamental human values if advantage is to mean anything.
I am not arguing that we actually create this system, in large part because I do not think most people capable of processing and internalizing it. The psychological limits of (other) human beings to grasp the distinction between objective reality and subjective value projection in no way disproves that the distinction actually exists. Most people used to be incapable of thinking that Earth revolved around the sun, but that did not make that fact less true.
You have not actually refuted my analysis, only demonstrated that it may be impracticable which was never a factor I relied on in advancing my rationale.
My definition of value is "that for which one takes action to gain and/or to keep".
It works perfectly well with other dictionary definitions. The only thing it lacks is an aspect of consciousness which everyone here seems to think it needs. That something is "worth" something, or that it is "important" doesn't mean that fact must be known to the entity it is important to.
The avoidance of pain is not an objective value, but rather an objective reality.
You need to prove that values themselves exist as more than ideas, which you have not yet done.
People value avoiding pain more than keeping secrets, this the idea behind torture. Even if you don't accept my definition, would you say that the rest of my position logically follows from that definition? How might I prove that my definition is valid? Dictionaries have multiple definitions and mine perfectly fits with several of them. How shall I prove semantics?
I am not arguing that we actually create this system, in large part because I do not think most people capable of processing and internalizing it.
If they internalized it they would call it good and bad and you would call it subjective. I'm not refuting your idea for a system, I'm just saying they would call it morality. If your system is based on objective reality, then it may be similar to what I am calling objective morality.
The problem I have with your definition of value is that it is not a definition of moral value. I have never seen any definition of moral values which is so strictly utilitarian as yours. To construct a "morality" around an amoral definition of value is not really constructing a morality at all; it neglects the aspect of subjective judgement that is by definition innate to morality.
The only way people could actually internalize my system would be through a rejection of the concepts of "good" and "bad"; that most people would revert to understanding my system in terms of "good" and "bad" is indicative of their incapacity to engage that process of rejection (and thus they would not actually be referring to my system at all).
I concur that our systems are not especially divergent. I consider the primary difference to be that I actively avoid expressing my system in terms of dominant moral language. What you refer to as the value of life or the value of pain avoidance, I would refer to as the instinct for life or pain aversion. Self-preservation and all that stems from it is not a value, but an empirical reality. The end remains the same not because it should but quite simply because it is; and that moral "should" - that egotistical belief in some state of "right" from which stems our sense of entitled vanity - would no longer be a part of the process.
My definition of values doesn't seem like a moral definition because I am using it to premise moral definitions. Except for your view on values, all of your statements about things that are simply an empirical reality are true, which is why I am arguing for an objective morality. (What I refer to as the fundamental value of life requires more than just pain avoidance, that was just an example). My position is that if the "is" is true for living things, then certain "oughts" must follow. Not because I feel that way, but because it's a property of life.
To illustrate from a different debate where you argued against the necessity of life; I would say that Life is the source of necessities. Life is not itself necessary to the universe, it is part of it, it has necessities, and nothing else does.
Somewhat of a Side Note:
I'll take it a step further and explain my position on the emotional and subjective aspects of morality. Whatever your values are, you acquire an emotional corollary for each. This is true even when you are not aware of your own values (many people aren't). Emotions are immediate responses to internal values. Because people feel emotions before they have considered their values, they often think their emotions should determine their values (it just feels wrong), when in reality their values triggered their emotion in the first place.
EDIT: Clarification: Emotions are immediate responses to stimuli that relate to ones values.
My understanding of objectivity being independent of individual thought is that it's truth is not impacted by individual thought. If something is a property of consciousness, then it is a true property in reality. Being a property of consciousness wouldn't make it subjective, only the experience of that property would be.
Furthermore, my definition of value doesn't require consciousness, only action. Humans can act consciously or otherwise. Similarly, we can experience values consciously or otherwise. Regardless of subjective awareness, we DO act on our values.
that by no means proves that you/we are objectively valuable
Valuable to whom? It seems you require value from somewhere beyond the existence of value? We (the living) are the source of values.
If something exists only in our minds then it is subjective
What is "moral" simply depends on how we perceive it.
For example; a high ranking Nazi officer would most likely see Hitler's actions as just, while a Jewish prisoner in a concentration camp would see Hitler's actions as unjust.
What exactly do you mean when you say an objective moral? Do you mean some sort of action that is always absolutely good or evil? If that is the case then my opinion is no, as what is "good" and "evil" simply depends on what we perceive it to be.
Also, I am saying that morality itself is subjective.
That is what I thought you meant. As I understand the terms "good" and "bad", however, they are also used in the projection of subjective value. It is possible for them to have an objective meaning, but because they can also (and usually do for most people) bear a subjective value projection it seems nearly as prudent to avoid their usage as it does to avoid using "right" and "wrong".
I think there are limits to how much you can divorce "good" and "bad" from their subjective value associations, even when explicitly stating that you are using them in an objective sense. That association is so strong in most peoples' minds that it cannot be so simply divorced. Personally, and for that reason, I prefer to use terms such as (dis)advantage and harm/benefit when discussing the objective.
Do not prevaricate, I simply asked for an objectively formulated sentence with the terms "good" and "bad" because you stated that you can use them in an objective manor. I would like exemplifying proof.
You rather misunderstand my argument, I think. The nod to potential objectivity was a light concession to what I understood your initial perspective to be (i.e. that "good" and "bad" are preferable to "right" and "wrong" because they describe what "just is"... something objective). Beyond that, the statement was made in light of some definitions of the terms (provided) which do not utilize subjective value language. If you read my posts in full, you would know that I have already indicated that I do not consider it possible for the subjective value element to be wholly disassociated from the terms "good" and "bad". Which returns me to my original question: why advocate for the use of "good" and "bad" in place of "right" and "wrong", when both are problematically subjective?
1+1=2 is not "right"; it is accurate. 1+1=3 is not "wrong"; it is inaccurate.
Your argument in no way addresses my point that "right" and "wrong" carry strong subjective associations, and that they are therefore similarly fallible when being used to describe the objective (words such as accurate are more well suited to that end).
I am suggesting that "right" and "wrong" would be more suited for the argument. It is obvious that "good" and "bad" will always be subjective. To say: 1+1=2 is not "right"; it is accurate. 1+1=3 is not "wrong"; it is inaccurate., is absurd seeing as "accuracy" can range in value with "correctness". Which would therefore implicate that 1+1=2 can possibly be incorrect. Yet we know it is false to say 1+1=2 is 'incorrect'. Which would then mean that 1+1=2 is true and correct as a "fact". And seeing as how this fits the definition of "right", then it would therefore be suited to use that sort of terminology in such situation.
Is there anything to should be valued for its own sake? If there is, then there is a fundamental "good". If there is a thing that is intrinsically valuable, then you can determine that destroying that thing is in all cases, wrong.
The tricky part is showing that something holds intrinsic value.
What if the objective goal is inherent in humanity. If it is a property of humanity to act on ones own interests (life, well-being, etc), would a moral code based on principles that are in ones interests then be objective?
(Consider the difference between objective properties and subjectivity. If something is common to a category of entities, it isn't subjective, it is a property.)
That is not specific enough. Are we concerned with humanity's survival, well-being, happiness, and freedoms as a collective? And if so, which ones take higher priority? Believe it or not, not all of these can be simultaneously achieved.
We are concerned with said values for the people within a given society. Concerned with doesn't mean forced. I would expect a proper morality to allow for rational values to be pursued within ones self and concerning others. Simultaneous achievement of these or any host of values isn't necessary for an objective morality, so long as the potential is provided for. A code of conduct can't achieve, that's up to the conductor
A code of conduct is like a map. An objective morality would be like an accurate map. It won't actually take you anywhere, you have to do that yourself. Morality provides guidance for action.
To avoid rigidity a morality should be based on principles, not particulars. Proper execution of these principles would be experienced subjectively, though the principle remains an objective standard.
Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true. Proponents of this theory would argue that a statement like "Murder is wrong" can be as objectively true as "1 + 1 = 2." Most of the time, the alleged source is God, or the Kantian Categorical Imperative; arguably, no objective source of morality has ever been confirmed, nor have any a priori proofs been offered to the effect that morality is anything other than subjective. Kant ultimately fails, because he is perceptibly committed to Christian morality, which guides his arguments.
At such, in my perception, i believed that there is no such thing as "objective morality"
