My views on objective morality

[bennyboy]

That you say it's only sin when it gets out of control and becomes harmful means that you're using -another- set of unspoken metrics.

I'm viewing morality as an attempt to maintain function and avoid dysfunction (this is subjective), and at objective mores as those hypothetical behaviors and views which will lead to maximal function and minimal dysfunction (this is objective).

[The Grand Nudger]

So, objectively subjective? I like it.

(also...you don't know my wife, she's kind of a freak )

[Thumpalumpacus]

I disagree.  Example: you can have a genetic proclivity for addictive behavior, but because you were raised to despise drug users, your personal feelings kept you from being an addict. A result of environment, yet still intensely subjective.

Morality is no different. Altruism may be wired into our genetics at different levels for different individuals, but one's upbringing influences one's mental attitudes towards the morality of altruism. And when you invoke one's upbringing, you are introducing subjectivity into the process, because experiences do not matter until we mentally process them.

I think this is pretty consistent with the kind of objective morality that CL believes in: there IS an objective morality, and we are aware of it on some level, but we are free to regard or disregard that moral sense.  In other words, the individual person isn't guaranteed to express moral predispositions.  And that would be where Christian ideas about free will (and punishment/reward) come into play.

I'd also like to introduce the idea of the 7 Deadly Sins as a catalogue of those animal instincts which are most likely to influence people to subject their ability to act morally.  If you think, it's kind of a list of those natural motivations which, if we feed them too much, may subvert one's will.

Again, I disagree. The morality inculcated into the youth could well be that drug usage or abortions are fine, even though genetically we are inclined to avoid poisons or having our bodies entered for the removal of a fetus.

However, my point was addressing the objectivity of a genetic basis for morality,not an objective morality in the sense CL means it (or so I think). Physical human growth is clearly affected by the growth environment. How much more complicated human behavior is, and how much less programmatic.

Put it this way: The aversion to killing another human being lies deep, I think, in our genetic makeup -- yet armies the world over have trained civilians to be killers without too much difficulty. The plasticity of morality is hopefully easier to see with that example.

[robvalue]

I have observed that when someone pushes gently against the boundaries of their morality, it will slowly warp to include the new behaviour as "acceptable". But if they try to go wildly against it in one go, they'll either be physically unable to act, or they will be overwhelmingly repulsed by their actions if they manage it.

[SteelCurtain]

Rob, are you doing experiments on people in the basement again?

[robvalue]

That reminds me, it's lunch time for "them".

Sorry, what was the question?

[abaris]

yet armies the world over have trained civilians to be killers without too much difficulty. The plasticity of morality is hopefully easier to see with that example.

Because, in a sense, we're still territorial chimps. It's easier to kill someone not belonging to the own group. It even makes sense, since it strenghtens the group if there's less competition. It's also easier when the own life is threatened. Survival instinct kicks in with a vengeance.

[LadyForCamus]

Rob, are you doing experiments on people in the basement again?

LMAO! Maybe it's just because it's only 6:30 in the morning and I'm still half-asleep, but I found that extremely funny. [emoji13]

[robvalue]

They are very off-putting when I'm trying to do my videos, screaming about rats eating their ears or some shit.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's where a ball gag is handy.