RE: morality is subjective and people don't have free will
May 17, 2017 at 8:47 pm
(This post was last modified: May 17, 2017 at 8:48 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
(May 15, 2017 at 6:22 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: [...]That our moral sense is not anchored by objective moral values does not mean that our moral inclinations are without foundation. Our feelings give us feedback on the world just as surely as our eyes and ears do. A person who does not feel pain will likely die. The body has a wisdom the reasoning mind lacks. Johnathan Haidt postulates that our moral reasoning has five dimensions, or bases. 1) harm, 2) fairness, 3) authority, 4) loyalty/ingroup allegiance, and 5) purity or sacredness. These five bases all matter objectively in the working out of functioning of a social group or species. To suggest that morals being relative means they are just arbitrary is to ignore their foundation in our functioning as a society. Those who care not for harming others will be detrimental to the functioning of the social group. Those who disregard fairness, likewise. Morality is a brain shortcut for caring for these values, which ultimately is caring about the well being of the group. An individual on their own can decide not to care about the well being of the group, but that choice is not without consequences for our own [as well]. We are evolved to care about our overall well-being as a group, and these 5 bases are merely the mechanism by which we implement that bias. We are biased to be pro-survival, and likewise we are biased in favor of actions that preserve these properties. Acting otherwise is an attack upon the group, and such attacks are not ignored by the group. If you were the caretaker of a group, would you tolerate harm, unfairness, disobedience, disloyalty and defamation? Do you really need anything more than the combined interest of the group to justify your actions? Humans are a social species. Our moral emotions are an artifact of that. That doesn't mean they're arbitrary or meaningless.
[...]
(My added bold text, teal text[and square brackets and text within square brackets]).
To me... my added emphasis above is something I would certainly in a sense call objective morality. Objective epistemically in the sense of non-arbitrary is the sense of objective morality I believe in. I don't believe in any ontological objective moral values that exist "out there" apart from our motives, whatever that would even mean, I just recognize the non-arbitrary, and in a sense, objective values you describe above. It being relative and non-absolute does not entail it being non-objective. Science is relative and non-absolute and yet it is objective epistemically because it is non-arbitrary. I believe that all the arguments made against the kind of objective non-arbitary morality you describe as being not 'truly' objective because it's not absolute... can also be made against any theory of science that doesn't start with premises that are so sound as to be tautologies (thereby also being a matter of logic and mathematics rather than 'merely' empirical science).[/color]
For me the key points are:
1. Not without foundation.
2. Matter objectively.
3. Suggest relative means arbitrary? Ignore foundation.
4. Will Detrimental? Disregard likewise.
5. Morality? Brain, caring, values. Ultimately about well being.
6. Decide, but, not without consequences for our own as well.
.
..
...
....
.....
......that said maybe I should lay off the psychedelic Electro-Soma that makes me high? Or nah?
What is beauty?
Not what is "beauty" but what is... beauty?
