Objective morality

[genkaus]

So only when everyone within that race has given their permission? Would you ever agree to that?

Refer to the content. I never said anything about permissions.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

The universe seems to favour life. I am here not because I wanted to (obviously I didn't get a say in that) but because the universe supports life

Bollocks;we have no evidence that life is ubiquitous in the universe/multiverse.

Why would it be right to take that away from me?

There are no innate rights of any kind,only legal one,which are actually privileges,as they can be (and are) taken away at the whim of the powerful.

In the means or the end?

Of course. I just finished saying morality is pragmatic. "The ends justifies the means" is the basis of behaviour of the human species, as far as I can tell.

Ethics is a kind of algebra

A bald assertion unsupported by credible evidence;we have not even agreed on the nature of morality.

I have reached the end of my interest in this topic,and have nothing further to say. I agree to differ.

[Reforged]

Right and wrong are concepts we have invented which appear to work for us, that being said there are a grand variety of situations where there is no clear line between either.

Decisions have so many consequences we can't even comprehend most of them. Yes if you were to cure every disease in the world that would be a good thing on the face of it but wouldn't that cause overpopulation? Where would all the excess people live? How many could find jobs? Would some turn to crime out of desperation? How long till theres just too much excess population, our system simply collapses because of it and we are reduced to survival of the fittest again?

There really is no absolute definition of right or wrong which always holds true. Every good decision has some bad consequences, every bad decision some good consequences.
You can't control consequences but you can control your actions, your actions are what defines you. Its really a question of how you wish to be defined. Killing someone, even for the best of reasons, would leave its mark on everything you are and everything you will be.

This is the thing though.. you need to take baby steps. Even before you begin to analyze morality you need to understand for yourself where YOU stand. Do you think an action is good because the intentions were good i.e. it was always about the ends? Do you think the greater good is the way to go meaning that the means can either be good or bad, as long as you make the most people happy?

It's these building blocks that I'm talking about tied with fundamental facts of who we are as humans that I think could be used to formulate some sort of objectivity.

This doesn't contradict what I put. The picture is always growing, it is impossible to predict all consequences.
We can't always control the consequences of our actions but we can control our actions. These actions are what defines us therefore every action should be as informed as humanly possible, that is our responsibility as intelligent beings granted with the gift of choice.

[FallentoReason]

So only when everyone within that race has given their permission? Would you ever agree to that?

Refer to the content. I never said anything about permissions.

it would be right to end your race is when your race has given up its right to live.

I would call this giving permission.

---

Bollocks;we have no evidence that life is ubiquitous in the universe/multiverse.

Look around you! Life everywhere. The universe definitely has the capabilities to support life.

Just because we are lucky enough in our neighborhood to be at the optimal distance from the sun doesn't mean we are an exception in the universe, unless you have already visited every last solar system in the universe and haven't found anything.

There are no innate rights of any kind,only legal one,which are actually privileges,as they can be (and are) taken away at the whim of the powerful.

Hmm pretty trivial. So if the powerful say it was ok to massacre the people then you have no choice but to accept that? Even if you thought that was morally wrong? I.e. Tiananmen Square massacre?

Of course. I just finished saying morality is pragmatic. "The ends justifies the means" is the basis of behaviour of the human species, as far as I can tell.

I throw a ball at a wall and it rebounds and hits you. Did I do that on purpose or did I not mean for it to rebound back and hit you? The ends don't tell you anything about the intentions or the means for that matter.

A bald assertion unsupported by credible evidence;we have not even agreed on the nature of morality.

Fair enough.

I have reached the end of my interest in this topic,and have nothing further to say. I agree to differ.

...

---

This doesn't contradict what I put. The picture is always growing, it is impossible to predict all consequences.
We can't always control the consequences of our actions but we can control our actions. These actions are what defines us therefore every action should be as informed as humanly possible, that is our responsibility as intelligent beings granted with the gift of choice.

Ok, let's apply this to something big like you wanted to, say starvation. Hypothetically if we knew that being able to feed everyone on the planet would mean that we would overpopulate and therefore society would collapse, then let's say we decide it's morally good that we don't solve this problem. So essentially the consequences are controlling your actions. Isn't this a contradiction to what you said?

[genkaus]

it would be right to end your race is when your race has given up its right to live.

I would call this giving permission.

Then you'd be wrong.

[The Grand Nudger]

There definitely isn't "life all around" us. This is a rather tiny little enclave in the grand scheme of things. The cosmos is a meat grinder, even our "hospitable" rock is a meat grinder, simply less so (and in many cases directly as a result of all of this life).

[mediamogul]

FTR this is where a philosophy class would help. You need some foundational concepts before it makes sense to talk about "objective" morality.

Plato believed that things existed as they "actually are" in a perfect realm beyond this one. He called them "Forms". For instance we have many "chairs" that we can interact with in our normal world of sense perception. Plato believed that somewhere existed essence of "chairness" in the realm of forms which can be accessed by use of our reason. This is called Metaphysics (study of the nature of Being) and Epistemology (study of Knowledge or our ability to know). These are the two foundational principles needed prior to asking about "objective" morality. Is there an essence of "Humaness" that predefines, before a human exists, what a "perfect" human would do? Generally this concept requires a being to have pre-concieved humans before creating them. The famous saying is that "essence precedes existence". Sartre turned this on it's head and said that humans define "Humaness" by existing, "existence precedes essence" which is where the term "existentialism" came from.

This is a basic starting point. I have found it very difficulty to generate a working system of ethics that wasn't based more on rights than actual normative ethics. It's hard to command others to act in a certain way when you believe that ethics are not absolute so it is more about rights to behave in certain ways provided they don't impede others rights and don't cause unnecessary suffering.

[genkaus]

FTR this is where a philosophy class would help. You need some foundational concepts before it makes sense to talk about "objective" morality.

Plato believed that things existed as they "actually are" in a perfect realm beyond this one. He called them "Forms". For instance we have many "chairs" that we can interact with in our normal world of sense perception. Plato believed that somewhere existed essence of "chairness" in the realm of forms which can be accessed by use of our reason. This is called Metaphysics (study of the nature of Being) and Epistemology (study of Knowledge or our ability to know). These are the two foundational principles needed prior to asking about "objective" morality. Is there an essence of "Humaness" that predefines, before a human exists, what a "perfect" human would do? Generally this concept requires a being to have pre-concieved humans before creating them. The famous saying is that "essence precedes existence". Sartre turned this on it's head and said that humans define "Humaness" by existing, "existence precedes essence" which is where the term "existentialism" came from.

This is a basic starting point. I have found it very difficulty to generate a working system of ethics that wasn't based more on rights than actual normative ethics. It's hard to command others to act in a certain way when you believe that ethics are not absolute so it is more about rights to behave in certain ways provided they don't impede others rights and don't cause unnecessary suffering.

Every philosophy consists of metaphysics and epistemology. Plato's particular approach was called idealism. Its opposite came much before Sartre - from Aristotle.

Ethics most certainly depends upon the metaphysics and epistemology you choose to accept. Most often, I find that the "revealed" ethical doctrines - such as those of Christianity - accept Plato's Idealism as their basis.

[houseofcantor]

I've always thought to myself that maybe it can be shown that there are in fact objective morals.

There ain't. What there is, is absolute morality relative to the individual. Zero-state, I call it. "Absolute" in this case is more of a marketing term; what I mean by such is that being moral requires no forethought. Does not consider reward nor punishment in expression. Sola fides.

---

There definitely isn't "life all around" us. This is a rather tiny little enclave in the grand scheme of things. The cosmos is a meat grinder, even our "hospitable" rock is a meat grinder, simply less so (and in many cases directly as a result of all of this life).

I disagree completely. We are an ecology dependent upon symbiotes in our own bodies. "Empty space" is a simulation based upon projecting our awareness upon a black canvas. We don't know anything about anything but taking up space on Earth.

[Neo-Scholastic]

FTR this is where a philosophy class would help. You need some foundational concepts before it makes sense to talk about "objective" morality...It's hard to command others to act in a certain way when you believe that ethics are not absolute so it is more about rights to behave in certain ways provided they don't impede others rights and don't cause unnecessary suffering.

Because I do favor the neo-Platonic approach, I see inquiries into morality as epistimological problems. Currently, I take the idea of a moral standard as a working hypothesis, but wonder how one goes about recognizing it. I also see and interesting paradox. Even if there is an ideal moral standard, don't we need an even higher moral standard showing why we should follow it?

Ethics most certainly depends upon the metaphysics and epistemology you choose to accept. Most often, I find that the "revealed" ethical doctrines - such as those of Christianity - accept Plato's Idealism as their basis.

Who was it that said that all modern philosophy is merely commentary on Plato versus Aristotle? Some, like Aquinis, choose to accept revelation as a supplement to a rational inquiry, but I do not believe Idealism requires a revelatory component. A purely rational inquiry could potentially infer the presense of a formal aspect to reality, or so I hope (Don't worry I'm not blowing you off, GK, I'm still trying to get my nomenclature right).