There is objective morality out there. The word objective means not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts, which is what laws are, morally speaking, in a democratic society. Sure, the word objective can also mean not dependent on the mind for existence; actual, but the case can be made that nothing is objective in that sense, at least not demonstrably so.

@ EP

Ummm just read your post:

(May 8, 2016 at 7:32 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: In and of itself, James' donation could be considered as more morally relevant than John's, since it was bigger. But in the large scheme of things, his motivation for donating reveals something about his character, and thus probably something about his future behaviour - he could end up donating far less than John over the course of his life, simply because of the circumstantial nature of the motive that prompted him to make this particular donation. But in my book, what really counts in the end is the actual effect of our actions, not our intentions. Intentions only matter so far as they help us predict behaviour, otherwise they are meaningless.

Ummm... EP.... we're in full agreement here.

Is this the part where I tell you there is no proof for any of the claims you have made like you did with me, or can we agree?

P.S. I think you expressed yourself much more eloquently that I did too, so thank you.

-Hammy

Thanks hammy, I shall check that vid out soon! Anything that involves WLC getting impaled on his own dishonesty is worth it for that alone

Oh no, not again with this objective moral crap.

(May 8, 2016 at 10:27 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: There is objective morality out there. The word objective means not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts[...]

I'm in full agreement with you again. Although I wouldn't describe it as 'out there'. Not really incorrect but it's not how I would describe episemic objectivity. I wouldn't say the objectivity in science was 'out there' so much as 'in there', in the brains of the scientists who are being objective/unbiased.

Quote:[...]which is what laws are, morally speaking, in a democratic society.

Not so sure here. I'd be interesting to hear more on this part.

Quote: Sure, the word objective can also mean not dependent on the mind for existence; actual, but the case can be made that nothing is objective in that sense, at least not demonstrably so.

Absolutely right, full agreement here too. Ontological and epistemic objectivity are separate and we mustn't equivocate, the former does not exist -- when it comes to ethics -- but the latter does. If 'exist' is even the right word for the latter.

-Hammy

(May 8, 2016 at 10:26 am)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(May 8, 2016 at 8:07 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: The goals are eliminating harm and maximizing happiness. Pretty straightforward and obvious.

Can you think of any situation in which the word "correct" could be applied?

Laws are meant to enforce morality, not to be it. I never said that.

Laws do not enforce morality, they are simply rules in place to try and optimize social benefits. In America its the law that you drive on the right side of the road, this is not based on any sort of moral decision. There are also Laws that at times produce outcomes that people would consider immoral, such as, laws that create loopholes or technicalities that allow a murderer to go free.

Laws are essential parts of underlying moral systems, I never said those systems are perfect though, in fact I specifically pointed out that they are continually changing.

Laws do enforce morality, they do so by telling you what you can and cannot do. Think of society as a moral authority, it tells you not to cheat, steal, kill, and so on. It also tells you that you have certain rights and prerogatives. This kind of morality may not be apparent to you because it's not arrived at by a single individual, but instead by certain empowered groups over time.

(May 8, 2016 at 10:31 am)robvalue Wrote: Thanks hammy, I shall check that vid out soon! Anything that involves WLC getting impaled on his own dishonesty is worth it for that alone

Excellent!

-Hammy

It appears to me that our motivations do influence our individual sense of morality.  I often see the debate centered around morality being relative or absolute.  Why not both?  We all have been influenced by our environment and are often reminded of the differences in the sense of relative morality when interacting within different cultures.  

It also appears we are all instilled with certain absolute morals.  Any sane person, would agree that it is immoral to torture children, issue wholesale death to West Highland Terriers, or discard perfectly good cheesecake.

(May 8, 2016 at 10:30 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: @ EP

Ummm just read your post:

(May 8, 2016 at 7:32 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: In and of itself, James' donation could be considered as more morally relevant than John's, since it was bigger. But in the large scheme of things, his motivation for donating reveals something about his character, and thus probably something about his future behaviour - he could end up donating far less than John over the course of his life, simply because of the circumstantial nature of the motive that prompted him to make this particular donation. But in my book, what really counts in the end is the actual effect of our actions, not our intentions. Intentions only matter so far as they help us predict behaviour, otherwise they are meaningless.

Ummm... EP.... we're in full agreement here.

Is this the part where I tell you there is no proof for any of the claims you have made like you did with me, or can we agree?

P.S. I think you expressed yourself much more eloquently that I did too, so thank you.

-Hammy

I never made any kind of statistical claims, which is what I was referring to earlier when replying to your post.

(May 8, 2016 at 10:31 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(May 8, 2016 at 10:27 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: There is objective morality out there. The word objective means not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts[...]

I'm in full agreement with you again. Although I wouldn't describe it as 'out there'. Not really incorrect but it's not how I would describe episemic  objectivity. I wouldn't say the objectivity in science was 'out there' so much as 'in there', in the brains of the scientists who are being objective/unbiased.

Quote:[...]which is what laws are, morally speaking, in a democratic society.

Not so sure here. I'd be interesting to hear more on this part.

Quote: Sure, the word objective can also mean not dependent on the mind for existence; actual, but the case can be made that nothing is objective in that sense, at least not demonstrably so.

Absolutely right, full agreement here too. Ontological and epistemic objectivity are separate and we mustn't equivocate, the former does not exist -- when it comes to ethics -- but the latter does. If 'exist' is even the right word for the latter.

-Hammy

Laws are objective in that way, is what I meant.

I said 'out there' because I was thinking of it being in action, such as controlling and influencing outward behaviour, and that's because I was mainly speaking about laws. I didn't mean anything else by it.