(March 19, 2014 at 9:27 am)tor Wrote: Ok I give up.
Pickup if somebody teleports you 1000 years in the past and leaves you there what are you gonna do?

I'm probably going on a fucking sweet adventure!

Lol, no one found my description of a potential objective moral framework interesting enough (or wrong) to warrant commenting?

Me so sad.

(March 19, 2014 at 9:32 am)MindForgedManacle Wrote: Lol, no one found my description of a potential objective moral framework interesting enough (or wrong) to warrant commenting?

Me so sad.

Link.

(March 19, 2014 at 9:32 am)MindForgedManacle Wrote: Lol, no one found my description of a potential objective moral framework interesting enough (or wrong) to warrant commenting?

Me so sad.

I liked it. But I don't think you were using "objective" in the same sense that tor is using it in.

How do you determine what is right or wrong?

(March 19, 2014 at 9:37 am)tor Wrote: How do you determine what is right or wrong?

First I establish, subjectively, a frame of reference.

(March 19, 2014 at 9:46 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(March 19, 2014 at 9:37 am)tor Wrote: How do you determine what is right or wrong?

First I establish, subjectively, a frame of reference.

Which is what?

(March 19, 2014 at 9:47 am)tor Wrote:

(March 19, 2014 at 9:46 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: First I establish, subjectively, a frame of reference.

Which is what?

Well, let's account for a few facts about reality that we probably agree on.
Organisms, specifically us, only live once. Once we die, that's it. So for me that makes life extremely precious. In other words, every moment you have is a moment worth spending on whatever it is that makes you happy.

Other minds also exist. We agree on that? So then, we should all do whatever it is that makes us each, individually, happy.

But what happens when multiple minds disagree or have different concepts of happiness? Then each case should be made with, if possible, an objective observer present (at least in theory) who considers all the actual physiological and neurological states of being that a broad idea of happiness largely depends on. Lying or cheating or stealing or killing or raping involves not just one party but multiple parties, so maximizing happiness for the individual is only as relevant as it is for all parties involved. That would be a summary of my basis for determining right and wrong. I'd also assert that it's reasonable, and moreover, as objective as you're going to possibly get on the subject.

(March 19, 2014 at 7:57 am)tor Wrote: 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?

First, I've said before and am glad to repeat:

Subjective does not mean all opinions are equal.

Some subjective opinions are supported by objective data and logical arguments and others are not. This is why we have a judicial system. If the defendant says "I'm innocent" and the prosecution says "he's guilty" we don't just consider it a wash because both are opinions. We weigh the evidence and hear the arguments before we make an evaluation.

As far as your bullying example, there are many different approaches. I could use the Bentham Utilitarian principle to show the long term damage and costs of bullying. I could use the Social Contract to show how we wouldn't want this to happen to ourselves and it would be hypocritical to consider it good enough for others. We could use the Rawl's Veil of Ignorance to imagine we will be cast in one of the two roles but we won't know which one until the "veil" is lifted and under such conditions we'd want the most just system we could create.

What all these arguments have in common is the use of objective reality and logical evaluation to make conclusions as to right and wrong. Morality is subjective but this should not mean that "anything goes".

...and evolution has nothing to do with anything here. Just because something is a certain way doesn't mean it ought to be so. Religious people often get confused because the "is" and "ought" are so intertwined in their world view.

To the religious minded, "it is so" is followed by "God made it that way" which is followed by "and so it ought to be".

To science, the "is" and "ought" are two separate issues. In fact, science isn't concerned with the ought at all. "It is so" is followed by a period and full stop. A scientist can legitimately feel that "...and it really sucks and I wish it were not" but that is not part of the scientific method.

Thus, "we evolved that way" is not to be taken as "and so it's right".

Exactly. Morality ultimately comes down to each person asking themselves, "Why should I care about anyone or anything else but myself? Why care about anything at all?" I don't think there's an objective answer to that. But I'm happy with mine (and I suspect most people are with the exception of suicides and perhaps sociopaths). From whatever answer you tell yourself, a frame of reference can be established for evaluating moral questions "objectively" (in the scientific sense at least) as it relates to yourself and others.