objective morality

[fromderinside]

Right now, the US military is bombing a bunch of guys in Syria because we don't like them. They haven't actually attacked the US, so the military is not defending the US. By this point, we have probably killed several thousand men and uncounted civilians, including children. This is all morally acceptable. If you can fit this into an objective standard of whether it is right or wrong to kill, I would like to hear it.

Proper application of potential objective analyses depend on appropriate material frames within which one applies the methods. In the case you cite I suggest the appropriate material frames are the environments in which the killing is taking place We need consider both those being bombed and for those carrying out the bombing. We also need to consider the social detail for each with respect to the other. The bombers are outsiders who have alliances with those being attacked by those inside. Outsiders also use humanitarian rationales such as protecting favored religious and useful ethnic groups -whether this latter be considered or judged superficial depends on other analyses of who is considered us by insiders- that we might use to train and send in as ground forces for their own interests. Those inside are primarily young, extremely poor, and politically throwaway, by their controlling governments.

The objective questions need to be framed pairing these two groups of schema in payoffs with respect to modernity or tradition for all the people in the area and utility of the groups in te area to those supporting one insider group or the other.

As I said a relative morality construction with answers for both sides and for the region as a whole as part of the greater environment (western) interfaces with them.

Killing is just an action it is neither right or wrong unless there is advantage to it by those killing in the region used as incitement for those attacking those for whom the killers have reached judgment that it is better to kill everybody than it is to negotiate or work within existing regional systems.

So we have three judgments to make.

1. Are the local killers justified, in the right, when they kill any one other than those who believe as they do in the region.
2. Are the bombers justified, in the right, killing those who are carrying out killing of those who don't agree with them in the area in defense of those governments and social groups being attacked.
3. Is there an overall rightness for these killings by both groups to go in a more general schema for order and justice between west and middle eastern cultures.

Obviously not a simple thing, but, with super computers and detailed narratives one can construct running more or less objectifves moralities for all three perspectives.

As this tome suggests I''m not going to get down in an emotional human judgment that can generate an adherents morality discussion since that has never worked in the past except to leave trash heaps of institutions frozen in 'common sense' and ancient 'wisdom'.

 

[Bronzeage]

Right now, the US military is bombing a bunch of guys in Syria because we don't like them. They haven't actually attacked the US, so the military is not defending the US. By this point, we have probably killed several thousand men and uncounted civilians, including children. This is all morally acceptable. If you can fit this into an objective standard of whether it is right or wrong to kill, I would like to hear it.

Proper application of potential objective analyses depend on appropriate material frames within which one applies the methods. In the case you cite I suggest the appropriate material frames are the environments in which the killing is taking place We need consider both those being bombed and for those carrying out the bombing. We also need to consider the social detail for each with respect to the other. The bombers are outsiders who have alliances with those being attacked by those inside. Outsiders also use humanitarian rationales such as protecting favored religious and useful ethnic groups -whether this latter be considered or judged superficial depends on other analyses of who is considered us by insiders- that we might use to train and send in as ground forces for their own interests. Those inside are primarily young, extremely poor, and politically throwaway, by their controlling governments.

The objective questions need to be framed pairing these two groups of schema in payoffs with respect to modernity or tradition for all the people in the area and utility of the groups in te area to those supporting one insider group or the other.

As I said a relative morality construction with answers for both sides and for the region as a whole as part of the greater environment (western) interfaces with them.

Killing is just an action it is neither right or wrong unless there is advantage to it by those killing in the region used as incitement for those attacking those for whom the killers have reached judgment that it is better to kill everybody than it is to negotiate or work within existing regional systems.

So we have three judgments to make.

1. Are the local killers justified, in the right, when they kill any one other than those who believe as they do in the region.
2. Are the bombers justified, in the right, killing those who are carrying out killing of those who don't agree with them in the area in defense of those governments and social groups being attacked.
3. Is there an overall rightness for these killings by both groups to go in a more general schema for order and justice between west and middle eastern cultures.

Obviously not a simple thing, but, with super computers and detailed narratives one can construct running more or less objectifves moralities for all three perspectives.

As this tome suggests I''m not going to get down in an emotional human judgment that can generate an adherents morality discussion since that has never worked in the past except to leave trash heaps of institutions frozen in 'common sense' and ancient 'wisdom'.

One cannot make an objective judgment, if such a judgment is subject to so many considerations and conditions. It's a simple violation of definition. There is nothing objective about whether it is right or wrong to kill another human being.

 

[apeman]

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.

Feel free to ignore this reply because it steps back a few pages.

What you are basically asking is "is the thought of something evil as bad as the deed itself?" , the answer is yes...if one is motivated to try to bring it about, or relishes thinking about it. "regime X" is not evil until it is considered a good idea. It's in the motive mate.

Someone who is mentally ill may well conceive of how God actually is, I don't deny that there could be a link between someone's mental illness and his knowledge (eg , autistic people can have great knowledge of particular subjects). All I'm saying is that if God exists it is necessary that the world is dependent upon His thought, that if that is the case then His morality (objective morality) is "written" into the world around us (because the world around us is His thought).

 

[apeman]

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.


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.

It's a bit of a cop out when people rely on the "no true Scotsman" argument. There are basic ideas within communism that are false and therefore evil. Many of those ideas are not just within communism (or its subsets), they are wrong wherever they are. If communism has only one inherently wrong concept within it then it becomes evil when one wants to implement it .

 

[Bronzeage]

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.

It's a bit of a cop out when people rely on the "no true Scotsman" argument. There are basic ideas within communism that are false and therefore evil. Many of those ideas are not just within communism (or its subsets), they are wrong wherever they are. If communism has only one inherently wrong concept within it then it becomes evil when one wants to implement it .

What basic ideas within communism are false? How exactly can an idea be false?

Please specify which definition of communism you have chosen to highlight for your example and who the author of this concept might be.

For extra credit, if the concept of Frosty the Snowman(an enchanted snowman who can talk) is false, does it follow that Frosty is also evil?

 

[apeman]

It's a bit of a cop out when people rely on the "no true Scotsman" argument. There are basic ideas within communism that are false and therefore evil. Many of those ideas are not just within communism (or its subsets), they are wrong wherever they are. If communism has only one inherently wrong concept within it then it becomes evil when one wants to implement it .

What basic ideas within communism are false? How exactly can an idea be false?

Please specify which definition of communism you have chosen to highlight for your example and who the author of this concept might be.

For extra credit, if the concept of Frosty the Snowman(an enchanted snowman who can talk) is false, does it follow that Frosty is also evil?

The idea that if the government owns your ass it will lead to utopia is a false idea within communism. The idea is false insofar as it is does not work, it represents a misunderstanding of the real world.

The definition I refer to was written by a bloke called Marx (not Groucho, Karl).

What is false about the concept of Frosty the Snowman ? I don't know many people who claim he actually exists or that he represents some way to live life. If the concept "Frosty the Snowman" was used to convince kids that there is no God (for instance) then it would be a false (evil) concept...but as far as I know Frosty doesn't try to do that.

http://people.howstuffworks.com/communism1.htm

 

[fromderinside]

One cannot make an objective judgment, if such a judgment is subject to so many considerations and conditions. It's a simple violation of definition. There is nothing objective about whether it is right or wrong to kill another human being.

Really? So one can't consider, at the time of Newton, that his judgments of the rate at which apples fall following the formula d=1/2gt² to earth with g being 9.81 ms² is right? After all this is a complex construction is made from many variables and conditions. Of course its right and all other constructions making the same predictions are wrong.
Rightness and wrongness about whether killing humans are clearly conditional as one can find by just looking at civil and military codes regarding such things.

Its not the number of conditions its how the number of conditions are reconciled. My claim is that using the scientific method one come to an objective conclusion about killing in any circumstance, that the objective conclusion is right and singular for that instance and that all other conclusion, rational, gut, historical, religious, based on incomplete or otherwise faulty data are wrong.

 

[fromderinside]

What basic ideas within communism are false? How exactly can an idea be false?

Please specify which definition of communism you have chosen to highlight for your example and who the author of this concept might be.

For extra credit, if the concept of Frosty the Snowman(an enchanted snowman who can talk) is false, does it follow that Frosty is also evil?

The idea that if the government owns your ass it will lead to utopia is a false idea within communism. The idea is false insofar as it is does not work, it represents a misunderstanding of the real world.

The definition I refer to was written by a bloke called Marx (not Groucho, Karl).

What is false about the concept of Frosty the Snowman ? I don't know many people who claim he actually exists or that he represents some way to live life. If the concept "Frosty the Snowman" was used to convince kids that there is no God (for instance) then it would be a false (evil) concept...but as far as I know Frosty doesn't try to do that.

http://people.howstuffworks.com/communism1.htm

I'll see your howstuffworks and raise you a https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm.

government doesn't own asses in communism, it owns property and capitial. What is missing from communism as applied is incentive which the Chinese believe thay are correcting.

The rest I leave to Bronzeage since I'm not one of-the-gut types here.

 

[Bronzeage]

One cannot make an objective judgment, if such a judgment is subject to so many considerations and conditions. It's a simple violation of definition. There is nothing objective about whether it is right or wrong to kill another human being.

Really? So one can't consider, at the time of Newton, that his judgments of the rate at which apples fall following the formula d=1/2gt² to earth with g being 9.81 ms² is right? After all this is a complex construction is made from many variables and conditions. Of course its right and all other constructions making the same predictions are wrong.
Rightness and wrongness about whether killing humans are clearly conditional as one can find by just looking at civil and military codes regarding such things.

Its not the number of conditions its how the number of conditions are reconciled. My claim is that using the scientific method one come to an objective conclusion about killing in any circumstance, that the objective conclusion is right and singular for that instance and that all other conclusion, rational, gut, historical, religious, based on incomplete or otherwise faulty data are wrong.

"one of-the-gut type"? You are too kind.

Newton's Laws of Gravity are empirical observation of fact. He made no attempt to explain why the Universal Law of Gravity existed, he only described its observable effects. Anyone else could collect the same data and confirm his discovery. This is the essence of objective scientific theory and has nothing to do with morality.

If whether or not it is right or wrong to kill another human being depends upon civil and military codes, there is no objective morality which governs taking a life, as every civil or military code is by necessity, an document subject to many external conditions.

 

[fromderinside]

"one of-the-gut type"? You are too kind.

Newton's Laws of Gravity are empirical observation of fact. He made no attempt to explain why the Universal Law of Gravity existed, he only described its observable effects. Anyone else could collect the same data and confirm his discovery. This is the essence of objective scientific theory and has nothing to do with morality.

If whether or not it is right or wrong to kill another human being depends upon civil and military codes, there is no objective morality which governs taking a life, as every civil or military code is by necessity, an document subject to many external conditions.

First, Newton's Laws of Gravity are based on empirical observation. What scientists observe are not facts. The so called 'facts' are generalizations based on assumptions relating the data. As Einstein pointed out more data lead to other presumptions and different laws. Bottom line, our empirical scientific method generates no more that very rigidly defined laws based on rules of association that are shown to be consistent with data over time up to the present.

Demands for explanation occur when one goes outside a well established public data set to build a system of rules. Science doesn't do this because its procedures are restricted to relating behavior of the world in terms of observed data and operations relating data to behavior. I was right is pointing out right and wrong applies to science just as it does to morality.

What we are disagreeing upon is whether morality can be constructed from scientific methods. I say that it can. I offer for justification of that view we already related human behavior to physical law through such as social scaling of desire, generating a psychometric for the behavior. Deesire is not one of the term I would use since I don't see it connected to the physical through present knowledge or data. Yet there it is a scale for a human behavior.

Such is not far from developing a set of rules for regulating or expressing desire individually and socially. OhmyGod the beginnings of a moral code.

I'm asserting the number of conditions does not constitute a line sufficient to exclude one setting out to associate and create operations for them in relation existing observed and observable data.

 

[Bronzeage]

"one of-the-gut type"? You are too kind.

Newton's Laws of Gravity are empirical observation of fact. He made no attempt to explain why the Universal Law of Gravity existed, he only described its observable effects. Anyone else could collect the same data and confirm his discovery. This is the essence of objective scientific theory and has nothing to do with morality.

If whether or not it is right or wrong to kill another human being depends upon civil and military codes, there is no objective morality which governs taking a life, as every civil or military code is by necessity, an document subject to many external conditions.

First, Newton's Laws of Gravity are based on empirical observation. What scientists observe are not facts. The so called 'facts' are generalizations based on assumptions relating the data. As Einstein pointed out more data lead to other presumptions and different laws. Bottom line, our empirical scientific method generates no more that very rigidly defined laws based on rules of association that are shown to be consistent with data over time up to the present.

Demands for explanation occur when one goes outside a well established public data set to build a system of rules. Science doesn't do this because its procedures are restricted to relating behavior of the world in terms of observed data and operations relating data to behavior. I was right is pointing out right and wrong applies to science just as it does to morality.

What we are disagreeing upon is whether morality can be constructed from scientific methods. I say that it can. I offer for justification of that view we already related human behavior to physical law through such as social scaling of desire, generating a psychometric for the behavior. Deesire is not one of the term I would use since I don't see it connected to the physical through present knowledge or data. Yet there it is a scale for a human behavior.

Such is not far from developing a set of rules for regulating or expressing desire individually and socially. OhmyGod the beginnings of a moral code.

I'm asserting the number of conditions does not constitute a line sufficient to exclude one setting out to associate and create operations for them in relation existing observed and observable data.

It is the beginning of "A" moral code, not "THE" moral code. Right and wrong do not apply to science, just as it does to morality. The metaphor is invalid. The direction of current in an electrical wire does not change according to the observers social and cultural background. Do electrons travel positive to negative for some people and negative to positive for others?

You still can't tell me whether or not it is right or wrong to kill another man, without specifying a long list of qualifying conditions. Until you can do such a thing, you are no closer to an objective moral code than your opening post.

 

[arkirk]

Thirty pages of argument and counting. We have even had God weigh in on this. A moral statement is one which can neither be proven true nor false. A moral statement is a statement of preference as perceived by an individual mind. There is no moral handbook on the universe constructed by God or man. The best we can hope for is a democratic attempt at fairness and equity.

As soon as you say something or some act is "good" or "right," we must ask the question to whom. Somebody feels it is "right" and perhaps the person next door thinks it is an abomination in the sight of god and man. We have to look at the consequences of an action in the light of our own personal experiences and in fact cannot escape doing so. Science does provide some clarification in some cases as to consequences, but not rightness or wrongness.

It is hard to accept the fact that we cannot define morality once and for all and that it is relative to many factors. Just because it is a hard thought to live with makes it no less true.

 

[Bronzeage]

Thirty pages of argument and counting. We have even had God weigh in on this. A moral statement is one which can neither be proven true nor false. A moral statement is a statement of preference as perceived by an individual mind. There is no moral handbook on the universe constructed by God or man. The best we can hope for is a democratic attempt at fairness and equity.

As soon as you say something or some act is "good" or "right," we must ask the question to whom. Somebody feels it is "right" and perhaps the person next door thinks it is an abomination in the sight of god and man. We have to look at the consequences of an action in the light of our own personal experiences and in fact cannot escape doing so. Science does provide some clarification in some cases as to consequences, but not rightness or wrongness.

It is hard to accept the fact that we cannot define morality once and for all and that it is relative to many factors. Just because it is a hard thought to live with makes it no less true.

One of the delightful aspects of the human mind is our incredible memory and the ability to recognize patterns. This leads us to value predictability and reliability above almost any other thing. Moral codes are the result of our desire to have predictability in our world. We want to know who we can trust and of whom we should be wary.

Moral codes which define behavior and the proper sanction of those who behave improperly, give us the comfort of knowing we have the support of our neighbors as we go about everyday life. Without this, our lives would be much more stressful.

 

[arkirk]

Thirty pages of argument and counting. We have even had God weigh in on this. A moral statement is one which can neither be proven true nor false. A moral statement is a statement of preference as perceived by an individual mind. There is no moral handbook on the universe constructed by God or man. The best we can hope for is a democratic attempt at fairness and equity.

As soon as you say something or some act is "good" or "right," we must ask the question to whom. Somebody feels it is "right" and perhaps the person next door thinks it is an abomination in the sight of god and man. We have to look at the consequences of an action in the light of our own personal experiences and in fact cannot escape doing so. Science does provide some clarification in some cases as to consequences, but not rightness or wrongness.

It is hard to accept the fact that we cannot define morality once and for all and that it is relative to many factors. Just because it is a hard thought to live with makes it no less true.

One of the delightful aspects of the human mind is our incredible memory and the ability to recognize patterns. This leads us to value predictability and reliability above almost any other thing. Moral codes are the result of our desire to have predictability in our world. We want to know who we can trust and of whom we should be wary.

Moral codes which define behavior and the proper sanction of those who behave improperly, give us the comfort of knowing we have the support of our neighbors as we go about everyday life. Without this, our lives would be much more stressful.

So then, you consider moral codes an effort at comfort? I think it would be wonderful if we did have an incredible memory but it appears our memories are selective and when important information (such as the history of Christopher Columbus' interactions with the natives on Hispanola) is systematically altered by propaganda:

We start to celebrate people who have done terrible things to their fellow men. As a school child, I learned that Columbus was a noble explorer bringing human values with him. A little research however uncovered that he engaged in genocide on that island, with widespread systematic executions of the infidels who were useless as slaves.

Our history has always been malleable in the hands of the conquerors. So I might just add that our morality might look quite different if we had a reliable and better societal memory than we do. You pointed to our weak suit and called it our strong suit.

 

[Bronzeage]

One of the delightful aspects of the human mind is our incredible memory and the ability to recognize patterns. This leads us to value predictability and reliability above almost any other thing. Moral codes are the result of our desire to have predictability in our world. We want to know who we can trust and of whom we should be wary.

Moral codes which define behavior and the proper sanction of those who behave improperly, give us the comfort of knowing we have the support of our neighbors as we go about everyday life. Without this, our lives would be much more stressful.

So then, you consider moral codes an effort at comfort? I think it would be wonderful if we did have an incredible memory but it appears our memories are selective and when important information (such as the history of Christopher Columbus' interactions with the natives on Hispanola) is systematically altered by propaganda:

We start to celebrate people who have done terrible things to their fellow men. As a school child, I learned that Columbus was a noble explorer bringing human values with him. A little research however uncovered that he engaged in genocide on that island, with widespread systematic executions of the infidels who were useless as slaves.

Our history has always been malleable in the hands of the conquerors. So I might just add that our morality might look quite different if we had a reliable and better societal memory than we do. You pointed to our weak suit and called it our strong suit.

For all our amblyopic faculty of memory, you remembered both versions of the Columbus story.
Amazing when you think about it, isn't it. If Columbus had a dog, the dog probably witnessed a lot of Columbus's outrages, but only remembered being scratched behind the ears.

You do illustrate an important aspect of morality. The sanctions and restriction imposed by our moral code define our group and only apply to those within our group. There will always be those among us who take crossing the group boundaries as a licence to do as they wish.

This leads to another moral quandary. If one gains by the immoral actions of another, is it moral to keep the gains? In other words, is there anyone in North America who is willing to walk into the sea and concede the continent to the remaining survivors of the people who were here when Columbus landed?

 

[arkirk]

So then, you consider moral codes an effort at comfort? I think it would be wonderful if we did have an incredible memory but it appears our memories are selective and when important information (such as the history of Christopher Columbus' interactions with the natives on Hispanola) is systematically altered by propaganda:

We start to celebrate people who have done terrible things to their fellow men. As a school child, I learned that Columbus was a noble explorer bringing human values with him. A little research however uncovered that he engaged in genocide on that island, with widespread systematic executions of the infidels who were useless as slaves.

Our history has always been malleable in the hands of the conquerors. So I might just add that our morality might look quite different if we had a reliable and better societal memory than we do. You pointed to our weak suit and called it our strong suit.

For all our amblyopic faculty of memory, you remembered both versions of the Columbus story.
Amazing when you think about it, isn't it. If Columbus had a dog, the dog probably witnessed a lot of Columbus's outrages, but only remembered being scratched behind the ears.

You do illustrate an important aspect of morality. The sanctions and restriction imposed by our moral code define our group and only apply to those within our group. There will always be those among us who take crossing the group boundaries as a licence to do as they wish.

This leads to another moral quandary. If one gains by the immoral actions of another, is it moral to keep the gains? In other words, is there anyone in North America who is willing to walk into the sea and concede the continent to the remaining survivors of the people who were here when Columbus landed?

Columbus exterminated the inhabitants of Hispanola. There is nobody to give it back to in that location...except the slaves that were imported. The problem is that our country honors the exterminator of human beings, and when I was a boy in school extolled the glorious nature of Columbus...and still does.

We condemn ISES and it does the same with us. We have forgotten what we never learned in the first place...how to get along with each other. Howard Zinn...the source of my knowledge of the Columbus extermination was roundly condemned by many while he was alive and is today...in favor of a kind of amnesic bliss and feeling real good about ourselves...so glad we survived.

The question is did we survive just so we could do more nasty things to our fellow men? Did we survive because there still was room for us in petri dish earth with a little extermination here and there to keep things tidy? Our memories and accumulated knowledge has NOT ALTERED OUR BEHAVIOR...WITNESS VIETNAM, IRAQ, CAMBODIA, LAOS, CHECHNIA, UKRAINE...ON TILL THE END OF OUR VAINGLORIOUS HISTORY.

I used to believe that humans had some innate quality that kept them or at least headed them toward civil living. Today, I see that there are mechanisms of conditioning that can overcome our better natures by flooding us with propaganda and beliefs that excuse atrocity.

I only suspect and am not sure but hope so, that democracy properly practiced might ameliorate some of our more violent and aggressive tendencies. That is only a hope and still unproven. I have long felt that John Rawls ideas about democracy might just work if given a chance. Today, what I see in America is an outrageous wave of judgmental attitude against the underprivileged...justifying keeping ill gotten gains...just what you were talking about but perhaps several eras later. Should the big banks be allowed to hold our country hostage? Should the rich be able to buy elections? Should the oil companies rule regardless of the consequences? The answer in my mind to all these questions is NO. But should is a long way from happening.

 

[Bronzeage]

For all our amblyopic faculty of memory, you remembered both versions of the Columbus story.
Amazing when you think about it, isn't it. If Columbus had a dog, the dog probably witnessed a lot of Columbus's outrages, but only remembered being scratched behind the ears.

You do illustrate an important aspect of morality. The sanctions and restriction imposed by our moral code define our group and only apply to those within our group. There will always be those among us who take crossing the group boundaries as a licence to do as they wish.

This leads to another moral quandary. If one gains by the immoral actions of another, is it moral to keep the gains? In other words, is there anyone in North America who is willing to walk into the sea and concede the continent to the remaining survivors of the people who were here when Columbus landed?

Columbus exterminated the inhabitants of Hispanola. There is nobody to give it back to in that location...except the slaves that were imported. The problem is that our country honors the exterminator of human beings, and when I was a boy in school extolled the glorious nature of Columbus...and still does.

We condemn ISES and it does the same with us. We have forgotten what we never learned in the first place...how to get along with each other. Howard Zinn...the source of my knowledge of the Columbus extermination was roundly condemned by many while he was alive and is today...in favor of a kind of amnesic bliss and feeling real good about ourselves...so glad we survived.

The question is did we survive just so we could do more nasty things to our fellow men? Did we survive because there still was room for us in petri dish earth with a little extermination here and there to keep things tidy? Our memories and accumulated knowledge has NOT ALTERED OUR BEHAVIOR...WITNESS VIETNAM, IRAQ, CAMBODIA, LAOS, CHECHNIA, UKRAINE...ON TILL THE END OF OUR VAINGLORIOUS HISTORY.

I used to believe that humans had some innate quality that kept them or at least headed them toward civil living. Today, I see that there are mechanisms of conditioning that can overcome our better natures by flooding us with propaganda and beliefs that excuse atrocity.

I only suspect and am not sure but hope so, that democracy properly practiced might ameliorate some of our more violent and aggressive tendencies. That is only a hope and still unproven. I have long felt that John Rawls ideas about democracy might just work if given a chance. Today, what I see in America is an outrageous wave of judgmental attitude against the underprivileged...justifying keeping ill gotten gains...just what you were talking about but perhaps several eras later. Should the big banks be allowed to hold our country hostage? Should the rich be able to buy elections? Should the oil companies rule regardless of the consequences? The answer in my mind to all these questions is NO. But should is a long way from happening.

There maybe no descendants of the natives of Hispaniola, but there are still living descendants of those who lived further inland. Claiming we can't give the continent back because there is no one to take possession from us is disingenuous.

You seem to miss the main point of morality. It defines the group and defines proper behavior within the group. You mention "fellow man". Is this a group? If so, we will need to merge a lot of distinct groups into one. If the purpose of morality is to ensure a better life for group members(please remember, the alternative to being in a group is solitary life in the wilderness), what advantages are there to this?

 

[fromderinside]

It is the beginning of "A" moral code, not "THE" moral code. Right and wrong do not apply to science, just as it does to morality. The metaphor is invalid. The direction of current in an electrical wire does not change according to the observers social and cultural background. Do electrons travel positive to negative for some people and negative to positive for others?

You still can't tell me whether or not it is right or wrong to kill another man, without specifying a long list of qualifying conditions. Until you can do such a thing, you are no closer to an objective moral code than your opening post.

BS

If one specifies, in operational terms (eg relating to physical facts and/or methodology) conditions and ties the conditions to the statement one has the elements of a scientific theory.

Conditions are not the problem, data and relations are the problems that need be accounted for objective statement. In my world, the one in which I live, what I can measure is data and connected with supported relations establishes a basis for reality. So when I posit a decision matrix with values tied to physics to the issue killing persons in either personal or social settings I am posting an objective position in reality. Should I choose to call it part of a greater realm of similarly developed guiding actions I have a morality. Having posited one I have evidence I can so generate an objective morality.

 

[Bronzeage]

It is the beginning of "A" moral code, not "THE" moral code. Right and wrong do not apply to science, just as it does to morality. The metaphor is invalid. The direction of current in an electrical wire does not change according to the observers social and cultural background. Do electrons travel positive to negative for some people and negative to positive for others?

You still can't tell me whether or not it is right or wrong to kill another man, without specifying a long list of qualifying conditions. Until you can do such a thing, you are no closer to an objective moral code than your opening post.

BS

If one specifies, in operational terms (eg relating to physical facts and/or methodology) conditions and ties the conditions to the statement one has the elements of a scientific theory.

Conditions are not the problem, data and relations are the problems that need be accounted for objective statement. In my world, the one in which I live, what I can measure is data and connected with supported relations establishes a basis for reality. So when I posit a decision matrix with values tied to physics to the issue killing persons in either personal or social settings I am posting an objective position in reality. Should I choose to call it part of a greater realm of similarly developed guiding actions I have a morality. Having posited one I have evidence I can so generate an objective morality.

One cannot have an objective morality and then say it is subject to data and relations which must be accounted for, before making a moral judgment. If life is inviolable, we can't attach conditions which make some life slightly less inviolable.

What you have defined and claimed to follow is a subjective morality.

 

[fromderinside]

One cannot have an objective morality and then say it is subject to data and relations which must be accounted for, before making a moral judgment. If life is inviolable, we can't attach conditions which make some life slightly less inviolable.

What you have defined and claimed to follow is a subjective morality.

What you just posted requires things constant and completely known for all time. Humans are temporal beings living for short periods of time, evolved, and living life as process. It is impossible to apply any objective reality of your specification to humans.

That said humans can live to ideals they imagine. Human imagination is limited and so is human observation and experimentation. On the other hand declaring an idea, whether by invoking God and his intentions, or by some other means, say rational, and specifying how it is to be sustained is subjective.

The morality I espouse is matching perceived and understood world to imagined ideals, bringing imagined into line with lived, making an objective morality.

You have your objective I have my objective. You have your subjective I have my subjective. I can reconcile mine. Go ahead reconcile yours.