(August 17, 2015 at 3:44 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: I just love how you atheists deny the concept of Natural Law then turn around and tacitly call on it by calling it programming. Stop trying to hide your moral nihilism.

And I simply adore how theists never get tired of telling us that evil is the attempt to act against God's will, and then go all blurry when they try to explain exactly what God's will is. Stop trying to hide your moral turpitude by telling us how God is 'mysterious'.

Boru

(August 30, 2015 at 5:19 am)robvalue Wrote: It's not so much revolting as it useless. An exhaustive list of what is moral, immoral or neither is arbitrary. If that is all morality is, then it might as well be blue, red and yellow actions. Morality isn't about truth, it's about judgement. Or at least, it should be.

My definition of personal morality is studying the consequences of actions. If the objective morality tells me that rape is moral, why should I care? What use is that?

People will say rape can't be on the moral list, because it is immoral. But how do we determine it is immoral? Through consequences.

We may be talking about two entirely different uses of the word "morality". To begin with, we can't possibly agree on what is moral until we agree on what is important. For example, if I say human life is not important, we are screwed. How exactly do you determine who is right, objectively? Neither of us are.

I don't think we really disagree much. You seem to assume that morality is objective. For, on the one hand, by stressing the importance of utility (or lack thereof) in defining what objective morality means, you equivocate on the word "useful," as all you mean by it is "good." But, if I may ask, for whom do you mean by asking if some action is useful? You alone? Well, probably not. I suspect that you do not think it matters little whether or not what you judge to be right or wrong (i.e. useful or not) is viewed by others to be true, if you're confident that your reasoning of a given topic or situation is sound. Yet, on the other hand, could not there be actions that might be personally useful, but not right, in principle? Likewise, could not they be quite useless for you and yet be the right thing to do? Contrarily, the same reasoning could apply to one's actions vis-à-vis society at large, useful or useless for them and the opposite for others that might be effected. And without admitting an aim towards objectivity in your study of consequences - presumably with the intent of making right or wrong judgments about them, i.e. whether they are useful to yourself, to others, or simply right because of other reasons - how do you even proceed? After all, subjective morality implies that judgments only boil down to your opinion in the first place, does it not? Is your judgment going to be right because you rightly judge yourself to make right judgments? What would it mean to be wrong in a judgment? In your example about non-consensual intercourse, I would certainly care to know if there were any instances in which it was morally justifiable - we do put rapists in cages, and it would be outrageous if we had misjudged either the consequences that result or the principles by which we ought(?) to be guided in our treatment of others.

(August 30, 2015 at 5:19 am)robvalue Wrote: It's not so much revolting as it useless. An exhaustive list of what is moral, immoral or neither is arbitrary. If that is all morality is, then it might as well be blue, red and yellow actions. Morality isn't about truth, it's about judgement. Or at least, it should be.

My definition of personal morality is studying the consequences of actions. If the objective morality tells me that rape is moral, why should I care? What use is that?

People will say rape can't be on the moral list, because it is immoral. But how do we determine it is immoral? Through consequences.

We may be talking about two entirely different uses of the word "morality". To begin with, we can't possibly agree on what is moral until we agree on what is important. For example, if I say human life is not important, we are screwed. How exactly do you determine who is right, objectively? Neither of us are.

Rape is on the moral list under ISIS, by praying before and after the act they turn it into a form of worship. I read this  yesterday, penned by a women who helps rehabilitate escaped women, can I bloody find it now!

Nestor: You've pretty much lost me I'm afraid. You said I assume morality is objective? No, I don't at all. Morality is a judgement; an opinion, so yes, it is subjective. Nothing is inherently good/bad/whatever. All we can do is try and agree on a value system: what is important. We can then discuss how best to maximise that value and minimise harm to it. But if we can't agree on what is valuable and what is not, we can't even begin to talk about right or wrong. Once we've agreed on the value system, we can then make reasonable comparisons between different actions. But an "objective morality" would have to either make those value decisions for us, or else be subjective to our chosen values.

I'm not sure what your idea of morality is. I'm not trying to be difficult I just don't get what you are saying.

DBP: Wtf? Rape is on the moral list? Well it doesn't surprise me that much, Christianity and Islam clearly say women are basically property. This is what I'm saying. These religions don't value women as much as we do, so their "morality" will be different. How can anyone say who is right or wrong? Who gets to decide? Obviously we think they are wrong, because we are judging using our value system. And they'd think we are wrong, for the same reason. You can't say who is right or wrong without first deciding who has the "right" set of values...

(August 30, 2015 at 9:17 am)robvalue Wrote: Nestor: You've pretty much lost me I'm afraid. You said I assume morality is objective? No, I don't at all. Morality is a judgement; an opinion, so yes, it is subjective. Nothing is inherently good/bad/whatever. All we can do is try and agree on a value system: what is important. We can then discuss how best to maximise that value and minimise harm to it. But if we can't agree on what is valuable and what is not, we can't even begin to talk about right or wrong. Once we've agreed on the value system, we can then make reasonable comparisons between different actions. But an "objective morality" would have to either make those value decisions for us, or else be subjective to our chosen values.

You seem fixated on the words good and bad rather than the qualitative differences in the states of being they intend to signify. I don't see that what you're saying can't be applied to other concepts which assume objectivity... truth and falsehood, or rationality and irrationality or... unless you're saying those are subjective too. In all such cases we make a judgment by agreeing on a system (logical axioms, belief in other minds, that the properties of the world are external to our consciousness, etc.), i.e. assume a framework. Hence, the concept of objectivity.

I've probably posted it before in similar conversations, but I'm again reminded of this great scene in Love and Death (focus on the objectivity/subjectivity portion): https://youtu.be/X5cQcmAtjJ0

Alright, well we don't seem to be getting anywhere so I'll leave it.

I'm planning to do a video about objective morality soon so hopefully that will make my points more clear

I'll give it one last try.

In a given situation, under a specific value system, we could agree that there is a subset of actions which are of optimum morality.

However, any particular action (such as punching someone in the face) is neither moral nor immoral inherently. To decide how moral it is, we need a value system. We may decide that people getting punched in the face is bad. We may decide punching some kind of people is fine, but not others. Until we decide this value system, we can't assess any action, let alone find the optimum one.

And again, it will depend on the situation (self defence?) The morality of the action therefor depends on both the value system and the context, so is not objective.

Another simple example. I have time to save either a boy or a dog from the burning building before it collapses. Which is the correct moral choice?

There isn't one, until a value system is agreed. If Jim thinks humans are "worth more" than dogs, it will be most moral for him to save the dog. If Jack thinks dogs are worth more, it will be more moral to save the dog. Who is right? Neither are right. The only thing which will be the deciding factor in how the action is viewed is whose value system is closer to the general one held by the society in question.

Even people who have similar but very slightly different value systems can debate endlessly which is the more moral action. Who is right? What does it even mean to say someone is right? The only thing "objective" about morality is that nothing is moral or immoral until someone judges that it is. We generally go by an analysis of help and harm. But there are all different kinds of help and harm. How do we compare them? Situations are very complex, and our valuation of how bad certain types of harm are, and how much certain types of help matter will completely determine what is "most moral".

If you have a different idea of what morality is Nestor then I don't know what it is, so you'd need to say what morality means to you explicitly And also what objective morality means. Because I honestly don't get how it can possibly work.

What is subjectivity but objectivity with a name attached to it? The moral impulse and moral decisions are all a product of environmental interactions, as are we ourselves, no?

Well yes, if we discount free will then morality is an entirely redundant subject. As is everything, pretty much.

I worry again that the idea of studying the way someone interacts with others (which is objectively measurable) is being conflated with each person's judgement of what is moral and immoral. Each objective action will have a different, subjective "morality rating" for any given observer.

We can't measure morality in the same way we measure mass, because morality is an abstract concept. We need to properly define what the goal of morality is, and how it is evaluated, before we can take subjective ratings. We can have one observer with one standard rating a whole bunch of activities of other people, or we can have a whole bunch of people with different standards rating the same activity. These are not the same. The idea that there is one "correct" value system seems like a contradiction in terms to me. Correct according to who or what?

(August 31, 2015 at 10:11 am)robvalue Wrote: In a given situation, under a specific value system, we could agree that there is a subset of actions which are of optimum morality.

However, any particular action (such as punching someone in the face) is neither moral nor immoral inherently.

[bold mine]
I suppose this is where we disagree, for two reasons. For one, what could "optimum morality" possibly be understood to convey unless there is some objective means by which to measure such a continuum of moral action? Secondly, action that is taken with knowledge and assent of one's doing it does inherently possess a moral quality; otherwise I don't see what morality could be referring to. If you want to say that punching someone in the face is essentially no different than an active impulse of a vegetative kind, then I'd agree that there is no inherent moral quality to the act. But if we can decide to do anything, as you say we most in coming up with a value system, then it implies there are better or worse decisions to make, the difference being determined by reason and experience as in anything else.

Quote:To decide how moral it is, we need a value system. We may decide that people getting punched in the face is bad. We may decide punching some kind of people is fine, but not others. Until we decide this value system, we can't assess any action, let alone find the optimum one.

And again, it will depend on the situation (self defence?) The morality of the action therefor depends on both the value system and the context, so is not objective.

Do you believe that some value systems can be worse than others? That moral progress is possible? Then you imply that there is an objective standard, even for the systems themselves. That the context may vary doesn't necessitate that morality be subjective, as of course qualifiers would indicate that an action is immoral in such and such a context, but not when the addition of X (like someone trying to murder you) is involved.

Quote:Another simple example. I have time to save either a boy or a dog from the burning building before it collapses. Which is the correct moral choice?

There isn't one, until a value system is agreed. If Jim thinks humans are "worth more" than dogs, it will be most moral for him to save the dog. If Jack thinks dogs are worth more, it will be more moral to save the dog. Who is right? Neither are right. The only thing which will be the deciding factor in how the action is viewed is whose value system is closer to the general one held by the society in question.

That's the problem with moral relativity. Jack's value system, which treats rational creatures less than irrational ones, is wrong. Just like the endless examples of real life Jacks who treat human beings to be no more valuable than dirt are wrong. Yet that is not a statement one can meaningfully assert if they allow that the contrary position is equally true, which is on the one hand nonsensical, and on the other what moral subjectivism reduces to.