objective morality

[apeman]

Angra, I can't make my idea any simpler than I already have, that morals exist in motive , that motive is a thought, that for morality to be objective it is necessary that those objective thoughts are held in the world around us (or by the Being that sustains the world around us). Objective truths are discovered truths (from our point of view), they are not just about feelings or opinions.

 

[apeman]

You keep using the word "morals", without explaining what you mean by that. Could you please provide 3 examples of morals? Is it moral statements, truths, thoughts, beliefs, properties, or what?

That aside, just as having certain motivations may be morally evil, having certain motivations may be mentally ill.


What do you even mean by "morals"?
Could you please list 3 morals, as examples?? Is it moral statements, truths, thoughts, beliefs, properties, or what?

Moreover, one could argue just as much:

A1: If mental illnesses can exist outside of our opinions, then like geometric objects , they exist within the world around us (in the sense that we can apply them to the world around us in useful ways) ...which means the world around us is necessarily mind dependent.

A2: If truths about elephants can exist...etc.

As I have just intimated (in the previous post) morals exist in the way mathematical /geometric laws exist, they are in the world around us and are only discoverable by mind. That implies that the world around us has at least a component that is mind dependent.

Actually, you said earlier that you were talking about thoughts when you said "morals" - more precisely, you described them apparently as "self-regarding thoughts".

But regardless, I will point out that:

a. You provide no good reason to believe that just because only entities with mind can discover mathematical laws (whatever that means, I'm not sure, but regardless), then the world has at least a component that is mind-dependent.

b. Even assuming that there is some "mind-dependent component", you provide no good reason to suspect that said component would be God, or would be morally perfect, etc.

Obviously since it is clear that the world "makes" minds and objects that are only discoverable by minds, it could well be the case that the whole of existence is mind dependent.If we are to follow Occam's advice it follows that we should discard materialism until we have good reason for believing in mind independence.

c. You seem to be ruling out all non-mental objects, not just materialism (whatever that means).

d. Regardless, even if that claim above were true - not sure how you interpret Occam's advice or why one should follow that -, then positing an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being surely does not make things simpler. Maybe some sort of panpsychism is true - no creator -, and that's simpler. At any rate, even assuming a creator of sorts, the further assumptions that she's omniscient, omnipotent and morally perfect only complicate the hypothesis greatly, and you've provided no good reason to think they're true, either, even assuming a creator of something (whatever that something is).

e. In particular, you've provided no good reason to think that a creator would be morally perfect.

If true morals exist then it is necessary that they exist beyond our opinion .Elephants are not a matter of our opinion, and yes , if God exists then they are also mind dependent...but morals exist differently to elephants ...they are something we sense in ourselves that have the capacity to at least indicate that there is more to the world than elephants and other such creatures...such as purpose for instance.

f. You keep playing with the word "morals", instead of explaining what you mean by that. Moral thoughts? Beliefs? Truths? Propositions? You seem to be equivocating all the time.

g. Elephants are not a matter of our opinion. Neither are humans. Whether a lizard is an elephant is not a matter of opinion. Whether the leader of IS is a morally evil man is not a matter of opinion, either. How is the comparison not relevant?

h. Now you say "morals" (that word again, apparently used in different and obscure ways in the context of the same argument. If you're not equivocating, please explain then what you mean by "morals", and provide a few examples of morals) "they are something we sense in ourselves that have the capacity to at least indicate that there is more to the world than elephants and other such creatures...such as purpose for instance."
What's the evidence, and how does this "sense" works?
Because I have a sense of right and wrong, but I don't have a sense that the world has some sort of purpose - not to mention an uncreated creator would not have been made for a purpose, so in the end, the whole world (not the arbitrary part of the world not including God) would have no purpose of its existence anyway, even if some agents have purposes for theirs. God might have purposes, but we have our own purposes without requiring God.

I use the word "morals" to describe how we should desire to behave.

1. I still do not know what you mean by "morals". You tell me that you use it to describe how we should desire to behave, but that is neither a definition nor an example of a moral. I read "morals", and I'm still struggling to ascertain whether I should read "moral properties", "moral statements", "moral beliefs", "moral truths", or what. So, I would ask again. Could you please list 3 morals, as examples? If 3 is too much, please just state one single moral. That would help me figure out (well, maybe) what you mean. So far, my best theory (see my immediately previous post is that you mean "moral statements"): But why don't you help me out by letting me know what you mean?

2. What about the rest of my post?

As I have said, morals are about raising human value (positive morals), or lowering human value (negative morals).An example of raising human value is to respect others until you have good cause not to, but to always regard them as something special (even if you are forced to kill them). An example of lowering human value is communism, where the individual is entirely secondary to the state. Good morality is a balance between the rights of an individual and the rights of society (and therefore the state that ensures it) .

I haven't got time to reply to multiple points in large posts...especially if I feel I have already addressed the points raised.

 

[Bronzeage]

[

As I have said, morals are about raising human value (positive morals), or lowering human value (negative morals).An example of raising human value is to respect others until you have good cause not to, but to always regard them as something special (even if you are forced to kill them). An example of lowering human value is communism, where the individual is entirely secondary to the state. Good morality is a balance between the rights of an individual and the rights of society (and therefore the state that ensures it) .

I haven't got time to reply to multiple points in large posts...especially if I feel I have already addressed the points raised.

How can anything be objective if it must be a balance of any two things.

 

[Bomb#20]

How can anything be objective if it must be a balance of any two things.

Electrostatic attraction tends to make an electron fall onto a proton. Centrifugal force tends to make them fly apart. When the two balance you get a stable hydrogen atom. You're asking how there can be objective hydrogen?

 

[Bronzeage]

How can anything be objective if it must be a balance of any two things.

Electrostatic attraction tends to make an electron fall onto a proton. Centrifugal force tends to make them fly apart. When the two balance you get a stable hydrogen atom. You're asking how there can be objective hydrogen?

The existence of Hydrogen is subject to electrostatic and centrifugal force. How can two subjectives make an objective?

 

[Bomb#20]

You automatically assume the world is mind independent then necessarily believe the world makes minds mindlessly . It is simpler to say that we exist as thought processes within a greater thought process...like Chrome can exist within windows...a sub set of a greater set. Occam's razor inclines me to the idea that God is a simplification over materialism and therefore a superior idea.

Not seeing how that's simpler. If you assume a thought process has to exist within a greater thought process, then you get God existing within an even greater thought process and an infinite regress. If you assume a thought process doesn't have to exist within a greater thought process and there can be a highest-level thought process, why can't it be us? One level of mind is simpler than two levels.

In any event, if it's simplicity you're looking for, the simplest metaphysics that accounts for our observations is that the whole of reality is a universal Turing machine systematically running a time-sharing simulation of every possible universe -- more than that, of every possible Turing machine. So our world exists like Chrome exists within Windows. And a parallel universe exists like PowerPoint exists within Windows. And worlds where gods exist and think thoughts that instantiate lower-level thinking creatures who exist as thought processes within their worlds' gods' greater thought processes exist like Norton Antivirus exists within Windows. And even calculations that don't implement worlds at all exist like the Blue Screen of Death exists within Windows. But the Turing machine itself is just endlessly applying the same mechanical rule over and over, as mindlessly as an Intel processor runs Windows. And among the infinite possible worlds the machine generates, there are infinitely many worlds containing no gods: worlds where the highest-level thought processes are in the brains of evolved life forms. You've given no good reason to think our own universe can't be one of those.

I've run out of time, but moral relativism is false...all sane minds know it is wrong to hit a baby on the head with a hammer for fun.

No doubt. But...

Good morals are all about raising human worth (or other beings perhaps) , so raising human worth must be a concept built into the world...

...that doesn't follow. Good morals are about not hitting the baby on the head with a hammer for fun whether the baby is worth anything to you or not. The baby doesn't have a right to be worth something to you; but he does have a right not to be hit on the head with a hammer for fun.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Angra, I can't make my idea any simpler than I already have, that morals exist in motive , that motive is a thought, that for morality to be objective it is necessary that those objective thoughts are held in the world around us (or by the Being that sustains the world around us). Objective truths are discovered truths (from our point of view), they are not just about feelings or opinions.

I'm not asking to make the idea simpler, but rather, less obscure. In order to do that, I'm both showing some of the problems in your argumentation, and asking you to provide examples.

As I have said, morals are about raising human value (positive morals), or lowering human value (negative morals).An example of raising human value is to respect others until you have good cause not to, but to always regard them as something special (even if you are forced to kill them). An example of lowering human value is communism, where the individual is entirely secondary to the state. Good morality is a balance between the rights of an individual and the rights of society (and therefore the state that ensures it) .

So, communism is a bad moral. You said that morals were true or false, not good or bad, but regardless, so there are false moral statements, and true ones. So?


Let's take a look at some of your claims again:

Angra, I can't make my idea any simpler than I already have, that morals exist in motive , that motive is a thought, that for morality to be objective it is necessary that those objective thoughts are held in the world around us (or by the Being that sustains the world around us). Objective truths are discovered truths (from our point of view), they are not just about feelings or opinions.

Communism is a bad moral. How does it "exist in motive"? You keep being utterly obscure.

As for your claims that "motive is a thought", etc., I already made parallels with mental illness and other things, showed several of the flaws in your reasoning, etc. But you keep failing to reply to most of the content of my posts, while saying things like "I haven't got time to reply to multiple points in large posts...especially if I feel I have already addressed the points raised"

While the time constraints are understandable, you've not provided an adequate reply to the parts of the posts you replied to, and you've not addressed many of the points - you addressed perhaps some points you believed were my points, but which were not my actual points.

As for feelings or opinions, I'm not suggesting that whether an action is immoral is a matter of opinion. But then, the same goes for mental illness, etc. In any case, you have provided no good reason whatsoever to think God exists.

 

[Bomb#20]

The existence of Hydrogen is subject to electrostatic and centrifugal force. How can two subjectives make an objective?

Well, hydrogen is also subject to magnetism. "Remember that two wrongs don't make a right. But three do."

I'm not following your question. If you mean X being subject to Y makes X subjective, then that's proof by pun. "Subjective" doesn't mean "subject to something"; it means a matter of opinion or taste. Besides which, everything is subject to gravity; surely you aren't arguing that nothing at all is objective, are you?

Conversely, if you mean there's something special about the number two that makes being subject specifically to two things incompatible with objectivity, why?

 

[Bronzeage]

The existence of Hydrogen is subject to electrostatic and centrifugal force. How can two subjectives make an objective?

Well, hydrogen is also subject to magnetism. "Remember that two wrongs don't make a right. But three do."

I'm not following your question. If you mean X being subject to Y makes X subjective, then that's proof by pun. "Subjective" doesn't mean "subject to something"; it means a matter of opinion or taste. Besides which, everything is subject to gravity; surely you aren't arguing that nothing at all is objective, are you?

Conversely, if you mean there's something special about the number two that makes being subject specifically to two things incompatible with objectivity, why?

Part of the fun of these discussion is seeing how many ways the differing definitions of a word can be used. Today is Friday, and that is an objective fact, for the moment. It's raining here and it's a miserable day. This is my opinion, which is subjective to my feelings about mud and wet socks. Others may think this is a grand day because they like mud and took off their socks earlier this morning.

The OP is arguing(or was at one time) that human morals are objective, in the same way we all recognize a rainy day. I have always contended there is no such thing and any argument for this view depends upon serious flaws in definitions. We have gotten far afield from a discussion of morality and its ultimate source, and are now playing word games because faulty analogies and metaphors follow from faulty definitions.

 

[fromderinside]

So what is wrong with connecting things to a body of data and principles that we currently believe describe the real world. Why not take those estimates of the nature of the world and use them as metrics against which we judge each other, or the moral world, if you prefer that reckoning.

I presumed apeman was trying to do that until I read he suspended the effects of time apparently to keep moral principles constant. Still, against an ideal based on the body of knowledge used in a paradigm, decision theory or game theory if you must, to judge or develop a morality structure seems appropriate. One can balance against and decide against an ideal.

 

[Underseer]

Those of you Christians/Muslims arguing "objective morality, therefore god" are barking up the wrong tree. Objective morality can't come from an external authority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

And please don't bother with the "false dilemma" excuse. Any third option you propose will just result in the same dilemma on a slightly different topic.

Objective morality is a nonsense idea for reasons already stated, but even if you believe that objective morality is a real thing, it cannot come from an external authority. All an external authority can give you is your own obedience combined with the most extreme form of moral relativism imaginable. That's why you can find clips of William Lane Craig on YouTube arguing that slaughtering all the babies in a given city is a morally good choice.

 

[fromderinside]

All authority not of you is external authority. If, forgive me, a collective meme exists it represents a product of external authority. Since scientific laws of nature are cataloged best effort guesses about how things are done, they too, reflect external authority. Why shouldn't one be able to connect the personal, phenomenal, space with the objectified authoritarian space as I've been repeatedly suggesting?

 

[apeman]

[

As I have said, morals are about raising human value (positive morals), or lowering human value (negative morals).An example of raising human value is to respect others until you have good cause not to, but to always regard them as something special (even if you are forced to kill them). An example of lowering human value is communism, where the individual is entirely secondary to the state. Good morality is a balance between the rights of an individual and the rights of society (and therefore the state that ensures it) .

I haven't got time to reply to multiple points in large posts...especially if I feel I have already addressed the points raised.

How can anything be objective if it must be a balance of any two things.

What I meant by that is that good morality depends on both the individual and the society in which he lives, so one should care equally for the morality of ones own self and the morality of individuals around oneself . In other words , it's no good thinking that you can be a parasite on the decent society around you whilst you behave like a self indulgent jerk.

 

[fromderinside]

Why must, in a decent society, must one weigh equally one's interests and those perceived of others. Consider the weights of each and then explain why interests should be considered equally.

 

[apeman]

Not seeing how that's simpler. If you assume a thought process has to exist within a greater thought process, then you get God existing within an even greater thought process and an infinite regress. If you assume a thought process doesn't have to exist within a greater thought process and there can be a highest-level thought process, why can't it be us? One level of mind is simpler than two levels.

In any event, if it's simplicity you're looking for, the simplest metaphysics that accounts for our observations is that the whole of reality is a universal Turing machine systematically running a time-sharing simulation of every possible universe -- more than that, of every possible Turing machine. So our world exists like Chrome exists within Windows. And a parallel universe exists like PowerPoint exists within Windows. And worlds where gods exist and think thoughts that instantiate lower-level thinking creatures who exist as thought processes within their worlds' gods' greater thought processes exist like Norton Antivirus exists within Windows. And even calculations that don't implement worlds at all exist like the Blue Screen of Death exists within Windows. But the Turing machine itself is just endlessly applying the same mechanical rule over and over, as mindlessly as an Intel processor runs Windows. And among the infinite possible worlds the machine generates, there are infinitely many worlds containing no gods: worlds where the highest-level thought processes are in the brains of evolved life forms. You've given no good reason to think our own universe can't be one of those.

I've run out of time, but moral relativism is false...all sane minds know it is wrong to hit a baby on the head with a hammer for fun.

No doubt. But...

Good morals are all about raising human worth (or other beings perhaps) , so raising human worth must be a concept built into the world...

...that doesn't follow. Good morals are about not hitting the baby on the head with a hammer for fun whether the baby is worth anything to you or not. The baby doesn't have a right to be worth something to you; but he does have a right not to be hit on the head with a hammer for fun.

There is no need for the infinite regress situation that you describe. God is boundary to all that exists. A materialist may believe that there is nothing beyond the universe, an idealist may believe that there is nothing beyond the mind of God.

2 levels of the same thing (mind) is simpler than 2 completely different things (mind and mind independence).

There are no good reasons for supposing that the world can construct itself mindlessly....even the concept of a Turing machine needed the will of Turing , it didn't happen by chance.

 

[apeman]

I'm not asking to make the idea simpler, but rather, less obscure. In order to do that, I'm both showing some of the problems in your argumentation, and asking you to provide examples.

As I have said, morals are about raising human value (positive morals), or lowering human value (negative morals).An example of raising human value is to respect others until you have good cause not to, but to always regard them as something special (even if you are forced to kill them). An example of lowering human value is communism, where the individual is entirely secondary to the state. Good morality is a balance between the rights of an individual and the rights of society (and therefore the state that ensures it) .

So, communism is a bad moral. You said that morals were true or false, not good or bad, but regardless, so there are false moral statements, and true ones. So?


Let's take a look at some of your claims again:

Angra, I can't make my idea any simpler than I already have, that morals exist in motive , that motive is a thought, that for morality to be objective it is necessary that those objective thoughts are held in the world around us (or by the Being that sustains the world around us). Objective truths are discovered truths (from our point of view), they are not just about feelings or opinions.

Communism is a bad moral. How does it "exist in motive"? You keep being utterly obscure.

As for your claims that "motive is a thought", etc., I already made parallels with mental illness and other things, showed several of the flaws in your reasoning, etc. But you keep failing to reply to most of the content of my posts, while saying things like "I haven't got time to reply to multiple points in large posts...especially if I feel I have already addressed the points raised"

While the time constraints are understandable, you've not provided an adequate reply to the parts of the posts you replied to, and you've not addressed many of the points - you addressed perhaps some points you believed were my points, but which were not my actual points.

As for feelings or opinions, I'm not suggesting that whether an action is immoral is a matter of opinion. But then, the same goes for mental illness, etc. In any case, you have provided no good reason whatsoever to think God exists.

Communism existed in the motive of those who created it, they wanted it to achieve particular outcomes for themselves and humanity...it failed because it was wrong (negative...immoral).So God is not a communist.

Mental illness is an objective fact, but that in no way implies that the thoughts of someone who is mentally ill are correct because he thinks them, nor does it mean that the mentally ill person is responsible for his actions. I can't see what else you want me to say about mental illness.

 

[apeman]

Those of you Christians/Muslims arguing "objective morality, therefore god" are barking up the wrong tree. Objective morality can't come from an external authority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

And please don't bother with the "false dilemma" excuse. Any third option you propose will just result in the same dilemma on a slightly different topic.

Objective morality is a nonsense idea for reasons already stated, but even if you believe that objective morality is a real thing, it cannot come from an external authority. All an external authority can give you is your own obedience combined with the most extreme form of moral relativism imaginable. That's why you can find clips of William Lane Craig on YouTube arguing that slaughtering all the babies in a given city is a morally good choice.

It's a false dilemma mate .....God is the basis of reality around us, therefore God is correct morality. God is truth, He is in no way separate from it.

The good news is that only good morality is constructive/creative...and that is what God is (assuming He exists).

 

[Bronzeage]

Those of you Christians/Muslims arguing "objective morality, therefore god" are barking up the wrong tree. Objective morality can't come from an external authority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

And please don't bother with the "false dilemma" excuse. Any third option you propose will just result in the same dilemma on a slightly different topic.

Objective morality is a nonsense idea for reasons already stated, but even if you believe that objective morality is a real thing, it cannot come from an external authority. All an external authority can give you is your own obedience combined with the most extreme form of moral relativism imaginable. That's why you can find clips of William Lane Craig on YouTube arguing that slaughtering all the babies in a given city is a morally good choice.

It's a false dilemma mate .....God is the basis of reality around us, therefore God is correct morality. God is truth, He is in no way separate from it.

The good news is that only good morality is constructive/creative...and that is what God is (assuming He exists).

What should I do if I discover my mother is trying to kill my daughter?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Communism existed in the motive of those who created it, they wanted it to achieve particular outcomes for themselves and humanity...it failed because it was wrong (negative...immoral).

It worked for several decades, actually, even though it was wrong. But never mind that. You say communism existed in the motive of those who created it. But communism is bad even if no one is motivated to implement it.
Or for example, let's say that as a thought experiment, some philosophers come up with a really bad regime, even worse than communism. Let's call that regime "regime X". Now, if communism is, as you say, a bad moral, then so is regime X. But no one is motivated to implement regime X.

Mental illness is an objective fact, but that in no way implies that the thoughts of someone who is mentally ill are correct because he thinks them, nor does it mean that the mentally ill person is responsible for his actions. I can't see what else you want me to say about mental illness.

I'm saying that you failed to come up with a relevant difference that would make an argument from objective morality to God any better than an argument from objective mental illness to God.

 

[Bronzeage]

It worked for several decades, actually, even though it was wrong. But never mind that. You say communism existed in the motive of those who created it. But communism is bad even if no one is motivated to implement it.
Or for example, let's say that as a thought experiment, some philosophers come up with a really bad regime, even worse than communism. Let's call that regime "regime X". Now, if communism is, as you say, a bad moral, then so is regime X. But no one is motivated to implement regime X.

Mental illness is an objective fact, but that in no way implies that the thoughts of someone who is mentally ill are correct because he thinks them, nor does it mean that the mentally ill person is responsible for his actions. I can't see what else you want me to say about mental illness.

I'm saying that you failed to come up with a relevant difference that would make an argument from objective morality to God any better than an argument from objective mental illness to God.

Communism is so much fun, if it didn't exist, someone would have to invent it. Those who fear and hate it have so many bad examples to hold high as justification of hatred and fear. Those who love it can claim none of those examples are true communism, but a corrupt fascism which masquerades under the name of communism. Apeman said communism is immoral because it values the state over the individual. This is his definition, but suppose a Capitalist bus driver is carrying a full busload of people to a wedding. A toddler runs in front of the bus. He can swerve right and drive off a cliff. He can swerve left and run through a playground filled with children. He could run over the toddler and hope the injuries are minimal. Would a communist bus driver have any other choices?

It is in strange edicts such as the declaration about communism, where arguments for an objective morality grind to a halt. No one can give an objective definition of communism because so many people disagree on the definition. The same is true for the definition of individual and value.