The Nature and Basis of Morality

[bibliophile]

In the recent Science thread, GoC, myself, and others somewhat derailed the thread with philisophical discussions. In the interest of not completely highjacking that thread I am making this one.


I am of the opinion that morality is absolute and objective.

[Devils_Advocate]

It's all semantics. I.e. what exactly do you mean by "morality"?

(And "good", "right", "just", "should", etc., etc., etc.)

[bibliophile]

It's all semantics. I.e. what exactly do you mean by "morality"?

(And "good", "right", "just", "should", etc., etc., etc.)


What do you mean by "It's" "all" "semantics" "I.e" "what" "exactly" "do" "you" "mean" and "by"?


Dictionaries exist for a reason.

[averagejoe]

I am of the opinion that morality is absolute and objective.

On what basis? With what proof?

[bibliophile]

On what basis? With what proof?


Instead of actually aswering your question, I shall approach it from the other direction.

Suppose you're walking down the street, and you see a man. You no nothing about, is it immoral to kill him? I'll assume you say yes. On what basis? Pleasure or pain? If a person was drowning in offal and feces, saving their lives would be extremely unpleasant, but certainly moral, ergo, by counter example, pleasure/pain is not a basis of morality.

[Devils_Advocate]

bibliophile, that sounds like an appeal to emotion.


Dictionaries exist for a reason.
Yeah, and when I look up moral terms in a dictionary, I find that they're all defined in terms of each other. They don't ground in anything.

Can you describe morality while playing rationalist taboo (http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/02/replace-symbol.html)? Can you describe morality in non-moral terms?

As an analogy: We can talk about how numbers relate to each other in pure math, but we need an understanding of how they describe the physical world before they can tell us anything about the physical world.

[Mr. Mud]

Instead of actually answering your question, I shall approach it from the other direction.

Suppose you're walking down the street, and you see a man. You no nothing about, is it immoral to kill him? I'll assume you say yes. On what basis? Pleasure or pain? If a person was drowning in offal and feces, saving their lives would be extremely unpleasant, but certainly moral, ergo, by counter example, pleasure/pain is not a basis of morality.

Then what, is a basis of morality biblio, if it's not that warm cozy feelnig you get inside when you save a box of abandoned kittens, or buy a vagabond a Big Mac? If it's not based in pleasure of pain, at least partially, then what could it be based in? Certainly not logic, or reasonable thinking 100% of the time.

[averagejoe]

Instead of actually aswering your question, I shall approach it from the other direction.

Suppose you're walking down the street, and you see a man. You no nothing about, is it immoral to kill him? I'll assume you say yes. On what basis? Pleasure or pain? If a person was drowning in offal and feces, saving their lives would be extremely unpleasant, but certainly moral, ergo, by counter example, pleasure/pain is not a basis of morality.

You're avoiding the question. I said nothing about pleasure or pain. To work from this end you would have to disprove every other possibility, and that might take awhile. Even if you disproved the pleasure/pain theory (which you haven't) it doesn't make morality objective.

To answer your claim, the pain I would receive from letting a man die would be much greater than the discomfort brought on by poo. I'm not saying that pleasure/pain is the basis for morality; I'm only saying that your statement is wrong.

[Pyrian]

Can you describe morality in non-moral terms?The long-term interest of a society - as contrasted with the short-term interest of its individuals - in an uncertain world.

What makes moral discussions difficult is the fact that the mentioned uncertainty is a critical term; a given moral code is generally an attempt at establishing something that can't actually be known for sure (and isn't even truly constant), explaining different codes' similarities and distinctions. Even the concept of a moral (or, indeed, legal) code is nothing but an imperfect hack, a cover-up of the fact that while the cells of a human body literally consider themselves a single being (normally, and insofar as they are capable of making such judgments), the members of a society generally do not.

[bibliophile]

You're avoiding the question. I said nothing about pleasure or pain. To work from this end you would have to disprove every other possibility, and that might take awhile. Even if you disproved the pleasure/pain theory (which you haven't) it doesn't make morality objective.

To answer your claim, the pain I would receive from letting a man die would be much greater than the discomfort brought on by poo. I'm not saying that pleasure/pain is the basis for morality; I'm only saying that your statement is wrong.


Yes I'm avoiding the question, I admitted as much.


For some, let's say an OCD person, that might not be that case. Do you admit that pleasure/pain is not the basis of morality?

[Rutskarn]

The indefinable nature of morality, in itself, states that the term "morality" is not objective.

My personal definition is "a codification of intentions that are constructive of or destructive to the wellbeing of fellow creatures possessing higher cognition."

[bibliophile]

The indefinable nature of morality, in itself, states that the term "morality" is not objective.

My personal definition is "a codification of intentions that are constructive of or destructive to the wellbeing of fellow creatures possessing higher cognition."


[from dictionary.com]

mo⋅ral⋅i⋅ty
  /məˈrælɪti, mɔ-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [muh-ral-i-tee, maw-] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ties for 4–6.
1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
2. moral quality or character.



So in fact, a word does not mean what it means, but whatever you want it to mean? I don't think that's how language works.

[Recaiden]

Yes I'm avoiding the question, I admitted as much.


For some, let's say an OCD person, that might not be that case. Do you admit that pleasure/pain is not the basis of morality?

Why couldn't it be? Name a situation in which morality cannot be derived from pleasure/pain. Also, the definition of morality uses moral in its definition, a word with a similarly vague meaning.

[Rutskarn]

[from dictionary.com]

mo⋅ral⋅i⋅ty
  /məˈrælɪti, mɔ-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [muh-ral-i-tee, maw-] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ties for 4–6.
1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
2. moral quality or character.



So in fact, a word does not mean what it means, but whatever you want it to mean? I don't think that's how language works.

Blibliophile, did you read the definition?

The definition of morality is basically, "Stuff that's moral."

Okay. What's moral?

"Well, you know...virtuous stuff."

What's virtue?

"It's, like, morality. Okay?"

[bibliophile]

bibliophile, that sounds like an appeal to emotion.


Yeah, and when I look up moral terms in a dictionary, I find that they're all defined in terms of each other. They don't ground in anything.

Can you describe morality while playing rationalist taboo (http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/02/replace-symbol.html)? Can you describe morality in non-moral terms?

As an analogy: We can talk about how numbers relate to each other in pure math, but we need an understanding of how they describe the physical world before they can tell us anything about the physical world.


I describe a person's emotional state to disprove by counter example that statement that pleasure/pain is the sole basis of morality, a common assertation that I thought I'd tackle from the start.


Can I describe morality in non-moral terms? Can I describe physical things with non-physical terms? Can I describe Math without numbers? This is nonsense.


I fail to understand where the rationality taboo relates to what I said. Please point it out.

Also I suggest you try another dictionary, google makes that very easy.

[Rutskarn]

Can I describe morality in non-moral terms? Can I describe physical things with non-physical terms? Can I describe Math without numbers? This is nonsense.



No, but you can test numbers. You can look at a number, count some stuff out, add and subtract, and be 100% sure that your terms are genuine.

Not so with morality.

[Recaiden]

I describe a person's emotional state to disprove by counter example that statement that pleasure/pain is the sole basis of morality, a common assertation that I thought I'd tackle from the start.


Can I describe morality in non-moral terms? Can I describe physical things with non-physical terms? Can I describe Math without numbers? This is nonsense.


I fail to understand where the rationality taboo relates to what I said. Please point it out.

Also I suggest you try another dictionary, google makes that very easy.

If it cannot be defined in non-moral terms, it cannot be objective or absolute, as the terms are mere constructs. The definitions are very circular. The most concrete meanings of morality were conforming to accepted standards and conforming to factual truth. Neither corresponds well to an objective morality.
What do their emotions have to do with morality?

[bibliophile]

Recaiden: I have done so above, please read what I have wrote.


Rutskarn Yes, it's self referential, I'll find a more useful definition later. However I feel my main point is still valid, words mean what they mean, not whatever you decide them to.



It's 11:00 where I am, so I won't be on for much longer, I will however, be quite happy to respond to all your posts tomorrow.

[bibliophile]

If it cannot be defined in non-moral terms, it cannot be objective or absolute, as the terms are mere constructs.
What do their emotions have to do with morality?


Morality can have axioms, statements that are their own justification, ie 1+1=2.
I'll back this up later, sorry.

That's my point, one's feelings at any given moment have no relation to morality. It's not less immoral of me to kill, just because I'm pissed off.

[Mr. Mud]

When it gets down to it, next to nothing cannot be defined in terms of itself, or somehow related to itself... it's just that some terms definitions are more easily accepted by our thought process.

[averagejoe]

Yes I'm avoiding the question, I admitted as much.


For some, let's say an OCD person, that might not be that case. Do you admit that pleasure/pain is not the basis of morality?

I neither agree nor disagree. You have not presented a strong case for either side. In this case even a strongly OC person can wash off the grime; guilt stays forever. Anyways, just look at this guy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmxlC-o1q24), the ultimate OC badass.

And I fail to see the point of this. Let's say, for the sake of argument, you just tell me whatever point you are trying to make instead of being all Socratic about it?

[Rutskarn]

Rutskarn Yes, it's self referential, I'll find a more useful definition later. However I feel my main point is still valid, words mean what they mean, not whatever you decide them to.


Turns out, words do mean what we want them to. We, as a species, nation, or culture, figure out what our arbitrary utterances mean.

Usually, we agree on something, set it in stone, and it only changes after a majority start using it to mean summat else.

In the case of this word, however, no stone-set definition CAN be found. Any that are posited are highly suspect.

This leads me to conclude morality, as we understand it, is subjective.

Note: there are organizations that define morality using personal justifications (such as, and I hesitate to bring them up, religious institutions). However, these definitions are based off grounds I do not personally share, and I thus cannot accept them as universal.

[bibliophile]

I neither agree nor disagree. You have not presented a strong case for either side. In this case even a strongly OC person can wash off the grime; guilt stays forever. Anyways, just look at this guy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmxlC-o1q24), the ultimate OC badass.

And I fail to see the point of this. Let's say, for the sake of argument, you just tell me whatever point you are trying to make instead of being all Socratic about it?


I thought my point was quite clear. Pleasure/pain is not the basis of morality. You didn't say this, but the idea seems common enough that I thought I'd address at the start.

I am also trying to find out (sorry if this was unclear) what your own opinion on the matter is.

[Pyrian]

The indefinable nature of morality, in itself, states that the term "morality" is not objective.A term can be uncertain without being subjective. The result of a coin flip cannot be precisely and independently defined before it occurs, but is not subjective.


My personal definition is "a codification of intentions that are constructive of or destructive to the wellbeing of fellow creatures possessing higher cognition."Heh, by my reading, you've literally defined morality in terms of the code used to attempt to define it.

[Recaiden]

Morality can have axioms, statements that are their own justification, ie 1+1=2.
I'll back this up later, sorry.

That's my point, one's feelings at any given moment have no relation to morality. It's not less immoral of me to kill, just because I'm pissed off.

What if you believe that it is? You are then acting according to something that you believe in. You would doubtless have some justification for that. Or, since moral can mean in accordance with society, in a group who did not mind killing in such an emotional state, it could be considered a moral act according to your own definition.

They may have axioms, but they won't all work as many of math's do.

And while about anything can be described in terms of itself, being describable in terms of other things is more useful in proving objectivity.

@Pyrian: What constitutes a coin flip can be defined though. What constitutes morality not so much. Just like how any given person will act is unknown.

[averagejoe]

I thought my point was quite clear. Pleasure/pain is not the basis of morality. You didn't say this, but the idea seems common enough that I thought I'd address at the start.

I am also trying to find out (sorry if this was unclear) what your own opinion on the matter is.

Okay, but you still haven't said why you think morality is objective. You can't just disprove every contrary theory. That way lies madness.

My own opinion? I've never encountered anything that is absolutely true. Maybe this means that there is no absolute truth, and maybe it means I haven't found it yet.

[bibliophile]

Turns out, words do mean what we want them to. We, as a species, nation, or culture, figure out what our arbitrary utterances mean.

Usually, we agree on something, set it in stone, and it only changes after a majority start using it to mean summat else.

In the case of this word, however, no stone-set definition CAN be found. Any that are posited are highly suspect.

This leads me to conclude morality, as we understand it, is subjective.

Note: there are organizations that define morality using personal justifications (such as, and I hesitate to bring them up, religious institutions). However, these definitions are based off grounds I do not personally share, and I thus cannot accept them as universal.


Merely because I don't have a good dictionary close to hand means, kicking puppies is OK?

The philosophy of language is an entire separate thread, and doctoral thesis.


Atheists too can accept an objective, logical morality, even if they make mistakes while doing so. See Ayn Rand and Objectivism.

[Rutskarn]

To the first: the result is uncertain because it isn't yet observable. Morality is never observable.

To the second: more or less. Having morality is knowing what is moral, so, yeah.



Merely because I don't have a good dictionary close to hand means, kicking puppies is OK?

Oh, come on.

No, I'm saying that no dictionary has a good, universally acceptable definition, so there is no objective language to describe whether or not kicking puppies is okay.


Atheists too can accept an objective, logical morality, even if they make mistakes while doing so. See Ayn Rand and Objectivism.

Sure, yeah. I was just using religious folk as an example.

I can't accept Ayn Rand's morality as an objective definition, either.

It's like, imagine that there's a word, "brackle". No dictionary can satisfactorily describe what brackle means. Some people use it to mean one thing, some people use it to mean another, most have their own vague definition.

Can we really say that we know of an objective brackle? No. We have to infer what brackle means from context clues and our knowledge of the speaker.

EDIT: Okay, I actually suddenly think I see what was meant by "subjective versus undefined".

So, let me clarify:

Morality may or may not be objective, but definitions of it certainly aren't.

[Recaiden]

Merely because I don't have a good dictionary close to hand means, kicking puppies is OK?

Can you demonstrate why it isn't? You personally may not believe in kicking puppies, but that does not make it immoral.
It is though, in my opinion, as it is causing pain to a relatively helpless being for no good reason.

[bibliophile]

Well ladies and gents this has been a wonderful start to this thread. However due to "real life" I need to stop tonight. I'll respond tomorrow.


I would strongly suggest everyone interested in this thread check out Objectivism. Although I don't completely agree with all Mrs. Rand's conclusions, I do with her methods, namely logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)#Ethics:_rational_self-interest

[Rutskarn]

Well ladies and gents this has been a wonderful start to this thread. However due to "real life" I need to stop tonight. I'll respond tomorrow.


I would strongly suggest everyone interested in this thread check out Objectivism. Although I don't completely agree with all Mrs. Rand's conclusions, I do with her methods, namely logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)#Ethics:_rational_self-interest

I await your response, then.

[Mr. Mud]

Well ladies and gents this has been a wonderful start to this thread. However due to "real life" I need to stop tonight. I'll respond tomorrow.


I would strongly suggest everyone interested in this thread check out Objectivism. Although I don't completely agree with all Mrs. Rand's conclusions, I do with her methods, namely logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)#Ethics:_rational_self-interest

A real life at 11:30..? Or do you mean sleeping? :smallamused:.

[Devils_Advocate]

The long-term interest of a society - as contrasted with the short-term interest of its individuals - in an uncertain world.
But society doesn't actually have interests. It's not a person with a mind. We may metaphorically, anthropomorphically speak of it as if it does, but that's not the same as it actually being that way... is it?


I describe a person's emotional state to disprove by counter example that statement that pleasure/pain is the sole basis of morality, a common assertation that I thought I'd tackle from the start.
You haven't disproven that at all, though, so far as I can see.

I don't think that anyone else regards you as having disproven that, either. I don't think it's just me, here.


Can I describe morality in non-moral terms? Can I describe physical things with non-physical terms? Can I describe Math without numbers? This is nonsense.
I'm sorry to hear that you feel that way. It seems fairly essential to me. It seems obvious that if something can't even in principle be described in terms of something else, it doesn't relate to anything else; and if it relates to anything else, it can be described in terms of that relationship.

You're allowed to use extensional definitions (http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/02/extensions-inte.html) to try to clarify your meaning. You don't have to limit yourself to intensional definitions.


I fail to understand where the rationality taboo relates to what I said. Please point it out.
The point is that by "defining" a word in terms of equally unclear related words, you're not actually clarifying your meaning at all.


Also I suggest you try another dictionary, google makes that very easy.
:smallannoyed: I've looked at the definitions of several such words in several dictionaries, thank you.

The same principle applies to words like "true", "real", "actual", "exist", etc. That might be a good case of the same problem to sort of illustrate what I'm talking about.

You see, this guy, Eliezer Yudkowsky, whose writing I keep linking to? He doesn't just wave away the complicated question of what truth is (http://yudkowsky.net/rational/the-simple-truth). He addresses it (which isn't necessarily the same thing as answering it). Because it's a question that deserves more than a simple "That's nonsense."

The question of what morality is deserves a better answer than "That's nonsense" or "It's what's moral."


words mean what they mean
That's a vacuous tautology. What determines meaning? Common usage?

[Devils_Advocate]

Although I don't completely agree with all Mrs. Rand's conclusions, I do with her methods, namely logic.
As with many philosophers, Rand's methods appear to include making dubious and unsupported assertions as though they were self-evident.

This seems to be a major reoccurring theme in philosophical discourse, really. We've seen it in this very thread.

[Blue Ghost]

As with many philosophers, Rand's methods appear to include making dubious and unsupported assertions as though they were self-evident.

This seems to be a major reoccurring theme in philosophical discourse, really. We've seen it in this very thread.

It has to be. There is nothing that we know for sure. Any basis of morality, or any philosophical question, has to be founded on unprovable assumptions.
As a Christian theist, I believe that there is an absolute and objective standard for morality, but that people cannot know or prove what is morally correct in every situation. This view is supported in the many common moral values shared among all the world's cultures. However, I know that there can be arguments against this. It is founded on unprovable assumptions of the nature of God, just as many secular moral standpoints are founded on unprovable assumptions of reductionism.

[GoC]

The long-term interest of a society - as contrasted with the short-term interest of its individuals - in an uncertain world.

But by only looking at long-term interest you can justify things such as forced sterilizations of anyone with a genetic disorder or abnormally stupid or simply anyone who would increase world population too much.


Can I describe Math without numbers?
Yes.


just as many secular moral standpoints are founded on unprovable assumptions of reductionism.
I'm not seeing it. Could you elaborate here?

I think the best test of morality is to form a moral code then ask yourself 100 questions about morality and see if it matches the code.

To find the "real" moral codes do this for many people. You'll find there's probably no code that fits them all. However, many won't have any consistent moral code so discount them. All that remains are the reasonable moral positions (should be only one or two that is shared between a large group of people).

[Sir_Norbert]

Well, we've certainly had some interesting responses while I was out.

Firstly, the debate about the definition of morality. It seems to me that this debate doesn't actually have an awful lot to do with the question of whether morality is objective or not. Regardless of any hairs we may choose to split, we all know what I mean if I point at a person committing an act and say "That was moral". In essence the formula is one of approval – a fact some philosophers have been quick to seize on and say "If 'That was moral' means nothing more than 'I approve' then it can't be objective." But it does mean something more; it means a particular kind of approval, one that recognises an act as belonging to a domain beyond the everyday sphere of setting and striving for self-interested goals.

So as not to take all year to write this, I'll jump straight from there to my stab at a definition: to be moral is to consider the needs of other people as equally important to one's own.

One could retort: "Why should I consider everyone's needs equally? Why shouldn't I consider other people's needs, but still consider my own to be more important to me than the next guy's?"

I would say: "The word 'should' is an inherently relative term. It only makes sense in contexts such as 'X should do Y if he wishes to achieve Z'. Here, Z is 'to be moral'. If you wish to be moral, according to the definition I have outlined, then you should consider everyone's needs equally. If you don't wish to be moral, then you have no reason to do so."

"But what makes you think that that definition is accurate?"

"Simply observing the ways people use the word in naturally occuring speech acts, the same way as I learn the definition of most other words."

If I felt like being expansive, I might go on to say something like: "It's true that some people use the word 'right' (in its moral sense) as though it meant something more grandiose, what one should do in an absolute sense without some particular Z. But then there really does arise the problem of justifying this claim – what is there that one can point to in the world that makes some acts right and others not? I would say that because having a code of morality is so important to a society, societies have taken the basic principle and some of its simpler consequences and turned this into the myth of there being some sort of Grand Code of Conduct, like Moses' stone tablets, existing in some sort of ethereal realm. I would say that people who take this myth literally are not using the words 'right', 'moral' and so on to mean something different from what they really mean, but rather, are just telling a different story about why they mean what they do – in the same way that two men can both use the name 'Dr Watson' to refer to Sherlock Holmes's friend even if one man believes Holmes and Watson were real while the other believes they are fictional."

(I'd also like to stave off one other possible criticism of my definition and state that I'm not claiming it's an absolute. I don't think being moral requires consciously holding in your mind at all times the equal importance of other people's needs. Instead of the relevant predicate being "to be moral", it should really be "to be more moral" – it's a continuous variable. We are more moral the more things we do that come closer to the ideal of considering other people's needs in everything we do.)

(One final endnote. I'd like to respond to what GoC said about forced sterilisation even though that's a matter of the consequences of the principle of morality, and takes us away from discussing the principle itself. It seems to happen very often in discussion of these consequences that what one man thinks so repugnant that it refutes his opponent's argument, the other sees as a plain and obvious truth. I wouldn't go that far in this case, but I do think the planet is overpopulated, and that that fact changes some of the most fundamental secondary principles in ways that will be hard for us to come to terms with. I don't claim to know the right answers myself; what was it Dumbledore said in Prisoner of Azkaban? Something like, "The consequences of our actions are so diverse that predicting the future is a very complicated matter indeed.")

[GoC]

Oh I wouldn't find it repugnant. But I thought Rutskarn would so I used it as an objection. Should he find it non-repugnant I would then move on to more extreme examples until either I run out or he finds one he will not admit to and thus decides his stated moral system is too simplistic.

Is anyone fully moral? Considering others needs exactly equally? How much weight should be given to future needs? Future people?

[DamnedIrishman]

I am of the opinion that morality is absolute and objective.

If I can justifiably disagree with you on any point of morality, then it cannot be objective.

You use the example of murder=bad. However, the principle murder=bad is based on the premise that death=bad. If I believe that death=good (as have numerous cultures), then I will also believe that murder=good.

Another example. I believe that having sex with a person who does not consent, even in marriage = bad. However, some cultures traditionally believe that a woman does not have a choice in the matter if she is married to me. Therefore, non-consensual sex within marriage = morally neutral.

Therefore, morality must be subjective.

[Rutskarn]

Oh I wouldn't find it repugnant. But I thought Rutskarn would so I used it as an objection. Should he find it non-repugnant I would then move on to more extreme examples until either I run out or he finds one he will not admit to and thus decides his stated moral system is too simplistic.


I can't seem to find the post you're referring to. Did you address me, specifically? Am I missing something?

[DamnedIrishman]

Instead of actually aswering your question, I shall approach it from the other direction.


For an empirical truth, the burden of proof lies with the proposer of the hypothesis. Therefore, no amount of "approaching it from the other direction" will ever justify your hypothesis that morality is objective and absolute.

[KnightDisciple]

If I can justifiably disagree with you on any point of morality, then it cannot be objective.

You use the example of murder=bad. However, the principle murder=bad is based on the premise that death=bad. If I believe that death=good (as have numerous cultures), then I will also believe that murder=good.

Another example. I believe that having sex with a person who does not consent, even in marriage = bad. However, some cultures traditionally believe that a woman does not have a choice in the matter if she is married to me. Therefore, non-consensual sex within marriage = morally neutral.

Therefore, morality must be subjective.

....Alternatively, one of you is right, and the other is wrong. Back to objective morality.:smallwink:

[DamnedIrishman]

....Alternatively, one of you is right, and the other is wrong. Back to objective morality.:smallwink:

To play advocatus diaboli, I will use my first example: The Morality of Murder.

Murder=bad if death=bad.
Murder=good if death=good.

He believes that death=bad.
I believe that death=good.

In a world that only includes he and I, we are equally matched. His belief is based on his opinion of death and mine is based on my opinion of death. Death is an absolute factor, but how we perceive it is subjective.

For an absolute and objective morality, we need a source of "right" and "wrong" - we need God, basically. As an atheist, I do not include supernatural beliefs into moral arguments, and therefore for me morality is subjective.

Without God, absolute, objective morality would require every sentient being agreeing with one another. Which they don't.

[hamishspence]

Not necessarily- what you are describing is basically "Its only moral if majority of people believe it is moral" Which is not necessarily true- a majority can be wrong.

Indeed, say this death=good culture was the only one in the world- and everyone in the world believed is moral tenets- Still wouldn't prove that its moral tenets are correct.

However, one should remember to apply this to our own time- we may in fact be wrong now about some things, and a future culture may believe us to be as "barbaric" morally as some of us claim our ancesters were.

[DamnedIrishman]

Not necessarily- what you are describing is basically "Its only moral if majority of people believe it is moral" Which is not necessarily true- a majority can be wrong.

Not quite, though I can see how you could read that. What I am trying to say is "Each person defines their own personal moral code as morality is subjective." I am arguing that there isn't absolute and objective morality.

For a majority to be "wrong" one needs an external scale to measure them against. There is no 'natural' scale of morality - the universe doesn't have The Rules written down somewhere for us to read. Therefore, morality must be sourced from some kind of being.

My previous statement argued that for an absolute and objective morality, one requires God. If, for the sake of argument, we state that there IS a God, then there is an absolute and objective morality because God Says So (although one might argue that this is purely God's opinion and therefore morality is still subjective).

I, as previously stated, am an atheist. Therefore I reject this argument. We are again left with the problem of having no external scale which would validify an absolute, objective morality.

The only possibility that I can see would be some form of 'natural human moral code' - that is, if everyone when born had a basically identical moral code prior to acculturalisation. Which, I suppose, would mean everyone agreeing with each other. However, there is no evidence of this.

For these reasons, one must assume that morality is neither absolute or objective.

[hamishspence]

You could argue just as easily that the laws of physics aren't absolute and objective- since all the rules aren't written down anywhere. None-the-less, we can deduce the rules, bit by bit, over time, even if we never quite reach perfect understanding.

Morality is a bit trickier, but some argue that all "correct" morality is a reflection of our evolutionary origins. Iffy claim, but an interesting one- Heinlen and Rand both made claims approximating this.

(Richard Dawkins argued that even if morals aren't necessarily derived from reason- they should be defensible by reason)

[GoC]

I can't seem to find the post you're referring to. Did you address me, specifically? Am I missing something?

Sorry, it was Pyrian.


Another example. I believe that having sex with a person who does not consent, even in marriage = bad. However, some cultures traditionally believe that a woman does not have a choice in the matter if she is married to me. Therefore, non-consensual sex within marriage = morally neutral.
More often it was that marriage was considered a priori consent.


Still wouldn't prove that its moral tenets are correct.
The crux of the issue. What does it mean for moral tenets to be "correct"?

[DamnedIrishman]

You could argue just as easily that the laws of physics aren't absolute and objective- since all the rules aren't written down anywhere. None-the-less, we can deduce the rules, bit by bit, over time, even if we never quite reach perfect understanding.


Physics and morality are completely unrelated. A rock will be pulled towards a gravity source, regardless of mankind's views on the matter. Morality is an invention of mankind, not a natural law or physical phenomena. It doesn't even 'exist' - it is a assortment of thoughts and ideas, not a mass, or a force or an energy.


Morality is a bit trickier, but some argue that all "correct" morality is a reflection of our evolutionary origins. Iffy claim, but an interesting one- Heinlen and Rand both made claims approximating this.

I did previously state:


The only possibility that I can see would be some form of 'natural human moral code' - that is, if everyone when born had a basically identical moral code prior to acculturalisation.

But, hah! A morality based purely on evolutionary drives cannot be an objective or absolute morality. Evolutionary impulses are for the individual - to preserve itself and to reproduce. Therefore, this morality is not objective as it is based on the individual. Furthermore, it is not absolute, because each individual has a seperate focus on themself.


(Richard Dawkins argued that even if morals aren't necessarily derived from reason- they should be defensible by reason)

Reason is subjective too.

[KnightDisciple]

I suppose the "problem" here, Irishman, is that I do believe in God. It's kind of an impasse, at that point. :smalltongue:

[GoC]

I suppose the "problem" here, Irishman, is that I do believe in God. It's kind of an impasse, at that point. :smalltongue:

We could philosophically debate the existance of god as long as we avoid real world religion.:smallbiggrin:

Interesting fact: You can debate the existance of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god without involving real world religions.

[DamnedIrishman]

I suppose the "problem" here, Irishman, is that I do believe in God. It's kind of an impasse, at that point. :smalltongue:

That's not an impasse, really. We just add an "if" to the function.

If god=not real, morality = subjective.
If god=real, morality = objective and absolute*.




(*unless you go down the whole "That's Just God's Opinion And Mine Is Just As Valid route)

QUESTION ANSWERED.

[KnightDisciple]

That's not an impasse, really. We just add an "if" to the function.

If god=not real, morality = subjective.
If god=real, morality = objective and absolute*.




(*unless you go down the whole "That's Just God's Opinion And Mine Is Just As Valid route)

QUESTION ANSWERED.

Well, yes, I suppose so. :smallsigh:

[DamnedIrishman]

Interesting fact: You can debate the existance of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god without involving real world religions.

Omnipotence is impossible, as it would create paradox - ie, the whole "Rock-Even-He-Could-Not-Lift" argument.

Omniscience is impossible if people have free will (whether we have it or not is an entirely different argument).

Omnibenevolence... I was raised a Catholic, so I never believed that God was omnibenevolent in the first place.

If God isn't omnipotent and omniscient (which I believe he cannot be), then he's just a powerful and clever being. In this case, I would not class him as godlike, in the same way that I would not call anything God just because it's stronger and cleverer than I am.

Therefore to me, God=NotGod. Paradox again, so I don't believe in it.

[hamishspence]

one could argue that morality is not dependant on Intelligence As We Know It- wild animals frequently have behaviour which could be described as "cheating" as well as "the punishment of cheats"

Anthropomorphism, maybe. Or maybe we are a little arrogant in assuming our morality is different and animals is "instinct and conditioned behaviour"

Looked at this way, morality is a universal emergent phenomenon, dependant on formation social groups, but not necessarily exceptionally high intelligence? Interesting idea.

[averagejoe]

one could argue that morality is not dependant on Intelligence As We Know It- wild animals frequently have behaviour which could be described as "cheating" as well as "the punishment of cheats"

Anthropomorphism, maybe. Or maybe we are a little arrogant in assuming our morality is different and animals is "instinct and conditioned behaviour"

Could you put some examples? Not that I don't believe you, I just find this sort of thing fascinating.

[hamishspence]

Vampire bats- donating blood and expecting it repaid- have a good memory and punish cheaters. Chimps giving false alarm calls to distract fellow chimps from food, etc.

Apparently this sort of thing becomes unstable if done more than 10% of the time.

[DamnedIrishman]

Vampire bats- donating blood and expecting it repaid- have a good memory and punish cheaters. Chimps giving false alarm calls to distract fellow chimps from food, etc.

Apparently this sort of thing becomes unstable if done more than 10% of the time.

How are these indicative of a form of natural morality?

[hamishspence]

More that what we call morality begins with punishing debtors, and grows from there. Is the general idea, anyway. In this case, its more natural immorality that one is seeing "welching on a debt"

Desmond Morris books, David Attenborough TV shows, various authors on animal behaviour, have examples.

Obviously this is an extreme oversimplification, but does it make sense to place reciprocal altruism and "tit for tat" as the very beginning principles?

Machiavelli in The Discourses argued that human morality began when people saw someone injuring their benefactor, got angry at this ingratitude, and began to put together the first very crude principles- very similar theory.

[GoC]

Also, the bats who aren't cheating are being "moral" just like most humans are.


Omnipotence is impossible, as it would create paradox - ie, the whole "Rock-Even-He-Could-Not-Lift" argument.
Physical omnipotence is possible (being able to create, destroy and move matter and change the constants and equations of the universe) without contradictions.


Omniscience is impossible if people have free will (whether we have it or not is an entirely different argument).
Define free will and then tell me why it's impossible for people to have some if an omniscient being exists.

[DamnedIrishman]

More that what we call morality begins with punishing debtors, and grows from there. Is the general idea, anyway. In this case, its more natural immorality that one is seeing "welching on a debt"

But if we simply view these animals as another culture, then the same arguments regarding evolutionary morality apply to them as do to humans:


A morality based purely on evolutionary drives cannot be an objective or absolute morality. Evolutionary impulses are for the individual - to preserve itself and to reproduce. Therefore, this morality is not objective as it is based on the individual. Furthermore, it is not absolute, because each individual has a seperate focus on themself.

I would argue that these examples indicate social contracts rather than moral systems.

- - - - - - - - -


Physical omnipotence is possible (being able to create, destroy and move matter and change the constants and equations of the universe) without contradictions.

Surely changing a constant is a paradox?


Define free will and then tell me why it's impossible for people to have some if an omniscient being exists.

Free will, for the sake of this argument, being the ability to choose one's actions for oneself.

Omniscience being defined, again for sake of argument, as knowing all that can be known.

If God knows everything, he knows what I will do. If I have free will, there is an element of chance, and therefore it is impossible to definitely know what I will do.
If God does not know what I will do, but understands me so well he can accurately predict what I will do 100% of the time, he is not actually omniscient, merely very intelligent.
If God does know what I will do, then I only have the illusion of free will, as the chance factor of his being incorrect has been removed.

[hamishspence]

and isn't that where older moral systems begin "thou shalt not do naughty things to members of your in-group" (non-members are fair game)?

[GoC]

I would argue that these examples indicate social contracts rather than moral systems.

Most humans solely use social contracts. Very few (none?) have and excusively use a moral system that isn't equivalent to a social contract system. At least from what I've seen.

[DamnedIrishman]

Most humans solely use social contracts. Very few (none?) have and excusively use a moral system that isn't equivalent to a social contract system. At least from what I've seen.

I have answered your questions about omnipotence and omniscience on the previous page now.

Anyway. I direct you to stage six of Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development). Here is the alternative to social contracts. However, the argument is whether morality is absolute and objective. A social contract, being an agreement made between various individuals and not an arbitrary external code, is by nature subjective.


- - - - - - -


and isn't that where older moral systems begin "thou shalt not do naughty things to members of your in-group" (non-members are fair game)?

But if two groups exist, then their moral codes oppose each other. Morality is therefore not objective and absolute.

[GoC]

Surely changing a constant is a paradox?
Changing a constant is, but changing a "constant" is not. The laws of physics have constant of the latter type.


If God does not know what I will do, but understands me so well he can accurately predict what I will do 100% of the time,
If he can accurately predict what you will do 100% of the time then he does know what you will do (by definition). On the other hand if it's 99.999999%...

However, I concede the argument.

Everyone I know (second hand information is unreliable in this matter) uses social contract systems.

Also, all but 6 are merely subsets of 2.

[DamnedIrishman]

Changing a constant is, but changing a "constant" is not. The laws of physics have constant of the latter type.


If he can accurately predict what you will do 100% of the time then he does know what you will do (by definition). On the other hand if it's 99.999999%...

However, I concede the argument.

Everyone I know (second hand information is unreliable in this matter) uses social contract systems.

Also, all but 6 are merely subsets of 2.

I am no physicist, nor am I a mathematician, so I will concede your points.

I personally do not identify with social contracts. What is right and wrong is what I decide it is, regardless of what anyone else thinks. For example, I personally believe that food production should be socially owned, and that earning more than one needs to comfortably support themselves and their dependant family is immoral. These two beliefs are counter to the common social contract in a capitalist society. However, who is right or wrong? Majority or minority? I could argue that mine is the more benevolent position, as it is based on the idea that the hungry should be fed, regardless of any other factor.

However, social contracts are not moral codes, and sometimes social contracts can run counter to moral codes - many people will break their personal moral codes because they're "just following orders". My sources for this being Milgram's infamous obedience experiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment) and the Nuremberg Trials.

[averagejoe]

Surely changing a constant is a paradox?

Only in the sense that constant has different meanings, and one of these meanings makes the statement a paradox.

He means do something like make it so that gravity accelerates objects more or less quickly, or something like that. Physical constants are constants in the mathematical sense, which is to say they're not variables. (Variables being placeholders where conceivably any number could be placed; x.) They're constants because when you use certain equations those numbers stay the same even if the other numbers-such as distance, acceleration, or amount of charge-might change then the constants say the same. However, imagining a universe with different constants is perfectly conceivable.

[GoC]

I personally do not identify with social contracts. What is right and wrong is what I decide it is, regardless of what anyone else thinks. For example, I personally believe that food production should be socially owned, and that earning more than one needs to comfortably support themselves and their dependant family is immoral. These two beliefs are counter to the common social contract in a capitalist society. However, who is right or wrong? Majority or minority? I could argue that mine is the more benevolent position, as it is based on the idea that the hungry should be fed, regardless of any other factor.
Most people say they are acting using a moral code but it rarely fits the data (their actions) while my current theory (everyone is out for themselves: they care about their genes and have a bit of empathy and stubbornness added on top) pretty much always does. However there is a slight problem as I've recently realized the "everyone out for themselves" theory fits a huge range of situations. It's not useless but it could do with improvement.

And is Comfort relative?:smallamused:

[hamishspence]

pretty much- one man's comforting experience is another's decidedly distressing one :smallamused:

[DamnedIrishman]

Only in the sense that constant has different meanings, and one of these meanings makes the statement a paradox.

He means do something like make it so that gravity accelerates objects more or less quickly, or something like that. Physical constants are constants in the mathematical sense, which is to say they're not variables. (Variables being placeholders where conceivably any number could be placed; x.) They're constants because when you use certain equations those numbers stay the same even if the other numbers-such as distance, acceleration, or amount of charge-might change then the constants say the same. However, imagining a universe with different constants is perfectly conceivable.

Nicely explained, I now understand. But, whatever their value, the constants must exist, yes?


Physical omnipotence is possible (being able to create, destroy and move matter and change the constants and equations of the universe) without contradictions.

But what about creating matter from nothing? My hazy understanding of physics tells me you can hypothetically convert matter into energy or antimatter, but turning something into absolutely nothing is impossible, as is turning absolutely nothing into something (something defined as any state of matter or energy).

- - - - -


Most people say they are acting using a moral code but it rarely fits the data (their actions) while my current theory (everyone is out for themselves: they care about their genes and have a bit of empathy and stubbornness added on top) pretty much always does. However there is a slight problem as I've recently realized the "everyone out for themselves" theory fits a huge range of situations. It's not useless but it could do with improvement.

And is Comfort relative?

Comfort is relative in general, although with regards to the statement it is what I believe to be a comfortable living standard. After all, it's my moral principle isn't it?

I would agree with you, that people often practice differently to how they preach, to borrow a phrase. Please do elaborate further on what your problems are with the selfish self-interest theory.

[hamishspence]

I'm not sure about the whole "zero point energy" or "Casimir field" thing- tapping into the energy created at the quantum level by particles popping in and out of existence. Maybe, if a zero-point machine was big enough and switched on long enough, it would drain the quantum vacuum?

[DamnedIrishman]

I'm not sure about the whole "zero point energy" or "Casimir field" thing- tapping into the energy created at the quantum level by particles popping in and out of existence. Maybe, if a zero-point machine was big enough and switched on long enough, it would drain the quantum vacuum?

Straight over my head.

[GoC]

Nicely explained, I now understand. But, whatever their value, the constants must exist, yes?
Nope. Remove the force of gravity and the gravitational constant no longer exists.


But what about creating matter from nothing? My hazy understanding of physics tells me you can hypothetically convert matter into energy or antimatter, but turning something into absolutely nothing is impossible, as is turning absolutely nothing into something (something defined as any state of matter or energy).
Impossible as in "it's never been observed in the whole history of mankind with all our telescopes and microscopes and other instruments. Also, if matter is creatable then most of our theories about the universe are now wrong and so far they've tested out perfectly."
Nothing in life is certain, we could always be wrong. But of course it's more probable that you are secretly a super-intelligent rabbit who crawled out of a saturday-morning cartoon.:smalltongue:


Please do elaborate further on what your problems are with the selfish self-interest theory.
Nothing more to it. It's simply too expansive. A theory that explains anything is useless as it has little in the way of predictive power. The theory is not useless because it can be disproven however it needs refinement.

hamishspence: You've been watching too much sci-fi.:smalltongue:

[DamnedIrishman]

Nothing in life is certain, we could always be wrong.

And therefore morality is neither absolute or objective. Taa-daa!

[hamishspence]

the idea is that, right down at the smallest possible scales, the universe is constantly creating particles and negative particles which pop into existence, then disappear. The right kind of machine can tap into this energy.

[GoC]

The right kind of machine can tap into this energy.

And the basis for this bold claim is...?

Post above edited btw.

[DamnedIrishman]

the idea is that, right down at the smallest possible scales, the universe is constantly creating particles and negative particles which pop into existence, then disappear. The right kind of machine can tap into this energy.

So with regards to the whole god-argument, God could be omnipotent but with the appropriate technology, so could we. Which, to my mind, is not a Godly attribute.

God=NotGod

Admittedly, my argument does come down largely to semantics. How do you define God? What differentiates a "God" from a "Super-powerful, incredibly intelligent being"? I refuse to worship anything on the basis that it's bigger and smarter than me. If I was prepared to worship something on that basis, then where do I make the cut-off point between what's Godlike and what's just really powerful and clever?

- - - - - -


Nothing more to it. It's simply too expansive. A theory that explains anything is useless as it has little in the way of predictive power. The theory is not useless because it can be disproven however it needs refinement.

You can use such a theory to predict what someone will do. It merely requires the variables of:
a) What they want
b) What they are capable of
c) What they predict to be the outcome of taking what they want

[hamishspence]

See wikipedia for Casimir efect and zero point energy. However, in practice one couldn't violate conservation of energy with this, and it is improbable that zero-point energy machines will be made in the near future.

[GoC]

See wikipedia for Casimir efect and zero point energy. However, in practice one couldn't violate conservation of energy with this, and it is improbable that zero-point energy machines will be made in the near future.

I repeat my question.

[hamishspence]

Plates really close together, tapping into the Casimir effect, on an enormous scale, is the crudest way.

[Mr. Mud]

See wikipedia for Casimir efect and zero point energy. However, in practice one couldn't violate conservation of energy with this, and it is improbable that zero-point energy machines will be made in the near future.

Are you suggestion that the Laws of Thermodynamics are flawed? Or that in the far future they'll become flawed because of the Casimir effect?

[GoC]

Plates really close together, tapping into the Casimir effect, on an enormous scale, is the crudest way.

You will notice that a force is experienced. You don't get energy from a force. You get energy from force times dist.:smallbiggrin:

[DamnedIrishman]

I was having such a lovely time and then you all went Physics on me...

[hamishspence]

True- not sure how extracting energy from the force would be done.

[GoC]

I was having such a lovely time and then you all went Physics on me...
Aww... let's turn the topic back to morality then.:smallwink:
Perhaps you could tell me how to find out A, B and C?


True- not sure how extracting energy from the force would be done.

It won't be done.:smalltongue:

hamishpence, you're using "popular physics"... not a good sign.

[bluewind95]

I'm no philosopher nor am I really good at defending my point of view, but this is an interesting topic and I thought I might as well share my thoughts.

I don't think morality is fully objective nor is it fully subjective. It's kind of like the nature VS nurture debate. I think morality is a lot like that too. It has an objective basis which I could possibly summarize as "behaviour that allows us, the group, the species, to continue existing" and it's objective because it's rooted into our very biological need to survive and we're a social species. But what actually constitutes the code, the specifics, that is not objective at all. If it were objective, it would have been the same from the time humans began to exist to now. Instead, it's been a dynamic thing. I mean, think about a few years back when at least some big cultures thought it was quite okay to settle disputes to the death. Some cultures do so now. And then what about things like murder? Many, many cultures saw it as perfectly okay to kill their competitors. In their moral code, it was perfectly okay and they still didn't violate the basics because said destruction of competitors allowed them, the group, the species, to continue living. In the current times, we are not so dependent for survival on the direct physical competition for resources (that's why we have trade and such agreements). Therefore we have changed our moral codes to reflect this and no longer is it acceptable to go and destroy the neighbors because they're different and they have resources we want. Who knows how the future will be. Maybe things that we see as perfectly moral now will have no place in the subjective part of the code and we will be seen as barbarians by our descendants. Maybe it will be the other way around. However, no matter how much the specifics change, the very basics, the "behaviour that allows us as a group, as a species, to survive" won't be changed.

[hamishspence]

point- the phenomenon is real, but making use of it is a whole different thing.

And the grey area between science, sci-fi, and "future science" is where a lot of interesting ideas come.

as a BSc physics graduate, I know a bit about science, but not as much as I'd like. Having read about Casimir effect at university, I forgot that getting energy out of it is much harder (impossible?) than might seem apparent.

[GoC]

And the grey area between science, sci-fi, and "future science" is where a lot of interesting ideas come.
I would say that there is no gray area between the three. Sci-fi is based on making interesting reading. "Future science" is just speculation. Science is teh hard stuff: Observation and experiment.


as a BSc physics graduate, I know a bit about science, but not as much as I'd like. Having read about Casimir effect at university, I forgot that getting energy out of it is much harder (impossible?) than might seem apparent.
Yeah.

[hamishspence]

so- morality. And things that cultures tend to agree on. What things do they tend to be?

[GoC]

Ingroup=good
Outgroup=irrelevant

[hamishspence]

less so these days, with concepts like international law, and ideas that certain rules should be universal.

Though that could be more progression toward the concept of all of humanity as an in-group. And occasionally in sci-fi, all of life.

[GoC]

Greater globalization and the resulting stigma towards indifference to the suffering in other countires is the cause. But most still view those in other countries as irrelevant. Hence the new TV rather than the new vaccine for Africa.

[averagejoe]

Nicely explained, I now understand. But, whatever their value, the constants must exist, yes?

That's kind of an awkward question. I mean, the constants don't "exist" except for in the sense that scientists find them useful to put certain phenomena into a mathematical framework. With a constant like pi it gets hard to imagine a universe without them-circles would have to be somehow shaped differently but still maintain all of their properties-but one could imagine a universe without gravity, though that universe wouldn't really have life as we know it. Heck, it might even be the case that gravity as we think of it is completely wrong; it's extremely unlikely, but science means never being 100% on any "fact." So the gravitational constant might not "exist" at all except for as a construct of a simplistic understanding of gravity.


the idea is that, right down at the smallest possible scales, the universe is constantly creating particles and negative particles which pop into existence, then disappear. The right kind of machine can tap into this energy.

What is in my mind an important point: this has never been observed. The spontaneous creation/destruction of electron positron pairs explains a lot of phenomenon very nicely, and a mathematical model using this has been able to correct many inaccuracies in quantum theory, but this has never actually been seen. Also note that the conservation laws need still apply.

Is it weird that we started to talk so much science in this thread, which was created specifically to stop from derailing the science thread?

[hamishspence]

When Science and Morality meet, eh?

(there are the "morality as explained by evolutionary science" theories- not sure how good they are though)

[GoC]

With a constant like pi it gets hard to imagine a universe without them-circles would have to be somehow shaped differently
Note: Pi is a mathematical constant and as such is unchangable. On the other hand the shape you can draw on the ground with the highest area to circumferance ratio may not have circumference/diameter=3.141...

EDIT: Is this derailment ironic?:smallbiggrin:

[averagejoe]

Note: Pi is a mathematical constant and as such is unchangable. On the other hand the shape you can draw on the group with the highest area to circumferance ratio may not have circumference/diameter=3.141...

Yes. I was trying to be clear and simplistic. I didn't mean the number we call pi, but "pi" in the sense of whatever would be the circumference/diameter of whatever shape has the highest area to circumference ratio in this hypothetical universe.

[bibliophile]

Incredible. I form a thread to stop derailing a thread about science and...


It would seem that no-one has taken my suggestion and looked up Mrs. Rand's ideas. Her ideas are essentially this:

1)There exists axioms, statments that are their own justification.

2)Using logic, morality can be deduced from these axioms.

I disagree with her conclusions, but not her methods. I think she makes flaws in reasoning. I suggest you read her ideas online because I don't think I can explain them clearly.


Ok, now to respond to some thoughts that have been posted.

Morality from Evolution This argument says that what helps our group survive, or what is in our instincts, is moral. A corollary to this is the admission that Hitler was a moral person, an assertions few would make. It also fails to answer the question of why survival is moral.


Morality from consensus The majority say x is moral, and y is immoral, ergo this is so. This idea also makes Hitler moral, and Gandhi, and Rev. King immoral. Do you who say morality comes from consensus agree with this? If not, why?

[GoC]

Her ideas are essentially this:

1)There exists axioms, statments that are their own justification.

2)Using logic, morality can be deduced from these axioms.
Aren't these obvious?:smallconfused:


Morality from Evolution This argument says that what helps our group survive, or what is in our instincts, is moral. A corollary to this is the admission that Hitler was a moral person, an assertions few would make. It also fails to answer the question of why survival is moral.
Subjective morality then (differing from group to group).


Morality from consensus The majority say x is moral, and y is immoral, ergo this is so. This idea also makes Hitler moral, and Gandhi, and Rev. King immoral. Do you who say morality comes from consensus agree with this? If not, why?
Subjective as well. And in this case you need to define what majority you are talking about. Most of the human species thinks that Hilter was immoral and that Gandhi was moral.
This morality also changes with time.

[DamnedIrishman]

Incredible. I form a thread to stop derailing a thread about science and...


It would seem that no-one has taken my suggestion and looked up Mrs. Rand's ideas. Her ideas are essentially this:


There's a reason for that. Your original post stated:


In the recent Science thread, GoC, myself, and others somewhat derailed the thread with philisophical discussions. In the interest of not completely highjacking that thread I am making this one.


I am of the opinion that morality is absolute and objective.

Therefore, we've been recently debating whether morality is or is not absolute and objective.

Why hasn't anyone bothered with Ann Rand? Simple. I've recently played through Portal for the first time. If there's one thing that game teaches you, it's that there's usually a simpler solution that what you're trying. For this reason, nobody is worried about Ann Rand. Instead, page two more or less answers the original question.
The conclusion, more or less, was:



If god=not real, morality = subjective.
If god=real, morality = objective and absolute*.

As GoC has stated, the two arguments which you have now provided arose as proofs of the subjectivity of morality. Therefore, the nature and basis of morality has been (in a Godless universe) settled on as, more or less, people and what they decide morality is.

[bibliophile]

Aren't these obvious?:smallconfused:


Subjective morality then (differing from group to group).


Subjective as well. And in this case you need to define what majority you are talking about. Most of the human species thinks that Hilter was immoral and that Gandhi was moral.
This morality also changes with time.


If those statements are obvious, why are we having this discussion?

Obviously the listed example are of subjective morality. I'm simply clarifying them, and asking if those who accept those ideas (do you?), accept their necessary collieries.

[averagejoe]

Morality from Evolution This argument says that what helps our group survive, or what is in our instincts, is moral. A corollary to this is the admission that Hitler was a moral person, an assertions few would make. It also fails to answer the question of why survival is moral.


Morality from consensus The majority say x is moral, and y is immoral, ergo this is so. This idea also makes Hitler moral, and Gandhi, and Rev. King immoral. Do you who say morality comes from consensus agree with this? If not, why?

While I can appreciate shocking and controversial comments as much as the next guy, asserting that Hitler is moral and Gandhi and King are immoral is... stupid, and any moral systems that cast them in that light are necessarily flawed. (By King, Gandhi, and Hitler, by the way, I assume we're talking about the idealized versions of those people who are defined as most people think of them, by their greatest accomplishments.) In fact, morality from consensus is stupid, and often immoral.

Also, I would argue that Hitler did not ensure his own or his group's survival. In fact, it's rather taboo to be a Nazi these days, his regime fell, and he committed suicide rather than be captured and humiliated.

You also don't give any reason why these things should be moral; you just state them and the rest seems to be assumed. This overwhelmingly seems to be your problem; you rarely have backed things up.

[bibliophile]

There's a reason for that. Your original post stated:



Therefore, we've been recently debating whether morality is or is not absolute and objective.

Why hasn't anyone bothered with Ann Rand? Simple. I've recently played through Portal for the first time. If there's one thing that game teaches you, it's that there's usually a simpler solution that what you're trying. For this reason, nobody is worried about Ann Rand. Instead, page two more or less answers the original question.
The conclusion, more or less, was:



As GoC has stated, the two arguments which you have now provided arose as proofs of the subjectivity of morality. Therefore, the nature and basis of morality has been (in a Godless universe) settled on as, more or less, people and what they decide morality is.


The reason I suggest Ayn Rand (that's how here first name is spelled) be looked at was because she was an atheist philosopher who belived in an objective morality, based on axioms and logic. I, and she, argue that the statement:

If god=not real, morality = subjective.

is in correct.

[DamnedIrishman]

If those statements are obvious, why are we having this discussion?

Obviously the listed example are of subjective morality. I'm simply clarifying them, and asking if those who accept those ideas (do you?), accept their necessary collieries.

They are obvious to us because we've already debated them, and those are the conclusions we came to. Read page two again.

The whole thing about subjective morality though, is that we don't have to accept them. Everyone is in their own mind moral. However, in our minds they are only moral if they agree with what we think of as 'moral'.

[GoC]

If those statements are obvious, why are we having this discussion?
I don't follow.

[DamnedIrishman]

If god=not real, morality = subjective.

is incorrect.

If you would care to argue that point in relation to the various arguments that led us to that conclusion (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112142&page=2), I will happily debate it with you.

[bibliophile]

asserting that Hitler is moral and Gandhi and King are immoral is... stupid, and any moral systems that cast them in that light are necessarily flawed.


Since this is always immoral, is it not possible for morality to be objective?

[bibliophile]

If you would care to argue that point in relation to the various arguments that led us to that conclusion (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112142&page=2), I will happily debate it with you.


I am arguing that every argument brought up on page 2 arguing for the idea subjective morality is incorrect. Could you perhaps specify something specific you'd like me to address?

Have you read my argument for the truth of objective morality? What part of it do you think is flawed?

[averagejoe]

Since this is always immoral, is it not possible for morality to be objective?

Well, it's possible, I never denied that. I don't think it's true. I'm not saying they're objectively moral, I'm just saying that I will most likely have to regard any moral system to cast them as immoral as wrong and possibly dangerous.

[DamnedIrishman]

Could you perhaps specify something specific you'd like me to address?

My pleasure:


I am of the opinion that morality is absolute and objective.

If I can justifiably disagree with you on any point of morality, then it cannot be objective.

You use the example of murder=bad. However, the principle murder=bad is based on the premise that death=bad. If I believe that death=good (as have numerous cultures), then I will also believe that murder=good.

Another example. I believe that having sex with a person who does not consent, even in marriage = bad. However, some cultures traditionally believe that a woman does not have a choice in the matter if she is married to me. Therefore, non-consensual sex within marriage = morally neutral.

Therefore, morality must be subjective.


....Alternatively, one of you is right, and the other is wrong. Back to objective morality.

To play advocatus diaboli, I will use my first example: The Morality of Murder.

Murder=bad if death=bad.
Murder=good if death=good.

He believes that death=bad.
I believe that death=good.

In a world that only includes he and I, we are equally matched. His belief is based on his opinion of death and mine is based on my opinion of death. Death is an absolute factor, but how we perceive it is subjective.

For an absolute and objective morality, we need a source of "right" and "wrong" - we need God, basically. As an atheist, I do not include supernatural beliefs into moral arguments, and therefore for me morality is subjective.

Without God, absolute, objective morality would require every sentient being agreeing with one another. Which they don't.


Not necessarily- what you are describing is basically "Its only moral if majority of people believe it is moral" Which is not necessarily true- a majority can be wrong.

Not quite, though I can see how you could read that. What I am trying to say is "Each person defines their own personal moral code as morality is subjective." I am arguing that there isn't absolute and objective morality.

For a majority to be "wrong" one needs an external scale to measure them against. There is no 'natural' scale of morality - the universe doesn't have The Rules written down somewhere for us to read. Therefore, morality must be sourced from some kind of being.

My previous statement argued that for an absolute and objective morality, one requires God. If, for the sake of argument, we state that there IS a God, then there is an absolute and objective morality because God Says So (although one might argue that this is purely God's opinion and therefore morality is still subjective).

I, as previously stated, am an atheist. Therefore I reject this argument. We are again left with the problem of having no external scale which would validify an absolute, objective morality.

The only possibility that I can see would be some form of 'natural human moral code' - that is, if everyone when born had a basically identical moral code prior to acculturalisation. Which, I suppose, would mean everyone agreeing with each other. However, there is no evidence of this.

For these reasons, one must assume that morality is neither absolute or objective.


You could argue just as easily that the laws of physics aren't absolute and objective- since all the rules aren't written down anywhere. None-the-less, we can deduce the rules, bit by bit, over time, even if we never quite reach perfect understanding.

Physics and morality are completely unrelated. A rock will be pulled towards a gravity source, regardless of mankind's views on the matter. Morality is an invention of mankind, not a natural law or physical phenomena. It doesn't even 'exist' - it is a assortment of thoughts and ideas, not a mass, or a force or an energy.


Morality is a bit trickier, but some argue that all "correct" morality is a reflection of our evolutionary origins. Iffy claim, but an interesting one- Heinlen and Rand both made claims approximating this.

I did previously state:

The only possibility that I can see would be some form of 'natural human moral code' - that is, if everyone when born had a basically identical moral code prior to acculturalisation.

But, hah! A morality based purely on evolutionary drives cannot be an objective or absolute morality. Evolutionary impulses are for the individual - to preserve itself and to reproduce. Therefore, this morality is not objective as it is based on the individual. Furthermore, it is not absolute, because each individual has a seperate focus on themself.


I suppose the "problem" here, Irishman, is that I do believe in God. It's kind of an impasse, at that point.

That's not an impasse, really. We just add an "if" to the function.

If god=not real, morality = subjective.
If god=real, morality = objective and absolute*.




(*unless you go down the whole "That's Just God's Opinion And Mine Is Just As Valid route)

QUESTION ANSWERED.



I draw your attention to the arguments in bold, if you want specific things to argue against.


Have you read my argument for the truth of objective morality? What part of it do you think is flawed?

I'll get right to it.

[TheBST]

Since this is always immoral, is it not possible for morality to be objective?

General consensus isn't objectivity.

[bibliophile]

DamenedIrishmen:

If I can justifiably disagree with you on any point of morality, then it cannot be objective.

I shall demonstrate this statement is false by counter example.

1)The laws of physics are objective

2)I can justifiably disagree with you about a law of physics

3)The laws of physics are not objective

Since something cannot be both objective and non-objective, your statement "If I can justifiably disagree with you on any point of morality, then it cannot be objective." is false. Q.E.D






n a world that only includes he and I, we are equally matched. His belief is based on his opinion of death and mine is based on my opinion of death. Death is an absolute factor, but how we perceive it is subjective.

For an absolute and objective morality, we need a source of "right" and "wrong" - we need God, basically. As an atheist, I do not include supernatural beliefs into moral arguments, and therefore for me morality is subjective.


A few questions about this idea.

Why does universal axioms and logic not constituent a valid source of right and wrong?

Why does people opinions on some matter affect its truth? If we got everyone in the world to agree that 2+2=5 it still would not be so.

[DamnedIrishman]

Have you read my argument for the truth of objective morality? What part of it do you think is flawed?

I'll get right to it.


Right, I've read pages one and two through again, but I'm still not sure what, in specific, you are referring to. If you would care to state your argument for the truth of objective morality again in a concise manner, I'd happily examine it.

[GoC]

1)The laws of physics are objective

2)I can justifiably disagree with you about a law of physics

3)The laws of physics are not objective
Wow. That is the cleverest word use I've seen in a looooong time. Anyone care to point out the error?:smallwink:


Why does universal axioms and logic not constituent a valid source of right and wrong?
Because there are no universal morality axioms.


Why does people opinions on some matter affect its truth? If we got everyone in the world to agree that 2+2=5 it still would not be so.
It would not be so by definition. The same cannot be said about "Killing is always good".

[bibliophile]

Right, I've read pages one and two through again, but I'm still not sure what, in specific, you are referring to. If you would care to state your argument for the truth of objective morality again in a concise manner, I'd happily examine it.

1)There exists axioms, statements that are their own justification.

2)Using logic, morality can be deduced from these axioms.

[averagejoe]

I can justifiably disagree with you about a law of physics

No, you can't. I have yet to see a justifiable overturning of physics.

[bibliophile]

No, you can't. I have yet to see a justifiable overturning of physics.


Not physics, a law of physics. Surly you'll agree there has been disagreement about details? Weather energy is quantized, relativity is true etc.

[GoC]

No, you can't. I have yet to see a justifiable overturning of physics.

That is not the error.

[bibliophile]

That is not the error.

Feel free to point it out.

[DamnedIrishman]

DamenedIrishmen:

If I can justifiably disagree with you on any point of morality, then it cannot be objective.

I shall demonstrate this statement is false by counter example.

1)The laws of physics are objective

2)I can justifiably disagree with you about a law of physics

3)The laws of physics are not objective

Since something cannot be both objective and non-objective, your statement "If I can justifiably disagree with you on any point of morality, then it cannot be objective." is false. Q.E.D


Premise two is incorrect: you cannot properly justify an opinion about the laws of physics, as to justify an opinion you would require empirical data. You cannot produce accurate, empirical data which is contrary to physical laws.
Therefore, the syllogism is flawed.




Why does universal axioms and logic not constituent a valid source of right and wrong?

Why does people opinions on some matter affect its truth? If we got everyone in the world to agree that 2+2=5 it still would not be so

Because morality, unlike mathematics, is not universal, objective and absolute.

The very idea of representing a moral argument with a number is based on your premise that morality is universal and absolute. You are, in fact, creating a false syllogism:

1. Morality is absolute and objective, like numbers.
2. 1+1=2 despite any outside factors
3. Therefore, morality is absolute and objective

However, this syllogism is based on statement 1 being correct, which is the area of debate. You are, therefore, stating that "I am right, because I am right". Flawed logic.

With regards to the other part of your statement, you may have missed my earlier post:


For an empirical truth, the burden of proof lies with the proposer of the hypothesis. Therefore, no amount of "approaching it from the other direction" will ever justify your hypothesis that morality is objective and absolute.

This is one of the basic tenets of modern science. So the question is really to you: Why do universal axioms and logic constitute a valid source of right and wrong?

[averagejoe]

1)There exists axioms, statements that are their own justification.

You have yet to justify this statement or demonstrate any axioms. Really, you have yet to justify anything.

Even in mathematics axioms are subjective. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems) Why should I believe differently about life?


Not physics, a law of physics.

Oh, well, then physics is subjective. It's simply a model into which we stick reality. What we call "laws" (and I don't think we call them that anymore) are things that have been so thoroughly tested that we are really, really sure, but there's nothing "objective" about them. To be a scientist means to treat everything with some amount of subjectivity.

[DamnedIrishman]

Feel free to point it out.

Gladly. You're confusing the laws of physics (objective) with mankind's understanding of the laws of physics (subjective).

[GoC]

Feel free to point it out.

I thought it was so brilliant I wanted others to also feel the enjoyment of discovering it. It's like cracking a riddle:

There are two types of "laws of physics".
There are the laws that govern the world and there is what the consensus on those laws are. This consensus is called "the laws of physics".

It is objective what the consensus is.
Reality and the laws that govern it are objective.
However it is not objective which framework and theories fit the data best.

It's a two step trick and it's absolute genius!:smallcool:
I take my hat off to you sir.

[DamnedIrishman]

I thought it was so brilliant I wanted others to also feel the enjoyment of discovering it. It's like cracking a riddle:

There are two types of "laws of physics".
There are the laws that govern the world and there is what the consensus on those laws are. This consensus is called "the laws of physics".

It is objective what the consensus is.
Reality and the laws that govern it are objective.
However it is not objective which framework and theories fit the data best.

It's a two step trick and it's absolute genius!:smallcool:
I take my hat off to you sir.

Nyah nyah, beat you to it!

[GoC]

Nyah nyah, beat you to it!

Curses!:smallannoyed:

EDIT: Yours is incomplete though.:smalltongue:

[Paladin29]

Morality is cultural, a muslim or a oriental morality is not the same of a occidental. An animist cannibal is inmoral to me, but he only will see me as a strange barbarian...(or a steak :P). So.. no, morality is not objective... other thing is that i believe that my morality is better than others, but that is subjective, if you want to discuss what morality is better i´ll be glad to discuss it :)

[DamnedIrishman]

Curses!:smallannoyed:

Now that little sidetrack is over, I redirect you, sir, back to the ongoing debate. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6131914&postcount=118)

Also, I would still appreciate that repost of your argument for the truth of objective morality.

- - - - - - -
EDIT:

if you want to discuss what morality is better i´ll be glad to discuss it :)

What's your stance on pandas and ice-cream?

[bibliophile]

You have yet to justify this statement or demonstrate any axioms. Really, you have yet to justify anything.

Even in mathematics axioms are subjective. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems) Why should I believe differently about life?



Oh, well, then physics is subjective. It's simply a model into which we stick reality. What we call "laws" (and I don't think we call them that anymore) are things that have been so thoroughly tested that we are really, really sure, but there's nothing "objective" about them. To be a scientist means to treat everything with some amount of subjectivity.


Godel's incompleteness thermos do not say anything about weather axioms are true, they say that for a given system, certain statements are not provable.


The laws of physics (as they exist, not as we perceive them, them in truth) are objective. Wein's law for example, does not change if we are drunk, if we are mad, or if convince the mahority it is not true.

[bibliophile]

Morality is cultural, a muslim or a oriental morality is not the same of a occidental. An animist cannibal is inmoral to me, but he only will see me as a strange barbarian...(or a steak :P). So.. no, morality is not objective... other thing is that i believe that my morality is better than others, but that is subjective, if you want to discuss what morality is better i´ll be glad to discuss it :)

Have you read the thread?


Why is what people believe true, because they believe it?

[GoC]

Paladin29: Tell us how your moral system works.:smallsmile:


Also, I would still appreciate that repost of your argument for the truth of objective morality.
We haven't really defined what is meant by an objective morality* so I can't really argue anything here...

* It seems a contradiction in terms because the only objective things are those that can be determined to be true using an outside source (reality) or pure logic. Morality is an idea an the definition of "goodness" and as such can niether be deduced from reality or logic.
All that can be shown is that X morality is contradictory.

[Paladin29]

I love pandas (many years with Ramma all the mornings when i was a kid)... ice creams.. ummm.. it depends, ¿can i get a double layer of chocolate?

[bibliophile]

I thought it was so brilliant I wanted others to also feel the enjoyment of discovering it. It's like cracking a riddle:

There are two types of "laws of physics".
There are the laws that govern the world and there is what the consensus on those laws are. This consensus is called "the laws of physics".

It is objective what the consensus is.
Reality and the laws that govern it are objective.
However it is not objective which framework and theories fit the data best.

It's a two step trick and it's absolute genius!:smallcool:
I take my hat off to you sir.


When I say the laws of physics I was referring to the laws in themselves, not our perception.

[DamnedIrishman]

The laws of physics (as they exist, not as we perceive them, them in truth) are objective. Wein's law for example, does not change if we are drunk, if we are mad, or if convince the mahority it is not true.

Indeed. But then, physics exist as observable phenomena. Morality is a number of ideas, feelings and impulses. They exist in the mind (unless we write them down, of course), they are created in the mind, they are hypothetical concepts.

If I jump, drunk or sober, gravity will pull me down. It is objective. But if I convince everyone in the world that the world 'red' refers to what is more commonly called 'blue' then the meaning of the word changes.

After all, a word is merely a subjective interpretation of a sound or (since you're reading this) a series of abstract symbols. 'Words' exist purely in the mind, and therefore are changeable.

- - - - - - -


I love pandas (many years with Ramma all the mornings when i was a kid)... ice creams.. ummm.. it depends, ¿can i get a double layer of chocolate?

You may have whatever ice-cream you like. Based on those precepts, your moral code passes the test.

:smallsmile:

[GoC]

When I say the laws of physics I was referring to the laws in themselves, not our perception.

Then how do you "justifiably disagree" that reality is reality?:smallconfused:

[bibliophile]

\Morality is an idea an the definition of "goodness" and as such can niether be deduced from reality or logic.

Why not? Please be as precise and detailed as you can.

[averagejoe]

Nyah nyah, beat you to it!

:smalltongue: Beat you both.


The laws of physics (as they exist, not as we perceive them, them in truth) are objective. Wein's law for example, does not change if we are drunk, if we are mad, or if convince the mahority it is not true.

Then refer to my first statement; you can't justifiably contradict them. Your refutation of that statement had to do with our perception of physics, not the "true" laws of physics. Wein's law has to do with that same perception as well.

[Paladin29]

Have you read the thread?


Why is what people believe true, because they believe it?


Sorry... I read the first page and then i post :smallfrown:, can you make me a summary?

GoC: I am an occidental catholic christian, a social-democrat in politics. If you want something more specific ask me :smallwink:

[GoC]

Why not? Please be as precise and detailed as you can.

We are defining a word. We cannot deduce the meaning of the sounds "good-nis" from reality or logic.

New dude:What does "occidental catholic christian, social-democrat" mean?

[DamnedIrishman]

Why not? Please be as precise and detailed as you can.

Stop missing my arguments. I'm starting to feel left out... (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6132022&postcount=131)

[bibliophile]

Indeed. But then, physics exist as observable phenomena. Morality is a number of ideas, feelings and impulses. They exist in the mind (unless we write them down, of course), they are created in the mind, they are hypothetical concepts.

If I jump, drunk or sober, gravity will pull me down. It is objective. But if I convince everyone in the world that the world 'red' refers to what is more commonly called 'blue' then the meaning of the word changes.


Merely because something is a concept does not mean it is not real.

Tell me, are the laws of physics written down somewhere> Where do they exist? Can you point to them?

Mathematics is purely an abstract concept, yet is real.

[GoC]

Merely because something is a concept does not mean it is not real.
Define real.
I define real to be the physical world.


Tell me, are the laws of physics written down somewhere> Where do they exist? Can you point to them?
1. No.
2. They do not possess the property "location".
3. See answer 2.

[bibliophile]

Sorry... I read the first page and then i post :smallfrown:, can you make me a summary?

GoC: I am an occidental catholic christian, a social-democrat in politics. If you want something more specific ask me :smallwink:


I'm too busy trying to argue with four or five people at once, sorry. It's not that long.


If you think an omnibenevolent, omniscient, god exists, why does what he say provide the basis of an absolute, objective morality?

[DamnedIrishman]

Merely because something is a concept does not mean it is not real.

Tell me, are the laws of physics written down somewhere> Where do they exist? Can you point to them?

Mathematics is purely an abstract concept, yet is real.

The laws of physics aren't written down anywhere, but I can demonstrate them by throwing a ball to you, or jumping.

Mathematics isn't real. Mathematics exists as an abstract system designed to represent physics. Think of mathematics as a painting of something we cannot see. The painting is not the thing, but it shows us the subject in a way we can understand.

[Paladin29]

Well.. catholic christian means that my moralitiy is based in christian values, occidental that my morality is also based in the greek-roman rationalism and individualism, and social-democrat is unnecesary, i recognize it.

[averagejoe]

Tell me, are the laws of physics written down somewhere> Where do they exist? Can you point to them?

See, the question itself is misleading. The idea that there are "laws of physics" is a fundamentally human construct, as is the division of these phenomena into "laws." Reality just happens, and science is the practice of trying to catalog and understand that reality. Reality will always happen as it happens; whatever happens (in terms of physics) is what was "supposed" to happen, and any deviation from any "law" is the fault of the theory and not the phenomenon. The laws of physics don't "exist" in the way you seem to mean, but reality still happens.


Mathematics is purely an abstract concept, yet is real.

That's rather arguable.

[DamnedIrishman]

That's rather arguable.

So arguable, I just argued it. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6132074&postcount=141)

[bibliophile]

Mathematics exists as an abstract system designed to represent physics.

But some mathematical ideas were discovered before corresponding physical laws were discovered, imaginary numbers for example. Also some mathematical ideas, such as five dimensional objects have no known correspondence to reality.

[averagejoe]

So arguable, I just argued it. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6132074&postcount=141)

Yes, and I was just going to respond to it before I refreshed the page and noticed this. Gimmie a break, this thread moves to frelling fast.

I was going to pick at something you said, "Mathematics was made to represent physics," or something like that. We rather take it for granted now, but time and time again "real" math was thought of as a "pure" field, but then some smart arse physicist comes along and is like, "Hey, this math perfectly describes this physical system." We kind of take the correlation for granted these days, but it surprised a good number of people back in the day. Math has always been for the sake of itself.

[Paladin29]

I'm too busy trying to argue with four or five people at once, sorry. It's not that long.


If you think an omnibenevolent, omniscient, god exists, why does what he say provide the basis of an absolute, objective morality?

I say before that morality is not objective, becuase my morality is not the same than yours. But I can think that my morality is more correct (a subjective thinking)

[bibliophile]

Reality will always happen as it happens; whatever happens (in terms of physics) is what was "supposed" to happen, and any deviation from any "law" is the fault of the theory and not the phenomenon. The laws of physics don't "exist" in the way you seem to mean, but reality still happens.

Who or what is doing the supposing, do you suppose?

If the laws of physics aren't real then why don't things happen any old way?

Matter, energy and space-time behave a certain way, whatever it is that determines that way(what I am clling the laws of physics), is real.

[bibliophile]

I say before that morality is not objective, becuase my morality is not the same than yours. But I can think that my morality is more correct (a subjective thinking)



The laws of physics as they are (not as we perceive them), are objective, but we can still disagree weather or not string theory is true. Merely because I believe something, does not ipso facto, make it true.

[GoC]

Well.. catholic christian means that my moralitiy is based in christian values, occidental that my morality is also based in the greek-roman rationalism and individualism, and social-democrat is unnecesary, i recognize it.

What are cristian values?
What is rationalism?
What does individualism imply?


Mathematics exists as an abstract system designed to represent physics.
This is untrue. Mathematics is a product of our minds using logic and a few axioms to come to an if->then conclusion. If our axioms correspond to the real world then the results of mathematics are true.


Who or what is doing the supposing, do you suppose?

If the laws of physics aren't real then why don't things happen any old way?

Matter, energy and space-time behave a certain way, whatever it is that determines that way(what I am clling the laws of physics), is real.
Now you're just being rushed and silly. Slow down, take your time and come up with something good.

[averagejoe]

If the laws of physics aren't real then why don't things happen any old way?

Matter, energy and space-time behave a certain way, whatever it is that determines that way(what I am clling the laws of physics), is real.

I didn't say they aren't real. I don't know why things don't happen any old way. We got lucky, I guess.

"Whatever it is that determines that way." Like... God or something? Physics generally tries to stay out of religion.

[DamnedIrishman]

But some mathematical ideas were discovered before corresponding physical laws were discovered, imaginary numbers for example. Also some mathematical ideas, such as five dimensional objects have no known correspondence to reality.

Surely you've just answered your own question:
Some mathematical ideas have no known correspondence to reality.
Some mathematical ideas were discovered before corresponding physical laws.

Let me explain:
1 is a mathematical symbol which refers to a single quantity.
There is no such thing as "a single-unit quantity" - it's a quantifier. It is an invisible law of physics that things can exist in a quantity of one, represented by the handy symbol 1.

Using this handy symbol, we can understand the idea of a quantity of one. But more than just a tool for understanding, it's a tool for prediction:
1+1 = 2
If we have a single-unit quantities and another single-unit quantity, we have.. TWO single-unit quantities.
Therefore, we can use it to predict parts of physics that we are, thus far, unable to perceive.


The laws of physics as they are (not as we perceive them), are objective, but we can still disagree weather or not string theory is true. Merely because I believe something, does not ipso facto, make it true.

Once again, you are confusing the laws of physics with our understanding of the laws of physics.


Now you're just being rushed and silly. Slow down, take your time and come up with something good.

That's good advice. This thread is moving too fast for us all to be working on the same concept at once right now.

[averagejoe]

The laws of physics as they are (not as we perceive them), are objective, but we can still disagree weather or not string theory is true. Merely because I believe something, does not ipso facto, make it true.

String theory is a philosophy. There's no scientific reason to either believe or disbelieve it.

[GoC]

Wow. I've never seen a non-random banter thread move this fast.:smalleek:

[Paladin29]

GoC: I am sure that i don´t need to explain you that concepts

[DamnedIrishman]

GoC: I am sure that i don´t need to explain you that concepts

To be fair, "Christian values" could mean anything from xenophobia, ignorance and violence to egalitarian acceptance, universal love to ruralist communitarianism or unabashed capitalism. Yours is not a straightforward holy book.

[bibliophile]

This thread is definitely moving too fast. Kull Wahad! I need to be away from my computer again, but should return tonight.

[GoC]

GoC: I am sure that i don´t need to explain you that concepts
Los grandes filosofos han hecho estas preguntas por miles de años. Son relevantes a este discusión.

Sorry if I can't write spanish properly, I only know how to speak it.:smallfrown:

[DamnedIrishman]

Son relevantes a este discusión.


Especially since we've just lost our primary antagonist.

[Paladin29]

Au contraire mon panda... "My book" is very straightforward, people is not.

[Recaiden]

I say before that morality is not objective, becuase my morality is not the same than yours. But I can think that my morality is more correct (a subjective thinking)

Either morality could be incorrect if there is an objective reality.

Like we said, there are the 'laws' we use to describe the action of the universe, and the basis of physical laws that we describe with them.

[averagejoe]

Los grandes filosofos an hecho estas preguntas por miles de años. Son relevantes a este discusión.

:smallconfused: What about your son?

[DamnedIrishman]

Au contraire mon panda... "My book" is very straightforward, people is not.

A book which contradicts itself is not a straightforward book, in my opinion.




Originally Posted by GoC
Los grandes filosofos an hecho estas preguntas por miles de años. Son relevantes a este discusión.

What about your son?

The big honchos have been pregnant for millions of years. The son was revealed to be a cushion.

[GoC]

What about your son?
On second thought: :smallconfused:

[Recaiden]

:smallconfused: What about your son?

The great philosophers have -asked- these questions for thousands of years. They are relevant to this discussion.
@^: No, it looked totally correct to me except for one typo. Silent 'h' and all that.

[GoC]

Silent 'h' and all that.
Thanks. Corrected.

[Paladin29]

GoC: Muchas gracias!!!, me ha gustado mucho que utilizes mi idioma :smallsmile:

Christian values (to me): Love God and all of humanity
Forgive to be forgiven
Pacifism
Equality between all humans
Etc..

[Paladin29]

A book which contradicts itself is not a straightforward book, in my opinion.




The big honchos have been pregnant for millions of years. The son was revealed to be a cushion.


Give me an example, please (New Testament)

[averagejoe]

The big honchos have been pregnant for millions of years. The son was revealed to be a cushion.

Oh, thank you. This seems like a much more accurate translation than the one Recaiden gave. I appreciate the effort, Recaiden, but as a translator you are just not up to scratch.

[DamnedIrishman]

Give me an example, please (New Testament)

Exactly my point. The old and new testaments contradict each other. The old is a more entertaining read though.

[GoC]

GoC: Muchas gracias!!!, me ha gustado mucho que utilizes mi idioma :smallsmile:
Puedemos continuar si quieres. Necesito practicar para cuando regreso. Seria muy vergonzoso llegar y mezclar los dos.:smallredface:


Christian values (to me): Love God and all of humanity
Forgive to be forgiven
Pacifism
Equality between all humans
Etc..
Cuales mas?

[DamnedIrishman]

Puedemos continuar si quieres. Necesito practicar para cuando regreso. Seria muy vergonzoso llegar y mezclar los dos.:smallredface:

Cuales mas?

Demos continue throughout the series. It's a practical neccesity to rewind often. The series is very gonzo, slightly illegal and there is much Mezcal.

Carry much?

[Recaiden]

Oh, thank you. This seems like a much more accurate translation than the one Recaiden gave. I appreciate the effort, Recaiden, but as a translator you are just not up to scratch.

I'm sorry, but I am still learning. However, if I believe that my translation is correct, isn't it in some way?

?Adonde regresara' GoC?

So, back on to general morality, what logical support might there be for one objectively correct morality?

[Paladin29]

Puedemos continuar si quieres. Necesito practicar para cuando regreso. Seria muy vergonzoso llegar y mezclar los dos.:smallredface:


Cuales mas?

GoC:
El problema es que es dificil dar principios generales, si vamos a cosas más concretas puedo hablar por ejemplo del valor de la familia y el matrimonio como punto principal de la sociedad, ayudar a la gente que lo necesita, proteger al debil...

Corrections: "Puedemos continuar"-----> "Podemos continuar"
"...para cuando regreso"---> "...para cuando regrese" :smallwink:

¿Vienes a España?

DamnedIrishMan:

It´s logical because the New corrects and evolves the Old.

[DamnedIrishman]

So, back on to general morality, what logical support might there be for one objectively correct morality?

Yes, before we get locked for discussing real world religions.

I am of the opinion that an objective, absolute morality would require an external source (as, in my mind, one of the fundamental points of the subjectivity of morality is that it exists within human minds only). To this end, one requires either God or a naturally evolved moral code.

[Lord_Gareth]

Whew. Fun thread to give a read-through ^_^

Personally, I view morality - and just about everything that exists as either a physical presence or an intellectual construct - as subjective. What is "moral" to my point of view is not moral to another person's. However, I do believe one can define morality very simply; morality is any pattern of behavior held by an individual to be worth upholding and emulating.

We define our own moralities, but the concept of morality - the basic idea behind it - is the thought that the world would be a "better place" if more people acted in accordance to your code. For example, most people would agree that the world would be a better place if people stopped killing each other, whereas some people think the world would be a better place if we started killing certain individuals, such as the "weak" or the "stupid".

As an intellectual construct, morality must be subjective. While the existence of a rock in your driveway can be debated to the ends of the earth, intellectual constructs, by their very nature, are ideas and only persist so long as someone has knowledge of them. The idea of objective morality is, to me, patently ludicrous - such an idea would have to be a Byzantine code of laws and red tape so unimaginably complex that the human mind would shatter if it attempted to contemplate it all.

[GoC]

El problema es que es dificil dar principios generales, si vamos a cosas más concretas puedo hablar por ejemplo del valor de la familia y el matrimonio como punto principal de la sociedad, ayudar a la gente que lo necesita, proteger al debil...
Estos se pueden derivar de sistemas morales como el utilitarismo.


Corrections: "Puedemos continuar"-----> "Podemos continuar"
"...para cuando regreso"---> "...para cuando regrese"
Ah, ja recuerdo. Digame si cometo mas errores.:smallredface:


¿Vienes a España?
Colombia. Increible que aun viviendo 16 años de mi vida ahí estoy olvidando mi español apenas despues de unos meses...:smallannoyed:

[DamnedIrishman]

Personally, I view morality - and just about everything that exists as either a physical presence or an intellectual construct - as subjective. What is "moral" to my point of view is not moral to another person's. However, I do believe one can define morality very simply; morality is any pattern of behavior held by an individual to be worth upholding and emulating.


Then we are in basic agreement. But, as an intellectual exercise, can you conceive of an objective morality? How could such a thing exist?

As a minor aside, I do like your definition. Very concise.

[Lord_Gareth]

Then we are in basic agreement. But, as an intellectual exercise, can you conceive of an objective morality? How could such a thing exist?

As a minor aside, I do like your definition. Very concise.

Thank'ee ^_^

The only way an objective morality system could work is if it covered every possible action or inaction in every possible situation for every possible individual - again, such a thing would be utterly incomprehensible for sheer size.

[GoC]

morality is any pattern of behavior held by an individual to be worth upholding and emulating.

However it is possible to believe a moral system to be worth upholding without believing it to be worth emulating.
My system for instance.

[Paladin29]

Estoy de acuerdo que un concepto puede derivarse de varios códigos diferentes.

I´ll go to sleep, it´s 2:30 AM here in Spain, and i must go to work tomorrow. I´ll see your conclusions tomorrow :smallsmile:

Buenas noches GoC!!!

Good night to all!!

[DamnedIrishman]

Thank'ee ^_^

The only way an objective morality system could work is if it covered every possible action or inaction in every possible situation for every possible individual - again, such a thing would be utterly incomprehensible for sheer size.

OR you would need a small number of tenets which could be used to guide any action.

[GoC]

Buenas noches GoC!!!
Buenas noches!:smallsmile:

[Lord_Gareth]

OR you would need a small number of tenets which could be used to guide any action.

I think the only way that could work is if the code was held to be greater than one's personal survival.

[GoC]

I think the only way that could work is if the code was held to be greater than one's personal survival.

Or one's personal survival was included in the code.

[Lord_Gareth]

Umm...

1. You deserve to live.
2. Don't steal.

Can you imagine a situation where these can come into conflict? Or how about this:

1. You deserve to live.
2. Don't kill.

Tenants would have to be ranked, somehow...

[DamnedIrishman]

Umm...

1. You deserve to live.
2. Don't steal.

Can you imagine a situation where these can come into conflict? Or how about this:

1. You deserve to live.
2. Don't kill.

Tenants would have to be ranked, somehow...

Add, "except when this violates the first tenet". Like Asimov's Laws of Robotics.

[Recaiden]

An objective system could be based on a certain number of ideas from which the correct moral action in any situation can be derived. But what if some of these are made incorrect? I personally think morality is at least partly objective, and that some things are always right/wrong.

@GoC: No es aceptable en nuestra sociedad, pero la moralidad no es determinado por la legalidad. En mi opinion, no es una practica inmoral, pero muchas personas no estan de acuerdo con mi. Por otro lado, las cosas que son aceptable a dios pueden cambiar.

[GoC]

An objective system could be based on a certain number of ideas from which the correct moral action in any situation can be derived. But what if some of these are made incorrect? I personally think morality is at least partly objective, and that some things are always right/wrong.
As you have yet to define right and wrong your statement is either a tautology or unprovable.:smalltongue:


@GoC: No es aceptable en nuestra sociedad, pero la moralidad no es determinado por la legalidad. En mi opinion, no es una practica inmoral, pero muchas personas no estan de acuerdo con mi. Por otro lado, las cosas que son aceptable a dios pueden cambiar.
Ahí esta la problema. Entiendo que es parte de la doctrina X que un demonio filosofo es perfecto y que hay una moralidad absoluta. Combinando estos dos podemos ver que las cosas aceptables a un demonio filosofo no pueden cambiar.

Recuerdo que los moderedores son muy estrictos. Necesitamos otro medio de comunicación...

[Recaiden]

As you have yet to define right and wrong your statement is either a tautology or unprovable.:smalltongue:


Ahí esta la problema. Entiendo que es parte de la doctrina cristiana que dios es perfecto y que hay una moralidad absoluta. Combinando estos dos podemos ver que las cosas aceptables a dios no pueden cambiar.

How about, "Having the greatest long-term benefit to society without causing harm to others or restricting their rights"? Not perfect, but something like that.

Creo que este discusion' es demasiadpo religioso. Lo siento.

Cual otros medios usen usted?

[GoC]

How about, "Having the greatest long-term benefit to society without causing harm to others or restricting their rights"? Not perfect, but something like that.
How long term are we talking here? Because if it's generations long-term then nothing is always right/wrong with the exception of the extinction of sapient life (which is always wrong).

Tienes mIRC? Me puedes encontrar en #Quantum_Mechanics irc.rizon.net.

[Recaiden]

How long term are we talking here? Because if it's generations long-term then nothing is always right/wrong with the exception of the extinction of sapient life (which is always wrong).

Tienes mIRC? Me puedes encontrar en #Quantum_Mechanics irc.rizon.net.

That's a good point. Medium term?

And no. I can't buy things online. And I don't really understand how irc works.

[GoC]

That's a good point. Medium term?

And no. I can't buy things online. And I don't really understand how irc works.
What is medium term? Does it have a fixed cutoff point (events between this time and this time are considered)? Or is it a sliding scale with events further into the future considered less? If so what type of scale?

It's free (http://www.mirc.com/get.html).