Morality versus afterlife

[robvalue]

Long old rant for a RoadRunner

If I get a good reply to this, I might respond in video format as this has the potential to be interesting.

---

OK, you define morality as "right" and "wrong". Now what do those words mean? Specifically. This is important, because without precise definitions those words are entirely subjective. If you want there to be an objective standard, you need to say exactly what those words mean, in a way that isn't at all dependent on anyone's opinion.

Until we can agree that, the discussion can't continue. No, I don't think "right" and "wrong" exist independent from my opinion. Not at all. Nor do I believe there is such a thing as a correct morality. I do however care very much about morality.

My morality is based in a very simple premise: try to do things that help people (and animals) and don't do things that harm them. That deals with most situations pretty easily. It's when conflicts arise and compromises have to be made that it becomes difficult, and people will disagree as to the best way to proceed.

Again, you've talked about torturing someone or not torturing them. There is no conflict. If morality is only objective in extremely obvious cases, then it's of no use. Of course I will agree that there are some things which are "always wrong". But always wrong in my opinion, subject to what I consider to be important, not objectively wrong. Because objectively wrong doesn't mean anything. If it does mean something, it needs to be precisely defined. The universe moves from one state to another. How do you determine which state is better or worse, without first agreeing on what is important within the universe?

I'll give you an example. A baby has been diagnosed with a condition so that it will live with a certain amount of pain for the rest of its life. The only way to stop this pain is to administer a treatment, which must be done before its first birthday. The treatment will stop the pain, but will reduce the lifespan by a certain amount.

So we have an undesirable outcome, whatever we choose. We have leaving someone in pain constantly, or we have reducing their lifespan. How do we decide what is the "objectively moral" thing to do?

Yes, someone without empathy will have a different morality than me. This is not surprising, as everyone has a different morality. What you're referring to is that it is probably more different. I define morality as a value judgement rather than a measurement. If it's objective, it should instead be measurable. If you can tell me how to measure the morality of an action, in a way that everyone would get the same "answer", then that would be objective. But then I'd argue that it is also useless, because you have subjectively decided on that standard by which it will be objectively measured. Whether you base it on your empathy or on your interpretation of a book, it's still subjective.

As an example, the "mass" of an object is determined by a procedure, which arrives at the same answer no matter who does it. The mass is objective. However, by deciding on this procedure, we're subjectively choosing an aspect to measure in the first place. The "mass" of the object is an abstract notion, it doesn't exist independently as a number floating above the object. If we measured it in a different objectively defined way, we'd get a different number. But it so happens that this "mass" is incredibly useful and has practical applications. Whereas if a particular person fixes morality to be measured by what they think is important, or what they think the general consensus is, then what use is it to anyone else? It could represent an average, that's all. Literally almost everyone will disagree with the results, since they won't mindlessly follow the "measurement" in the same way they would use the measurement of "mass" because it has very specific, demonstrable purposes.

---