[QUOTE=Geikkamir;49745325]Not everyone that has a contrary point of view is "trolling".[/QUOTE]
I guess I'm back to step 1
[QUOTE=sgman91;49729727]... but it's not vague at all! It simply means that there exists a right and wrong way to treat someone or something. It makes no claims to what those right and wrong ways are.
It's similar to saying that logic exists. The fact that TONS of humans use logic incorrectly says literally nothing about whether logic exists or not.[/QUOTE]
But there does not exist objectively right or wrong ways to treat anyone or anything, for anything. Unless God literally told you so, told us all so.
(Or rather, just to be more logical, we're [B]not sure[/B] an objective way to treat someone exists, because saying there isn't is basically the same as saying there is.)
Except subjectively speaking of course, like laws & agreements, hidden societal expectations etc., as you said yourself long before going through this debate with the people here. See:
[QUOTE=sgman91;49729463]There is no purely objective way to prove or disprove anything..[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Geikkamir;49745094]Which requires you to make the assumption that breaking the law is inherently immoral and that killing someone is morally justifiable when the law allows it, and furthermore [i]only[/i] when the law allows it.
If you believe that objective morality does exist (which I think is a silly thing to base your assumptions on as you can neither observe it or it's impact on the things it affects, nor test it in any meaningful way), it seems more than likely that the law is not perfectly aligned to it. In fact, since the law isn't the universally the same everywhere on earth, it's actually impossible for the law to always be morally correct. Which, technically, means that murder could in fact be morally correct.[/quote]
Yes I suppose if you also define a killing as a murder to someone who follows a conflicting set of laws, then it would always be murder to someone. I am saying that, assuming there was an objective set of laws, that is the law I would ultimately use to define murder with.
[quote]
In fact, if you want to go by the assumption that objective morality exists, there is absolutely no reason to assume that what human beings find morally abhorrent is actually immoral. For all we know, child rape, torture, murder for personal gain etc. could be totally in line with "objective" morality and we would have no way to tell that our natural emotional response to those acts is incorrect.
This is just one of the many problems with working off of the assumption that objective morality (or really any unobservable and untestable entity or principle) exists. If objective morality actually does exist, but if we have no way to observe it or it's impact on the things it affects, no way to test it's properties, and if it has no actual effect on the world around us beyond the degree to which human beings do or do not enforce their completely baseless and possibly incorrect interpretation of it, then it is functionally equivalent to being non-existent.[/QUOTE]
There is a difference between allowing there to be an objective set of moral facts and assuming that you know those facts.
I tend to think of it as the objectively required actions that tend towards minimization of local entropy. I could be wrong, but in any case that still doesn't deny that there IS a right answer to be found, somewhere, somehow.
If we have a goal of being better - of trying to tend towards that ideal, then that can arguably give us reason to always put effort and thought into our decisions. Sure you could conversely argue that if you assume that you are objectively right then you will stop thinking critically about your decisions, but that would only be true under two possible circumstances: In case you are actually right, or in case you think you are right. Since I propose not assuming we are right, fully or otherwise, but instead yearning to be right, the latter wouldn't be a problem and the former is probably far away from us at this point.
Objective truth in general is a strange thing to arrive at. Do you believe there is an ultimate truth that science will discover one day? If so then why is it so far fetched to think that an "objective" system of reasoned practical judgement couldn't be discovered one day as well?
Let me also be clear, the system I am imagining wouldn't be simple a checklist of things like "Gay - OK, porn - NOT OK, stealing - OK, killing - OK if LAWFUL," It would probably be far more complex and nuanced than that. I am not saying that such a list couldn't be deduced given knowledge of the objective morality, just that such a list would have a hard time conveying any of the reasoning that supports those judgements.
[QUOTE=dai;49727699][highlight]TRAP CARD ACTIVATED[/highlight]: Ad Hominem; attacking the validity of an argument [IE: Scientific Method is a thing you should use to prove/disprove theories] via redirects toward the presenter's character rather than their statement. Put down your cards and go home[/QUOTE]
[i]Your soul will be imprisoned in the Shadow Realm now Laserbeams![/i]
ontopic
I always laugh my ass off at the anti-vaccer autism and chemtrail people.
Just how much out of touch with reality do you have to be anyway?
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49747014]There is a difference between allowing there to be an objective set of moral facts and assuming that you know those facts.[/QUOTE]
There is also a difference between not being able to empirically demonstrate that something isn't true and it actually being true. Basing your assumptions about the universe around things you technically can't prove AREN'T true is a poor way of doing things for reasons that should be obvious.
[QUOTE]I tend to think of it as the objectively required actions that tend towards minimization of local entropy. I could be wrong, but in any case that still doesn't deny that there IS a right answer to be found, somewhere, somehow.[/QUOTE]
And by what authority, exactly, is that answer any more "right" than any other? What are the consequences of deviating from "objective" morality? If the answer to either is "there is none" then, again, it is functionally equivalent to being non-existant, because ultimately it has no more impact on the universe than whatever we, as human beings, subjectively decide is "right".
If there is no consequence for performing an immoral act other than that if you are discovered, another human being who happens to find that action morally abhorrent might punish you, then ultimately the only effect that morality has on anything is the degree to which human beings decide to enforce it, which means that it has no more weight than whatever a human being who has the power to enforce their will arbitrarily decides is just.
Now if you want to argue that morality stems from divine authority or somesuch, that's an entirely different argument.
[QUOTE]If we have a goal of being better - of trying to tend towards that ideal, then that can arguably give us reason to always put effort and thought into our decisions. Sure you could conversely argue that if you assume that you are objectively right then you will stop thinking critically about your decisions, but that would only be true under two possible circumstances: In case you are actually right, or in case you think you are right. Since I propose not assuming we are right, fully or otherwise, but instead yearning to be right, the latter wouldn't be a problem and the former is probably far away from us at this point.[/QUOTE]
What does any of this have to do with objective morality?
[QUOTE]Objective truth in general is a strange thing to arrive at. Do you believe there is an ultimate truth that science will discover one day?[/QUOTE]
Objective truth is an [i]impossible[/i] thing to arrive at, because as you yourself have pointed out, all of our conclusions about the universe are based on an assumption that we inherently can never prove I.E. that the universe actually is as it appears to us. All we can do is operate off the information that we can observe, come to a conclusion about what that information implies, and see if that conclusion consistently aligns with observable reality.
[QUOTE]If so then why is it so far fetched to think that an "objective" system of reasoned practical judgement couldn't be discovered one day as well?[/QUOTE]
As I've already said, there's a difference between not dismissing the possibility that something [i]could technically[/i] exist, and actually assuming that it does. I don't think it's any more or less implausible than any other hypothesis that one technically couldn't prove isn't true, yet has no observable evidence to support it.
If you want to hypothesize that objective morality [i]could[/i] exist and be discovered, I see no problem with that. Anyone can harmlessly hypothesize that [i]anything[/i] that isn't currently disprovable exists. I simply think that we shouldn't base our decisions and our understanding of our universe around concepts that we simply can't prove don't exist, rather than ones that we can factually demonstrate actually might.
[QUOTE=Geikkamir;49747282]There is also a difference between not being able to empirically demonstrate that something isn't true and it actually being true. Basing your assumptions about the universe around things you technically can't prove AREN'T true is a poor way of doing things for reasons that should be obvious. [/quote]
Again, I shall make the parallel, which you dismissed earlier, to science. I can't prove that it isn't true that science will arrive at an ultimate answer. Hell, why wouldn't I even want to? The fact that I can't isn't any reason for scientists to suddenly throw up their arms and say "Oh well fuzznuckles, I guess we should give up the whole enterprise then". The thing driving the whole enterprise is the very idea that the world is understandable and that there is an answer to be arrived at. Sure, you could be skeptical about the linguistic status of such a truth, and whether humans could grasp it, but that really starts going into a whole separate issue about what the nature of truth is in the face of the world. Is mathematics real in any way? If we use the word "One" even though that word has no intrinsic link to the real world "1ness", does that mean we still have work to do regarding the property of "1ness"?
[quote]
And by what authority, exactly, is that answer any more "right" than any other? What are the consequences of deviating from "objective" morality? If the answer to either is "there is none" then, again, it is functionally equivalent to being non-existant, because ultimately it has no more impact on the universe than whatever we, as human beings, subjectively decide is "right". [/quote]
I tend to follow Kantian lines where I think that some, if not all, moral truths can be achievable by appeal to basic reason and an actor who acts according to said logic. The consequences of not following said truth lead either to logical inconsistencies, or otherwise the violation of certain universally assumed values such as existence>nonexistence, creation>destruction, good(pleasure? Love?)>bad (pain? Hate?)
Again, I am not claiming to be anywhere near a position to articulate the ins and outs of such a theory, but where its authority would come from would be its coherence with the basic fabric of physical reality - logic and causality.
[quote]
If there is no consequence for performing an immoral act other than that if you are discovered, another human being who happens to find that action morally abhorrent might punish you, then ultimately the only effect that morality has on anything is the degree to which human beings decide to enforce it, which means that it has no more weight than whatever a human being who has the power to enforce their will arbitrarily decides is just.
[/quote]
If what you require is a direct karmic consequence to every actor then I'm not sure what to tell you. The consequence of not following a theoretically objective set of morals would be, assuming non-determinism, an overall poorer result to the universe (Shorter final structured state, end of sentience, failure to reach some sort of atemporal crystalization wherein heat-death no longer affects its structure, etc. ). Every agent would have reason to follow it assuming it is rational for an agent to associate itself with more than just its immediately present physical and mental self.
[quote]
Now if you want to argue that morality stems from divine authority or somesuch, that's an entirely different argument.
[/quote]
I consider that which allows space-time to exist, and exists outside of time, as divine. Does this include logic? I don't know. Does it have a beard? I doubt it. Are we getting caught up on semantics? Probably.
[quote]
What does any of this have to do with objective morality?
[/quote]
It shows that belief in objective morality reality can also be tempered by skepticism about one's own righteousness. Thereby, unless you are proud and wrathful, such a belief shouldn't result in blind slaughter. Such a belief is compatible with diligent critical thinking.
[quote]
Objective truth is an [i]impossible[/i] thing to arrive at, because as you yourself have pointed out, all of our conclusions about the universe are based on an assumption that we inherently can never prove I.E. that the universe actually is as it appears to us. All we can do is operate off the information that we can observe, come to a conclusion about what that information implies, and see if that conclusion consistently aligns with observable reality.[/quote]
This is unless we take some truths as being supported in-of-themselves. It seems strange to say you want reasons for the using the concept of reasons. To use and accept reasons is to already have accepted reasoning as such. Thus certain things seem to become true just by virtue of logical neccesity. Often this takes the form of a reductio ad-absurdum. If it were not true that we have reason to believe in logic then we wouldn't have reason to believe in our reason. Or, If it were not true that we have good reason to believe our experiences, then everything we take from our experiences would be false. Since it is false that everything we take from our experiences is false, then we can conclude that we have good reason to believe our experiences.
Yes, this obviously has a certain circularity to it. To leave it at that, however, would not do my position justice. This circularity is neccesary because it is required for any and all of our judgements to get of the ground. Given this requirement it seems to be something built into the entirety of the system, as so is a different [I]kind[/I] of claim.
[quote]
As I've already said, there's a difference between not dismissing the possibility that something [i]could technically[/i] exist, and actually assuming that it does. I don't think it's any more or less implausible than any other hypothesis that one technically couldn't prove isn't true, yet has no observable evidence to support it.
[/quote]
Among which is the hypothesis that science is tending towards some sort of "True" mathematical answer, which you could deny, ofcourse, but I feel like you would need to give further reason for that denial. Such a response would basically have to take the stance that no human language or understanding could ever be "true", in any sense of the word, about the exterior world.
[quote]
If you want to hypothesize that objective morality [i]could[/i] exist and be discovered, I see no problem with that. Anyone can harmlessly hypothesize that [i]anything[/i] that isn't currently disprovable exists. I simply think that we shouldn't base our decisions and our understanding of our universe around concepts that we simply can't prove don't exist, rather than ones that we can factually demonstrate actually might.[/QUOTE]
I am saying that we should accept certain claims such as "There is a most right and wrong action" because if we don't then that can lead to an apathy of relativism.
The sort of idea I'm against is that it doesn't ultimately matter how much effort we put into our moral compass because it all is relative anyways. Suppose if we have an enemy population, we can slaughter them with not further thought because no-one will care within our own population. I am saying that is not the case because, ultimately, to do such a thing is to potentially act irrationally, and furthermore, to the detriment of continued disentropy.
I hope at least some of that was coherent to read.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49747740]Again, I shall make the parallel, which you dismissed earlier, to science. I can't prove that it isn't true that science will arrive at an ultimate answer.[/QUOTE]
I don't entirely understand what you mean by "ultimate answer". Could you elaborate?
[QUOTE]I tend to follow Kantian lines where I think that some, if not all, moral truths can be achievable by appeal to basic reason and an actor who acts according to said logic. The consequences of not following said truth lead either to logical inconsistencies, or otherwise the violation of certain universally assumed values such as existence>nonexistence, creation>destruction, good(pleasure? Love?)>bad (pain? Hate?)[/QUOTE]
Which, again, is founded in our entirely human preconception that things like stability, existence, and pleasure are good because those things are desirable to us, and that chaos, destruction, suffering, and non-existence are bad because they are undesirable. Having a brain that provides positive reinforcement when presented with continuity and negative reinforcement when presented with destruction is inherently beneficial to our survival which allows us to exist long enough to create offspring that inherit the desire to exist.
But when you remove yourself from the perspective of a living entity that has an emotional desire to exist and has a negative emotional reaction to the concept of non-existence, what exactly is it that makes one superior to the other? These things are universally assumed to be [i]desirable to a human being[/i], or in other words, they are subjective, even if human beings commonly agree on them.
[QUOTE]If what you require is a direct karmic consequence to every actor then I'm not sure what to tell you. The consequence of not following a theoretically objective set of morals would be, assuming non-determinism, an overall poorer result to the universe (Shorter final structured state, end of sentience, failure to reach some sort of atemporal crystalization wherein heat-death no longer affects its structure, etc. ). Every agent would have reason to follow it assuming it is rational for an agent to associate itself with more than just its immediately present physical and mental self.[/QUOTE]
Read the above.
To be honest I think that, unless you are operating on the basis of metaphysical principles, there really isn't any greater or lesser reason to do [i]anything[/i] other than that the chemicals and electrical impulses in your brain compel you to do so, which ultimately, one way or another, is the only reason you do anything to begin with. Even if you have no objective reason to act in a way that is not destructive or harmful to others, you will still feel guilty, afraid, upset etc. if you act in a way that you perceive as wrongdoing, and your brain functions in such a way that it is inherently compelled to avoid those emotions. Similarly, even if you have no objective reason to do things that make you feel happy, proud, accomplished etc., you still inherently find those emotions desirable.
Actually, reading your posts a bit more, I think there might be some dissonance between what "objective morality" means to me and what you actually mean by it. If you define morality as "the course of action that most optimally avoids entropy", then yes, there is obviously a course of action that mathematically delays entropy moreso than any alternate course of action. But that's not how morality is typically defined, and I don't think that's what people like sgman mean when they say "objective morality" I.E. something akin to a law of nature that exists outside of human perception that dictates what is somehow the objectively "correct" result of a human emotion and that we should strive to follow for the sole purpose that it is... "objective" somehow, rather than just whatever action is the most mathematically efficient way to oppose entropy. So, if that's the point of confusion between us here, I hope this puts us more on the same page.
[QUOTE]It shows that belief in objective morality reality can also be tempered by skepticism about one's own righteousness. Thereby, unless you are proud and wrathful, such a belief shouldn't result in blind slaughter. Such a belief is compatible with diligent critical thinking.[/QUOTE]
I don't think that I ever claimed that it wasn't.
[QUOTE]This is unless we take some truths as being supported in-of-themselves. It seems strange to say you want reasons for the using the concept of reasons. To use and accept reasons is to already have accepted reasoning as such. Thus certain things seem to become true just by virtue of logical neccesity. Often this takes the form of a reductio ad-absurdum. If it were not true that we have reason to believe in logic then we wouldn't have reason to believe in our reason. Or, If it were not true that we have good reason to believe our experiences, then everything we take from our experiences would be false.Since it is false that everything we take from our experiences is false, then we can conclude that we have good reason to believe our experiences.
Yes, this obviously has a certain circularity to it. To leave it at that, however, would not do my position justice. This circularity is neccesary because it is required for any and all of our judgements to get of the ground. Given this requirement it seems to be something built into the entirety of the system, as so is a different [I]kind[/I] of claim.[/QUOTE]
This is actually one thing that we agree on, however I think that things like the assumption that we observe the universe as it actually is are something of a special exception to the rules. They are very necessary assumptions because we have to make them to make any progress on anything whatsoever.
Make no mistake, if we look at them from a purely objective standpoint without any human preconception whatsoever, they're actually no more valid or (dis)provable than any other conclusion that we can't test, it's just that we [i]have[/i] to make them not only to be able to come to a conclusion about [i]literally anything[/i] about the universe, but also just to even exist and survive as living beings. We have no choice because if they're [i]not[/i] true and if the world around us is actually entirely different than how we perceive it or if what we consider logic is incorrect, it doesn't matter if we're wrong because we can never come to an accurate conclusion about anything anyway.
The same cannot be said about a concept like objective morality, and as such you can't really extend the same necessity to it. For instance, I can't come to the conclusion that I need to eat to survive or that the color black exists or that when I press the "A" key on my keyboard the letter A will appear on the screen without first making the assumption that I am perceiving my surroundings as they actually are. I can, however, come to all of those conclusions, and in fact the vast majority of conclusions, without first having to assume that objective morality exists.
[QUOTE]I am saying that we should accept certain claims such as "There is a most right and wrong action" because if we don't then that can lead to an apathy of relativism.
The sort of idea I'm against is that it doesn't ultimately matter how much effort we put into our moral compass because it all is relative anyways. Suppose if we have an enemy population, we can slaughter them with not further thought because no-one will care within our own population. I am saying that is not the case because, ultimately, to do such a thing is to potentially act irrationally, and furthermore, to the detriment of continued disentropy.[/QUOTE]
This seems to be an argument that you would find objective morality desirable moreso than that you have a reason to believe that it's actually true.
Sorry if this sounds a little inflammatory but this almost sounds like to the sort of line of reasoning that is typically used to argue that "atheists have no morals" etc. I think I've already argued earlier in this post as to why you don't necessarily need to accept the idea of objective morality to be compelled to act in a way that isn't destructive.
[QUOTE]I hope at least some of that was coherent to read.[/QUOTE]
Likewise for this post, I know my writing can be kind of messy and excessively lengthy. I'm starting to think that we might in fact be talking about to entirely different things and are simply tangled up in semantics.
Morality is entirely subjective. Even when we're talking about a very generic "good" action, like not murdering, it only really applies to human beings as a race (and probably to animals) so it's still subjective to the race/group. In the grand scheme of things, as far as we know, no moral laws and standards have been dictated to be absolutely true and I have no clue as to how we could even get that information. Even if a god existed, we might disagree with his imposed moral law.
[QUOTE=KlaseR;49752112]Morality is entirely subjective. Even when we're talking about a very generic "good" action, like not murdering, it only really applies to human beings as a race (and probably to animals) so it's still subjective to the race/group. In the grand scheme of things, as far as we know, no moral laws and standards have been dictated to be absolutely true and I have no clue as to how we could even get that information. [B]Even if a god existed, we might disagree with his imposed moral law.[/B][/QUOTE]
No, of course we would not. I sure as hell would not.
However, there is the whole Intelligence aspect to this, as you said too applying only to humans, which is to question shit.. (or using language&tools.)
[B]Everything[/B] that we know, is because of human intelligence, the same intelligence which I believe is in all people, even God is the product of human intelligence. [sp]tips fedora*[/sp]
But that matters not, because if one wants to argue about who or what could possibly give an objective truth about how to act, in life, then that would either have to be the Lord your God, or simply nobody. So do and be whoever or whatever the hell you want, except you may want to adhere to the current social norm, and local laws, and so on, which will limit your options in doing whatever the hell you want, but they're not [i]objective[/i] truths about how to act, but [i]subjective[/i] truths about how to act in.. you guessed it, the human society!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
