(March 18, 2014 at 6:34 pm)bennyboy Wrote: They're all objective. We just experience them subjectively.

Are you sure you wish to make that claim? So you are telling me that morals are actually observable concepts or actions?

(March 18, 2014 at 7:35 pm)Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab Wrote:

(March 18, 2014 at 6:34 pm)bennyboy Wrote: They're all objective. We just experience them subjectively.

Are you sure you wish to make that claim? So you are telling me that morals are actually observable concepts or actions?

"Morals" is just a word. In a physical monist determinism, the behaviors and ideas that are "moral" are just a part of the chain of causation, as is our decision to associate the word with them.

All our evaluations of things are a product of DNA interacting with environment. This includes feelings like love, a sense of duty, and even the superstitious sensations that lead some people to "feel" that a God really exists. If you claim that we have an ability to establish mores subjectively, you are implying free will-- but if you are choosing a substance dualist view of free will, you are invoking faith as a foundation to an argument-- and idea that won't fly among non-religious minds.

(March 18, 2014 at 9:13 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(March 18, 2014 at 7:35 pm)Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab Wrote: Are you sure you wish to make that claim? So you are telling me that morals are actually observable concepts or actions?

"Morals" is just a word. In a physical monist determinism, the behaviors and ideas that are "moral" are just a part of the chain of causation, as is our decision to associate the word with them.

All our evaluations of things are a product of DNA interacting with environment. This includes feelings like love, a sense of duty, and even the superstitious sensations that lead some people to "feel" that a God really exists.

So you propose that morals are objective then turn around and state that they aren't? So your point was?

(March 18, 2014 at 9:15 pm)Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab Wrote: So you propose that morals are objective then turn around and state that they aren't?
:angel-cl

Never happened.

I think there are some hidden equivocations here on what "subjective" means. If subjective means only that someone is experiencing a moral idea with a sense of agency, then every more is subjective. If it means that someone has arbitrarily chosen a more through actual free-will, then every more is probably objective, since "true" free-will (i.e. one which is causally independent of both the DNA and the environment) cannot be demonstrated.

Let me ask you this-- is the DNA a part of the self, or is the self supervenient on the DNA?

(March 18, 2014 at 9:25 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I think there are some hidden equivocations here on what "subjective" means. If subjective means only that someone is experiencing a moral idea with a sense of agency, then every more is subjective. If it means that someone has arbitrarily chosen a more through actual free-will, then every more is probably objective, since "true" free-will cannot be demonstrated.

I am only referring tot he acknowledgement of the more and its place in a society. Mores help to comprise of morality in a whole but it is nothing but standards and communal expectations. Morality though is different as it defines the positive and negative to an action and no action can be entirely positive or negative. Lying for example is deemed immoral yet without lying we would never have nations since we must lie to other nations to maintain a reasonable manner of peace. Morals are not objective in the slightest bit although they hold tendencies that outweigh a positive or a negative to determine the nature of their overall occurrence. Considering the increase in the world's population genocide may become morally acceptable.

Quote:Let me ask you this-- is the DNA a part of the self, or is the self supervenient on the DNA?

Neither since a part of the self is physical and DNA only helps attribute to this while another part of the self consist of the mind which comprises of subjective experiences.

(March 16, 2014 at 4:19 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Hume said we cannot derive an ought from an is. But he was wrong because we all do. That's where morality enters. Since there is presumably an objective reality that we are all a part of, our subjective perceptions are likely to agree about many of the basic principles in which morality is grounded.

That's not actually true. Hume said that you cannot MOVE purely from an is to an ought. Hume's fact-value distinction basically boils down, not to making the path from is'es and oughts unbridgeable, but to the fact that you have to give an argument for how one is to do so.

For example:

"If you want to win the 100 meter dash, you ought to run the fastest."

There, I crossed the fact-value gap via goal-directedness.

---

Now, I think some of you are just going the wrong route here in ttying to rebutt moral realism (that's what it's called, God Dammit! :p ).

Firstly, things can be what you might call contingently objective. Mathematics (and truth and logic, etc.) only exist in the minds of beings capable of apprehending them (unless you're a mathematical Platonist, which is a whole other can 'o worms). Hence, mathematics is only true if their are sufficiently advanced conscious minds in existence. And yet, mathematics is necessarily true, but only if such a class of agent exists. But are you really going to respond that "Oh well then maths are subjective." That self-evidently will not do at all.

And the same goes for logic. There are scores of logical systems, all of which are contingent on the existence of sufficiently advanced conscious agents. Further, these numerous logics ALL take on different axioms and inference rules, namely because they have different aims. Hence, one must choose the logical system one is going to work with based on what one subjectively thinks will be the most apt one for the task. Paraconsistent logics reject the law of non-contradiction, but classical logic does not. Does that make LOGIC subjective?

Perhaps you guys are seeing the problem with that kind of critique y'all are giving.


Now, how would a consequentialist like myself, who leans towards moral realism, sketch out an objective moral framework? Essentially, to ground morality in some verifiable fact in the world. In this case, the prevention and/or minimization of pain and suffering in conscious creatures and the promotion of physical, mental and social well-being to the extent reasonably possible. That conscious creatures experience pain and suffering is, I daresay, not in dispute? And given that, clearly I've selected the aforementioned approach as a sort of moral axiom, muchin the same way that logics and mathematics have their own systemic axioms. Hence, so long as I'm consistent with my axioms I see no problem in saying that certain behavoirs are - to put it in a way I find a bit stupid, yet regardless - objectively moral. Now if you ask something like "Why should I accept your moral axiom and system?", my response should be evident: If you see it as the approach apt to the task of having a consistent and useful moral framework.


QED (until Rasetsu or Genkaus show up and wreck my shit).

(March 18, 2014 at 9:36 pm)Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab Wrote: Neither since a part of the self is physical and DNA only helps attribute to this while another part of the self consist of the mind which comprises of subjective experiences.

Is there any part of the mind which is not derived from the interaction between DNA, brain structure, the hormonal cascade and information received from the environment? As far as I know, these are the only influences which may determine mores, or which guide moral decisions.

Show me this subjective agent which is doing more than simply experiencing the interaction among these various physical systems.

(March 18, 2014 at 5:24 pm)Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab Wrote:

(March 18, 2014 at 5:44 am)tor Wrote: So it is objectively wrong?

How can something be objectively wrong? Objective morals do not exist.

Do you know what would happen if politicians never bullied other morons so they could win? Obama does it all the time in response to terrorism and it works quite well.

This whole objective vs subjective debate is going on in order to safeguard morals from relativistic fuck ups. For instance burning people alive is wrong and should be very very wrong so that no culture would consider it right.
Because if objective morals don't exist and there are 2 continents one burns people alive and the other does not what is the non burning continent gonna say to the burning one? That it's all subjective and a matter of opinion? Fuck that shit.

(March 19, 2014 at 2:02 am)tor Wrote: This whole objective vs subjective debate is going on in order to safeguard morals from relativistic fuck ups. For instance burning people alive is wrong and should be very very wrong so that no culture would consider it right.
Because if objective morals don't exist and there are 2 continents one burns people alive and the other does not what is the non burning continent gonna say to the burning one? That it's all subjective and a matter of opinion? Fuck that shit.

Sadly, burning people alive goes all the way back to Old Testament times. The Israelites generally preferred stoning to death, but there are a few "crimes" for which burning was prescribed—if I remember rightly, fucking an animal was one of them, and both human and animal were to be burned to death.

What this goes to prove is that cultural conditioning (deciding what God wants) can overwhelm the evolutionary foundations of morality, such as empathy and a sense of fairness (punishment proportioned to the offence). I mean I feel that having sex with an animal is slightly creepy, but burning alive?????

(March 19, 2014 at 7:56 am)xpastor Wrote:

(March 19, 2014 at 2:02 am)tor Wrote: This whole objective vs subjective debate is going on in order to safeguard morals from relativistic fuck ups. For instance burning people alive is wrong and should be very very wrong so that no culture would consider it right.
Because if objective morals don't exist and there are 2 continents one burns people alive and the other does not what is the non burning continent gonna say to the burning one? That it's all subjective and a matter of opinion? Fuck that shit.

Sadly, burning people alive goes all the way back to Old Testament times. The Israelites generally preferred stoning to death, but there are a few "crimes" for which burning was prescribed—if I remember rightly, fucking an animal was one of them, and both human and animal were to be burned to death.

What this goes to prove is that cultural conditioning (deciding what God wants) can overwhelm the evolutionary foundations of morality, such as empathy and a sense of fairness (punishment proportioned to the offence). I mean I feel that having sex with an animal is slightly creepy, but burning alive?????

If morals are subjective what arguments you gonna propose against lets say bullying? Bullying comes from evolution.
Lets say there is a continent on which bullying is considered fine thing. How are you gonna argue against it?