Objective Morality and Atheism.
0
oh the joy of epistemology!
So, as I am understanding it, we are having a debate over objective morality. This oxymoron has had me by the aneurism as I read each post. But first, let me define what I mean. It seems to me that there is point being made that an IDEA can be objective. In order to be objective, it must be built upon a predefined foundation that does not pertain to feelings or personal influence.
Morals...Um, is anyone suggesting that there are morals that don't involve emotion or feelings? If so, I would really enjoy an explanation.
My point, in short, is: No, you do not have objective morality, no one does. By agreed definition alone, Objectivity is as a elusive as half-thought concept.
But I doubt anyone would accept that one cannot attain objectivity. I know I won't.
I wouldn't appreciate an abrasive response, so please be mindful.
So, as I am understanding it, we are having a debate over objective morality. This oxymoron has had me by the aneurism as I read each post. But first, let me define what I mean. It seems to me that there is point being made that an IDEA can be objective. In order to be objective, it must be built upon a predefined foundation that does not pertain to feelings or personal influence.
Morals...Um, is anyone suggesting that there are morals that don't involve emotion or feelings? If so, I would really enjoy an explanation.
My point, in short, is: No, you do not have objective morality, no one does. By agreed definition alone, Objectivity is as a elusive as half-thought concept.
But I doubt anyone would accept that one cannot attain objectivity. I know I won't.
I wouldn't appreciate an abrasive response, so please be mindful.
0
Atrophical wrote...
oh the joy of epistemology!So, as I am understanding it, we are having a debate over objective morality. This oxymoron has had me by the aneurism as I read each post. But first, let me define what I mean. It seems to me that there is point being made that an IDEA can be objective. In order to be objective, it must be built upon a predefined foundation that does not pertain to feelings or personal influence.
Morals...Um, is anyone suggesting that there are morals that don't involve emotion or feelings? If so, I would really enjoy an explanation.
My point, in short, is: No, you do not have objective morality, no one does. By agreed definition alone, Objectivity is as a elusive as half-thought concept.
I wouldn't appreciate an abrasive response, so please be mindful.
Let me ask you a question. You and one other person are trapped on an island. You fish and get food for yourself, and the other person comes over, beats you up, and takes your fish. What makes him wrong to do that?
See, under your idea that there cannot be an objective morality, there is nothing wrong with it.
Under mine, I can objectively show WHY it's wrong.
I've already explained that there is a subjective part to it, and that's in the defining process itself, but that doesn't mean there isn't a thing, that can be defined as morality, that cannot be measured objectively. I actually have done exactly that in defining a morally god action to be that which diminishes suffering and promotes the hewalth and well being of others, while a morally bad action promoites suffering and diminishes the health and well being of others. Do you get it yet?
0
BigLundi wrote...
Atrophical wrote...
oh the joy of epistemology!So, as I am understanding it, we are having a debate over objective morality. This oxymoron has had me by the aneurism as I read each post. But first, let me define what I mean. It seems to me that there is point being made that an IDEA can be objective. In order to be objective, it must be built upon a predefined foundation that does not pertain to feelings or personal influence.
Morals...Um, is anyone suggesting that there are morals that don't involve emotion or feelings? If so, I would really enjoy an explanation.
My point, in short, is: No, you do not have objective morality, no one does. By agreed definition alone, Objectivity is as a elusive as half-thought concept.
I wouldn't appreciate an abrasive response, so please be mindful.
Let me ask you a question. You and one other person are trapped on an island. You fish and get food for yourself, and the other person comes over, beats you up, and takes your fish. What makes him wrong to do that?
See, under your idea that there cannot be an objective morality, there is nothing wrong with it.
Under mine, I can objectively show WHY it's wrong.
I've already explained that there is a subjective part to it, and that's in the defining process itself, but that doesn't mean there isn't a thing, that can be defined as morality, that cannot be measured objectively. I actually have done exactly that in defining a morally god action to be that which diminishes suffering and promotes the hewalth and well being of others, while a morally bad action promoites suffering and diminishes the health and well being of others. Do you get it yet?
Oh no, I understand your point as completely as I can believe I can, and believe it to be valid.
If they take my fish, is it necessarily wrong? and if so, tell me, what makes it wrong other than what I feel about it? Yes, I worked for it, so I deserve it. Also, that person hurt me to obtain my hard earned fish.
But I move that you cannot Objectively tell why it was wrong. You may only state premise and conclusion that is supported by a derivative of pure emotion. "This was my fish, and you harmed me to obtain it. You have intentionally become a hazard to me, therefore it was immoral, because a moral action is " one which diminishes suffering and promotes the health and well being of others."
Like I said though, you're point is valid, as long is it is bound to the definitions you support it with.
0
Atrophical wrote...
Oh no, I understand your point as completely as I can believe I can, and believe it to be valid.
If they take my fish, is it necessarily wrong? and if so, tell me, what makes it wrong other than what I feel about it? Yes, I worked for it, so I deserve it. Also, that person hurt me to obtain my hard earned fish.
But I move that you cannot Objectively tell why it was wrong. You may only state premise and conclusion that is supported by a derivative of pure emotion. "This was my fish, and you harmed me to obtain it. You have intentionally become a hazard to me, therefore it was immoral, because a moral action is " one which diminishes suffering and promotes the health and well being of others."
Like I said though, you're point is valid, as long is it is bound to the definitions you support it with.
The reason I can objectively say that him taking your fish is wrong, is because of my definition of a right action and a wrong action. It's as objective as what is healthy. He promoted suffering, and diminished your well being and health in order to feed himself. This is not an adequate trade off. Explain how this is a...purely emotional reasoning...
0
It's purely emotional because you introduce the concept of harm. You feel that a physical trauma deteriorates something called HEALTH, resulting in a feeling of PAIN/SUFFERING. This of course is not emotional, but what does make it irrefutably emotional is your response to that situation. After all, what fuels your "moral response" other than the feeling of being wrong that is probably coupled with anger or sorrow?
My point being is that feeling the pain did not automatically make a situation morally wrong. It was the emotions felt towards that situation that called for a system of moral balance in the first place.
To make a inversely true statement, yes you can be objectively moral, just as anyone else, because no matter what infinitesimal point you file it down to, it requires that leap of faith to perceive as true in each respective box.
My point being is that feeling the pain did not automatically make a situation morally wrong. It was the emotions felt towards that situation that called for a system of moral balance in the first place.
To make a inversely true statement, yes you can be objectively moral, just as anyone else, because no matter what infinitesimal point you file it down to, it requires that leap of faith to perceive as true in each respective box.
0
Atrophical wrote...
It's purely emotional because you introduce the concept of harm. You feel that a physical trauma deteriorates something called HEALTH, resulting in a feeling of PAIN/SUFFERING. This of course is not emotional, but what does make it irrefutably emotional is your response to that situation. After all, what fuels your "moral response" other than the feeling of being wrong that is probably coupled with anger or sorrow?Very simple, pleasure is preferred by people. It's preferred by me, and it's rational to conclude it's preferred by most everyone. It's objectively true that certian actions cause suffering. Suffering is not a preferred feeling to have. This isn't emotional, it's simply logical. If I don't want to suffer, I ought not cause other people to suffer, else I increase the chances of them doing the same to me. This is objectively, logically, true.
My point being is that feeling the pain did not automatically make a situation morally wrong. It was the emotions felt towards that situation that called for a system of moral balance in the first place.
I'm glad to have already explained why such is not the case.
To make a inversely true statement, yes you can be objectively moral, just as anyone else, because no matter what infinitesimal point you file it down to, it requires that leap of faith to perceive as true in each respective box.
No leap of faith needed. Simply subjective preference and objective facts.
0
BigLundi wrote...
Under mine, I can objectively show WHY it's wrong.BigLundi wrote...
The reason I can objectively say that him taking your fish is wrong, is because of my definition of a right action and a wrong action. You keep making the same mistake. You are trying to assert that a morality can be objective but, you use subjective evidence to promote the idea. You really should look more into moral nihilism.
Atrophical wrote...
Spoiler:
I like this guy.. err gal, whatever.
0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
BigLundi wrote...
Under mine, I can objectively show WHY it's wrong.BigLundi wrote...
The reason I can objectively say that him taking your fish is wrong, is because of my definition of a right action and a wrong action. You keep making the same mistake. You are trying to assert that a morality can be objective but, you use subjective evidence to promote the idea. You really should look more into moral nihilism.
Nah, because there's nothing redeeming about moral nihilism, and in fact, assuming all morality to be an illusion is the incorrect conclusion. I've already seen a video on the matter called "Nihilist: The intellectually honest atheist" And I've also seen the many flaws in the reasoning.
The thing is, I'm asserting that morality can be measured objectively, and I do so, according to a subjective definition of what is moral. I know that I do this, because there's no correct way to define ANY terms. All terms are simpyl terms we made up to describe things. If you want to make the claim that the way I define morality is incorrect, fine, keep the word for yourself, I'll call it something else, it doesn't MATTER what I call it. I can call it a "Mornicity" and make up a brand new word.
It doesn't matter what I call the act of diminishing human suffering and promoting the good health and wel being of others, the thing is that is a real thing, and a real objective scale. If you want to say, "Well since it's just your subjective definition of morality, it''s stil irrelevant' great, but that doesn't change the fact that the scale I've put forth IS obejectively measureable.
Also, to make the matter of my definition a little more clear on its objectivity, you can always ook at the way we all view moral statements.
"If "blank" I ought "Blank""
It's certainly true that the "If Blank" part is subjective, but to put it all together, it becomes an objective statement. It is objectively true that "If I respect human live, I ought not run over people with my car" That's objectively true, and inarguable.
0
Sevhenko wrote...
Morality is never objective.Please demonstrate why otherwise your comment literally has no use.
Im able to argue why it is, so if your statement is correct, you should be able to give an accurate argument why it cannot ever be.
0
HiroyukiShota wrote...
Mankind is simply a flawed race. A foolish one if i may add.That perhaps we're desperate as a species.
That we simply need to believe in something, a concept of god to fulfill us. The ideology that here after one's life lies a world beneath for the wicked and another above the clouds for the good.
Simply because to be ignorant of one's end brings fear to everyone. They do that to comfort themselves.
Back then, when we lack the knowledge that earth itself revolves that we claim the Sun and Moon being gods, One that brings light and another darkness. That in some cultures, fearing to lose light, blood would be needed to keep the light ever burning.
We do that because we're ignorant.
Perhaps it's down to a genetic level. Part of our make up. That itself could be reasoned.
Could that be Mankind's ultimate flaw? The need to believe in an existence above us. We may very well hunger for it, for spiritual peace.
Or because ignorance brings us so much fear that we used faith, a baseless thing to fill up the gaps which we know not off? Like a blackhole, forever taking in everything in a fruitless attempt to fill a never ending void.
... There are nothing to prove an existence above us, so we made it up. That there be gods, there be demons, that there be heaven, and there be an underworld.
That if we follow a way of line given to us that we'll ascend to this "heaven" that we made up. "God" will greet us in with open arms and to those who didn't, may they burn under the never ending flames of the underworld, eternally suffering under the gaze of the "devil".
...
...
I choose to not believe in things without a base. Having to subject yourself to such things is pointless, meaningless and foolish.
There above the clouds lies space, not gods.
There, a thousand feet below us is more earth, not a hell.
How we live will not be judge by anyone by humans themselves.
I who choose to believe in my own way of living doesn't make me a heretic, it's the ones who forbid me from doing so, out of fear induced superstition that are the ones at fault.
First of all, because I believe that there is something that exist that you don't believe in does not make me ignorant. Because I believe there is something that does not exist physically doesn't mean I am ignorant. What is wrong with believing that there is someone that will help me accomplish things? There are those who have accomplished great things believing in God. Will you consider them ignorant? If you say that most of modern religion practice is crap then I will have to agree since modern religion has been corrupted. Lot of modern Christians believe that God will solve their problems but that is not the case. God is there to lend you a hand if you need it but not there to do everything for you. By believing that there is something greater than us up there(not directly above the sky), some of us accomplish more that we can. There have also been cases were patients with cancer got miraculously cured because they were very religious. You can choose to ignore this since I can't tell you what to do.
If you think I am still ignorant then pick up an old testament bible and read it. Do not let anyone explain anything in it for you, do not let anyone tell you that what you are reading is wrong, do not let anyone tell you anything about it. Just read it and come up with what you think it means. After you finish reading that then, you have every right to call me ignorant.
Fun fact:Some people say that God is energy. It is said in the Bible that we are created from his image and guess what,.... we are made of energy
Also, I don't know why religious people try to fight scientists because of their theory of evolution. One thing I have notice is that science is only proving the Bible to be right.On the sixth day, man was created. The Bible never says what man looks like, it just says that there was man. Evolution claims that the first living thing on Earth embryos and they divided into male and female....guess what, "From the man, God created woman." GO here for more http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/sevncrea.htm
0
BigLundi wrote...
NeoStriker wrote...
If you're a normal, healthy human, and the other person is a normal, healthy human, it would HELP that he further confirms your observations, but you don't NEED it. You NEED only reason and logic to confirm your observations. If I see a shadow, I can go CHECK IT OUT, and then form a conclusion from that....So in other words, you ony believe in what you can see and hear, are you saying to don't trust the experts when they come across something and say they've made a discovery? You rely on other people all the time in everyday oservations. If that helps, why in the world would you decide to not do so? It makes no sense to deny relying on confirmation toe be sure of things if it serves as reinforcement to what you believe?
I'm sorry, but when I ask an expert for their advice and they tell me what they believe, I also ask for their evidence and all their findings, or else I simply take it with a grain of salt.
BigLundi wrote...
NeoStriker wrote...
Sacrifice is if you gain absolutely nothing from it, and in a way, that is bad, because someone is losing out. When you want food and water, you need money. If you need money, you get a job. If you get a job, you are contributing to society. It isn't a sacrifice, it's an equal trade that should be benefiting everyone towards a brighter and better future. And that brighter and better future will include you, so of course you'll want it.No, that's not what sacrifice is, not only has Ayn Rand never made that clear, but she has shown consistently that such is not the case, sacrifice is helping others when you don't have just as much benefit, if not more to gain, from helping them. I could still have benefit when I sacrifice to others, but she would say, "IF it's not a complete benefit, then it doesn't count and you ought not do it!" Something, for instance, that WOULDN'T be done if everyone had this thought process, is helping people by the side of the road. You're sacrificing time, minutes on your cell phone, and labor to help a complete stranger, and you get nothing but self satisfaction at the most from it. I would still do it, however, and that's why my morality is better than Objectivism.
Jesus, okay, then maybe I don't agree with all of what Ayn Rand says, that's why I said to look solely at that website. Regardless of the exact semantics of "sacrifice", I told you that Objectivism is about "equal trade". EVERYONE should benefit. I give you my time and labor, you give me resources I require. You shouldn't have to spend all your time and effort to be rewarded with nothing. Self-satisfaction? According to what you've said, how would that actually exist? It's satisfaction and confidence you give to yourself, from yourself. I take my satisfaction from reason; someone asked me for help, and I was able to help them, and was rewarded with their kindness.
BigLundi wrote...
NeoStriker wrote...
We're not going to pretend we live in a dream, we're going to work for it. And you can't do that if you don't have a dream first. Even if a corrupt person takes over a monopoly, no one is invincible, or can be. You shouldn't have to settle for anything less.This isn't just dreaming here, this is asking for a literally perfect world. Any philosophy can easily go, "The ideal world is that which everything is healthy and people al are cool to eachother regardless of what they believe." Ummm, DUH, that's just common sense, it serves no use. It does nothing more than say, "Wouldn't it be cool if blah?" Sorry, but I see no practical purpose in this idea.
Essentially, what is seen as moral and immoral, completely lies in how people see things. The fact that there is an interaction aspect involved in every moral decision, that it cannot truly be objective. It's not like many of the sciences where the reasoning can come from outside evidence.
That's because morality is more in lined with philosophies rather than science. And it has no concrete evidence to support it.
There is no real objective criteria to measure morality. You can only really hope to create less dissonance amongst people in what is moral and not.
The easiest way to see this sort of situation trying to happen is the court systems. Not necessarily the actual trial, though there is room to look at it, but deciding how to try and how to punish criminals. You'll notice that this is either decided arbitrarily, as in what a judge things is best, or is decided based on precedence, what others thought was a good punishment.
That's the truth. If there was an objective way to measure morality, then punishment for immoral decisions would have a more concrete way of being decided. You could easily compare a rapist to a murderer. To a child molester.
But you can't concretely measure it. You can only gauge it partially by how the majority of society reacts to each one.
Which changes a lot.
I'm basically saying, we should be able to have the cake, and eat it too, because why would you have a cake and not eat it? And why would you ever blot out the Sun? Why would you ever take all of the world's water away? We are human beings, with bodily needs, and it's okay to live according to them.
In your trial example, I don't actually believe in punishment at all. I believe in establishing guilt, and then rehabilitation.
0
BigLundi wrote...
"If "blank" I ought "Blank""It's certainly true that the "If Blank" part is subjective, but to put it all together, it becomes an objective statement. It is objectively true that "If I respect human live, I ought not run over people with my car" That's objectively true, and inarguable.
"If I want a car, I ought to steal a car"
Yep, sounds objective to me.
0
NeoStriker wrote...
I'm sorry, but when I ask an expert for their advice and they tell me what they believe, I also ask for their evidence and all their findings, or else I simply take it with a grain of salt.
So in other words, you don't trust them. Interesting, so I trust experts, and you don't, good to know.
Jesus, okay, then maybe I don't agree with all of what Ayn Rand says, that's why I said to look solely at that website. Regardless of the exact semantics of "sacrifice", I told you that Objectivism is about "equal trade". EVERYONE should benefit. I give you my time and labor, you give me resources I require. You shouldn't have to spend all your time and effort to be rewarded with nothing. Self-satisfaction? According to what you've said, how would that actually exist? It's satisfaction and confidence you give to yourself, from yourself. I take my satisfaction from reason; someone asked me for help, and I was able to help them, and was rewarded with their kindness.
In other words, you've abandoned strict Objectivism, and have adopted a morality that in many ways simply mirrors different aspects of Objectivism, and what you'd rather porject onto its semantics. I take my satisfaction from reason more than you seem to want to paint. I take satisfaction from knowing that I've helped the well being of another person. You wouldn't do so, and you find such a thing illogical. My morality is better than this skewed form of Objectivism you've adopted because of that.
0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
BigLundi wrote...
"If "blank" I ought "Blank""It's certainly true that the "If Blank" part is subjective, but to put it all together, it becomes an objective statement. It is objectively true that "If I respect human live, I ought not run over people with my car" That's objectively true, and inarguable.
"If I want a car, I ought to steal a car"
Yep, sounds objective to me.
Yup, as objective as "If I don't want things stolen from me, I ought not steal to get a car."
:) See, you need to actualy have a brain to have moral thoughts.
0
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
BigLundi wrote...
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
BigLundi wrote...
"If "blank" I ought "Blank""It's certainly true that the "If Blank" part is subjective, but to put it all together, it becomes an objective statement. It is objectively true that "If I respect human live, I ought not run over people with my car" That's objectively true, and inarguable.
"If I want a car, I ought to steal a car"
Yep, sounds objective to me.
Yup, as objective as "If I don't want things stolen from me, I ought not steal to get a car."
:) See, you need to actualy have a brain to have moral thoughts.
So you're saying not objective at all in that care.
Sounds about right for everyday you've said so far.
0
Takerial wrote...
BigLundi wrote...
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
BigLundi wrote...
"If "blank" I ought "Blank""It's certainly true that the "If Blank" part is subjective, but to put it all together, it becomes an objective statement. It is objectively true that "If I respect human live, I ought not run over people with my car" That's objectively true, and inarguable.
"If I want a car, I ought to steal a car"
Yep, sounds objective to me.
Yup, as objective as "If I don't want things stolen from me, I ought not steal to get a car."
:) See, you need to actualy have a brain to have moral thoughts.
So you're saying not objective at all in that care.
Sounds about right for everyday you've said so far.
Actually I didn't say that at all. but good job on showing you don't know what you're talking about, yet again. Bravo.
0
BigLundi, In your objective morality you believe murder to be wrong, am I correct with this statement?
0
BigLundi wrote...
NeoStriker wrote...
I'm sorry, but when I ask an expert for their advice and they tell me what they believe, I also ask for their evidence and all their findings, or else I simply take it with a grain of salt.So in other words, you don't trust them. Interesting, so I trust experts, and you don't, good to know.
Why do you trust an expert?
BigLundi wrote...
NeoStriker wrote...
Jesus, okay, then maybe I don't agree with all of what Ayn Rand says, that's why I said to look solely at that website. Regardless of the exact semantics of "sacrifice", I told you that Objectivism is about "equal trade". EVERYONE should benefit. I give you my time and labor, you give me resources I require. You shouldn't have to spend all your time and effort to be rewarded with nothing. Self-satisfaction? According to what you've said, how would that actually exist? It's satisfaction and confidence you give to yourself, from yourself. I take my satisfaction from reason; someone asked me for help, and I was able to help them, and was rewarded with their kindness.In other words, you've abandoned strict Objectivism, and have adopted a morality that in many ways simply mirrors different aspects of Objectivism, and what you'd rather porject onto its semantics. I take my satisfaction from reason more than you seem to want to paint. I take satisfaction from knowing that I've helped the well being of another person. You wouldn't do so, and you find such a thing illogical. My morality is better than this skewed form of Objectivism you've adopted because of that.
You make it sound like I'm being unfaithful to my philosophy. I will, and have been saying, that I am an Objectivist. I suppose my degree of Objectivity is up for debate. I am responsible for my own happiness, first and utmost. I am not obligated to help random people on the streets. They should be responsible for their own happiness, as well. If an accident were to occur to a random person I don't know, tough luck. If it were someone I did know, I would in fact help.
0
Atrophical wrote...
BigLundi, In your objective morality you believe murder to be wrong, am I correct with this statement?Define murder.
NeoStriker wrote...
BigLundi wrote...
NeoStriker wrote...
I'm sorry, but when I ask an expert for their advice and they tell me what they believe, I also ask for their evidence and all their findings, or else I simply take it with a grain of salt.So in other words, you don't trust them. Interesting, so I trust experts, and you don't, good to know.
Why do you trust an expert?
Because they have gone through the proper channels and have been recognized by universities and whatnot as deserving of my trust.
BigLundi wrote...
NeoStriker wrote...
Jesus, okay, then maybe I don't agree with all of what Ayn Rand says, that's why I said to look solely at that website. Regardless of the exact semantics of "sacrifice", I told you that Objectivism is about "equal trade". EVERYONE should benefit. I give you my time and labor, you give me resources I require. You shouldn't have to spend all your time and effort to be rewarded with nothing. Self-satisfaction? According to what you've said, how would that actually exist? It's satisfaction and confidence you give to yourself, from yourself. I take my satisfaction from reason; someone asked me for help, and I was able to help them, and was rewarded with their kindness.In other words, you've abandoned strict Objectivism, and have adopted a morality that in many ways simply mirrors different aspects of Objectivism, and what you'd rather porject onto its semantics. I take my satisfaction from reason more than you seem to want to paint. I take satisfaction from knowing that I've helped the well being of another person. You wouldn't do so, and you find such a thing illogical. My morality is better than this skewed form of Objectivism you've adopted because of that.
You make it sound like I'm being unfaithful to my philosophy. I will, and have been saying, that I am an Objectivist. I suppose my degree of Objectivity is up for debate. I am responsible for my own happiness, first and utmost. I am not obligated to help random people on the streets. They should be responsible for their own happiness, as well. I only help the people I care about.
Ok, so you don't care about strangers. In that case, we have yet ANOTHER problem. see, it then follows from that, that you are cynical of all people that you don't already know. You wish for other people to ascribe tothis set of beliefs about morality because you feel it's the best set out there. Well, if we all followed that idea of, "I won't help strangers" leads to a self destructive society. I would help strangers because I place a value in the well being of society as a whole. It doesn't matter to me if I do or do not know them. Why would you not help a stranger in distress? It simply does not seem moral to me.