objective morality

[Bronzeage]

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.

You have confused ideals and moral. They are not the same thing.

What is "ideal"? What does this mean? What does it mean that human imagination is limited?

We can refer to John of Liverpool who said, "Nothing you can sing that can't be sung." Please tell me of something I cannot imagine. I can Imagine no possessions, no need for greed or hunger, a brotherhood of man. That is a lot of imagining.

There is no ideal in morals. Morality is all about the practical everyday business of keeping the people in your group alive and healthy. Sometimes this requires one to do things to those outside the group, which would not be allowed within the group. Every once in a while someone comes along and asks, "Wouldn't it be lovely if we were all one big group?"

In an ideal world, I can imagine that happening.

 

[fromderinside]

You have confused ideals and moral. They are not the same thing.

What is "ideal"? What does this mean? What does it mean that human imagination is limited?

We can refer to John of Liverpool who said, "Nothing you can sing that can't be sung." Please tell me of something I cannot imagine. I can Imagine no possessions, no need for greed or hunger, a brotherhood of man. That is a lot of imagining.

There is no ideal in morals. Morality is all about the practical everyday business of keeping the people in your group alive and healthy. Sometimes this requires one to do things to those outside the group, which would not be allowed within the group. Every once in a while someone comes along and asks, "Wouldn't it be lovely if we were all one big group?"

In an ideal world, I can imagine that happening.

Only bold. No really.

Good is an ideal. Creating a system for a group of humans with the objective of being good is what those who study morals try to understand and develop. The fact that those systems so far imagined can only get to a place where the objective is to keep people alive and healthy doesn't detract from the goal was to find systems for people to strive to be good, live the good life, etc.

Yes it would be lovely is we could all be one group except we can't because we are effectively designed to assure our fitness which means accounting for what makes us unfit which means accounting for those who are our greatest threats other humans. So setting aside one group we revert to largest group with least likelihood of destroying itself, which, in my humble opinion, is only more likely than us becoming one group.

So everything has an objective bound that can be observed and measured and there are rules that when practiced assures the greatest accommodation for life and health which are objective goals for an objective morality as you recite.

So like I said, been there done that. I'd sure like you to quit wandering all around the lexical park and just sign up.

 

[Bronzeage]

You have confused ideals and moral. They are not the same thing.

What is "ideal"? What does this mean? What does it mean that human imagination is limited?

We can refer to John of Liverpool who said, "Nothing you can sing that can't be sung." Please tell me of something I cannot imagine. I can Imagine no possessions, no need for greed or hunger, a brotherhood of man. That is a lot of imagining.

There is no ideal in morals. Morality is all about the practical everyday business of keeping the people in your group alive and healthy. Sometimes this requires one to do things to those outside the group, which would not be allowed within the group. Every once in a while someone comes along and asks, "Wouldn't it be lovely if we were all one big group?"

In an ideal world, I can imagine that happening.

Only bold. No really.

Good is an ideal. Creating a system for a group of humans with the objective of being good is what those who study morals try to understand and develop. The fact that those systems so far imagined can only get to a place where the objective is to keep people alive and healthy doesn't detract from the goal was to find systems for people to strive to be good, live the good life, etc.

Yes it would be lovely is we could all be one group except we can't because we are effectively designed to assure our fitness which means accounting for what makes us unfit which means accounting for those who are our greatest threats other humans. So setting aside one group we revert to largest group with least likelihood of destroying itself, which, in my humble opinion, is only more likely than us becoming one group.

So everything has an objective bound that can be observed and measured and there are rules that when practiced assures the greatest accommodation for life and health which are objective goals for an objective morality as you recite.

So like I said, been there done that. I'd sure like you to quit wandering all around the lexical park and just sign up.

What if, what is good for you is detrimental for me? How could we coexist in an environment where resources are scarce and we compete with other people to survive? "Good" is a wonderful thing when everyone is well fed. Can you create an ideal moral code for a time of famine or plague?

I like the idea of creating a system for a group of humans with the objective of being good. I have studied morals for a very long time and apparently, I have learned much more about it than you realize. One of the functions of morality is to make people to be good to one another, within the group, in order for all to survive. The moral code defines good. Good does not define morality. Your goals are noble, but you still do not understand the function of morality in human society.

 

[arkirk]

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?

Ownership of land etc. is a raw question without a truly sufficient answer. We are all just borrowing the land for our purposes as long as we exist. It owns us far more than we own it. Why do you think I brought up John Rawls. We need egalitarian solutions that work and have near universal consent. The Rawlsian concept is seeking consensus through peaceful means. It is difficult to get something like that off to a good start when people are busy bashing each other as hard as they can seeking a leg up and security against the threat of others. That is what our modern privately financed politicians have built for us. Morality is one definition of behavior within a group. There are many moralities, not just one OBJECTIVE ONE that favors SUPERIOR PEOPLE.

That's supposed to be what the OP was addressing. As long as there are two brains that can think differently, then objective reality is off the table. I agree that morality is only within a specified group. Right and wrong are the two concepts that defy absolute definition but we cab settle on a consensus of major agreement between our moral preferences...most people do not like to be molested. It does not seem to be too hard to come to some agreement on that as a social value...then we have Ferguson... and anger and a breakdown on the most basic social values by people who purport to be servants of "the people." We know what seems to be wrong, but our emotions color our own actions and this thing just escalates. I am skeptical...about even most cursory lists of human values holding on in the moment in a society that seems addicted to violence.

 

[Bronzeage]

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?

Ownership of land etc. is a raw question without a truly sufficient answer. We are all just borrowing the land for our purposes as long as we exist. It owns us far more than we own it. Why do you think I brought up John Rawls. We need egalitarian solutions that work and have near universal consent. The Rawlsian concept is seeking consensus through peaceful means. It is difficult to get something like that off to a good start when people are busy bashing each other as hard as they can seeking a leg up and security against the threat of others. That is what our modern privately financed politicians have built for us. Morality is one definition of behavior within a group. There are many moralities, not just one OBJECTIVE ONE that favors SUPERIOR PEOPLE.

That's supposed to be what the OP was addressing. As long as there are two brains that can think differently, then objective reality is off the table. I agree that morality is only within a specified group. Right and wrong are the two concepts that defy absolute definition but we cab settle on a consensus of major agreement between our moral preferences...most people do not like to be molested. It does not seem to be too hard to come to some agreement on that as a social value...then we have Ferguson... and anger and a breakdown on the most basic social values by people who purport to be servants of "the people." We know what seems to be wrong, but our emotions color our own actions and this thing just escalates. I am skeptical...about even most cursory lists of human values holding on in the moment in a society that seems addicted to violence.

You and Fromderinside need to get together and agree on an ideal, then come back to me with your morality, since at this time you can't solve the problem of peoples who were displaced from their land by force, many centuries ago. If theft is wrong, is it right to keep something obtained by theft, if one was not party to the crime, but still benefits from it?

 

[George S]

There is an objective morality. It is not the ideal morality at all but rather the typical morality: Might makes Right.

God Command Theory -- If God Commands it, it is moral -- and because God has the Might to enforce his rule in the fulfillment of time: Be God-fearing and Obey.

The typical morality is enforced -- exercise of power, exercise of might. At gunpoint if necessary, right? In the civilized areas of the world local warlords (gangs, organized crime, literal warlords) are not the primary rulers. We sheep have hired sheep-dogs (almost wolves) to protect the flock from the real wolves. In the less civilized portions of the world the sheep-dogs act like wolves (warlords).

In the US today what is considered moral by society is changing. Sodomy laws are history. Gay marriage is now moral by societal standards. Perhaps group marriage is next. Perhaps families who marry youth in pairs. There is never an "estate." The rest inherit when one spouse dies (employment for tax lawyers). See Hurley's "Sister Wives" case which he won but Utah is appealing.

Frighteningly Might makes Right is what we humans do. We fight wars to decide which leader has the mightier army. The theory seems to be that the leader with the mightier god will have the better army. Or in sectarian cases, doing what god wants the right way leads to the mightier army. Winning confirms the theory. Divine Right of Monarchs theory.

An ideal morality has already been outlined. The various versions of the Golden Rule are the basis because it reflects the basic morality of empathy. Switch places mentally. This is thought by some to be what we can do that enables morality at all. We have mirror neurons that fire when we witness another's pain (psychopaths notwithstanding); we literally feel other's pain. We kill animals "humanely" so we won't feel their pain as they die.

One of the things we humans do is trust. It is a hallmark of a moral person to be trustworthy and honorable. A gentleman's word is his bond. A handshake seals the deal. You can trust me and if you declare it so I will take your secret to my grave. My hope is that people's judgement of me is as an honorable man and work (although sometimes fail) to make that perception real. The best way to do this is to actually be trustworthy. Oaths and promises are rare because they are an obligation undertaken.

Top-down rules don't work to make people moral. They make (most) people behave the way the rule-makers want them to behave. Morality is a self-referential act of self-control. It is personal and private and is really about human beings being human by interacting with other human beings being human one by one.

 

[fromderinside]

What if, what is good for you is detrimental for me? How could we coexist in an environment where resources are scarce and we compete with other people to survive? "Good" is a wonderful thing when everyone is well fed. Can you create an ideal moral code for a time of famine or plague?

Of course. Just change environmental parameters.

I like the idea of creating a system for a group of humans with the objective of being good. I have studied morals for a very long time and apparently, I have learned much <snip>. One of the functions of morality is to make people to be good to one another, within the group, in order for all to survive. The moral code defines good. Good does not define morality. Your goals are noble, but you still do not understand the function of morality in human society.

Actually good, life and health, can define, be the objective of, morality.

So using evolutionary results as a guide against which one develops improvements over time in the code is not a good idea. One shouldn't guide to minimize of social indexes of violence as social grouping become more accepting is a bad idea? BTW such as removing knives, reducing child beatings, altering from male dominance, are principles aimed at individuals within a society.

 

[Bronzeage]

Of course. Just change environmental parameters.

I'm listening.

I like the idea of creating a system for a group of humans with the objective of being good. I have studied morals for a very long time and apparently, I have learned much <snip>. One of the functions of morality is to make people to be good to one another, within the group, in order for all to survive. The moral code defines good. Good does not define morality. Your goals are noble, but you still do not understand the function of morality in human society.

Actually good, life and health, can define, be the objective of, morality.

So using evolutionary results as a guide against which one develops improvements over time in the code is not a good idea. One shouldn't guide to minimize of social indexes of violence as social grouping become more accepting is a bad idea? BTW such as removing knives, reducing child beatings, altering from male dominance, are principles aimed at individuals within a society.

You've lost me again. "One shouldn't guide to minimize of social indexes of violence as social grouping become more accepting is a bad idea? " What does this mean?

As for good, life, health, the second and third can be easily recognized, but good is still a vague term. What is good?

 

[fromderinside]

I like the idea of creating a system for a group of humans with the objective of being good. I have studied morals for a very long time and apparently, I have learned much <snip>. One of the functions of morality is to make people to be good to one another, within the group, in order for all to survive. The moral code defines good. Good does not define morality. Your goals are noble, but you still do not understand the function of morality in human society.

Actually good, life and health, can define, be the objective of, morality.

You've lost me again. "One shouldn't guide to minimize of social indexes of violence as social grouping become more accepting is a bad idea? " What does this mean?

As for good, life, health, the second and third can be easily recognized, but good is still a vague term. What is good?

Good enough.

A good life and living in good health are the objectives of morality. A good life is one where one lives in concert with others receiving benefits for contributions and receiving support for needs (doncha like those commie notions) based on rules developed to ensure that such is the case if followed by individuals (don't carry knives, don't beat children or weaker persons, don't shut out members of your group based on physical attributes, beliefs, or differences in training or living conditions, all coming from minimize violence as part of the moral cod, for instance. Similarly with health there are a set of coda arising out of fairness and desire for group health as codes for individuals.

 

[arkirk]

Actually good, life and health, can define, be the objective of, morality.

You've lost me again. "One shouldn't guide to minimize of social indexes of violence as social grouping become more accepting is a bad idea? " What does this mean?

As for good, life, health, the second and third can be easily recognized, but good is still a vague term. What is good?

Good enough.

A good life and living in good health are the objectives of morality. A good life is one where one lives in concert with others receiving benefits for contributions and receiving support for needs (doncha like those commie notions) based on rules developed to ensure that such is the case if followed by individuals (don't carry knives, don't beat children or weaker persons, don't shut out members of your group based on physical attributes, beliefs, or differences in training or living conditions, all coming from minimize violence as part of the moral cod, for instance. Similarly with health there are a set of coda arising out of fairness and desire for group health as codes for individuals.

Your specifics seem okay with me but your description utilizes the word "objective" in a non classical sense. To be objective is to attempt to see things as they are and to not attempt to alter our perception with pre conceived ideas. You are using the word "objective" to mean goal (which actually turns out to be a preference). While I see nothing particularly at odds with my preferences in yours as stated, you are essentially telling us we OUGHT to have these particular preferences and I am afraid neither you nor I can objectively prove this.

People with other preferences, for instance those of a fundamentalist Christian or Muslim would have a whole different flock of preferences and those would be THEIR idea of the objectives of morality. It could involve anything like for instance that all girls must be circumcised per the orders of God. And THEY HAVE IT in black and white.

If on the other hand, we grant everyone the power of consent and personal consideration, then at least the young ladies would have the power to nix the circumcision. We cannot merely set our preferences before the world and demand they be met, no matter how noble we might find them

 

[fromderinside]

Good enough.

A good life and living in good health are the objectives of morality. A good life is one where one lives in concert with others receiving benefits for contributions and receiving support for needs (doncha like those commie notions) based on rules developed to ensure that such is the case if followed by individuals (don't carry knives, don't beat children or weaker persons, don't shut out members of your group based on physical attributes, beliefs, or differences in training or living conditions, all coming from minimize violence as part of the moral cod, for instance. Similarly with health there are a set of coda arising out of fairness and desire for group health as codes for individuals.

Your specifics seem okay with me but your description utilizes the word "objective" in a non classical sense. To be objective is to attempt to see things as they are and to not attempt to alter our perception with pre conceived ideas. You are using the word "objective" to mean goal (which actually turns out to be a preference). While I see nothing particularly at odds with my preferences in yours as stated, you are essentially telling us we OUGHT to have these particular preferences and I am afraid neither you nor I can objectively prove this.

People with other preferences, for instance those of a fundamentalist Christian or Muslim would have a whole different flock of preferences and those would be THEIR idea of the objectives of morality. It could involve anything like for instance that all girls must be circumcised per the orders of God. And THEY HAVE IT in black and white.

If on the other hand, we grant everyone the power of consent and personal consideration, then at least the young ladies would have the power to nix the circumcision. We cannot merely set our preferences before the world and demand they be met, no matter how noble we might find them

One can only objectively prove something if it is the case, extending this to a population notion, as I do, we are confirming with data the theories (laws) generated from that data by experiment and controlled observation. So what I am saying is that confirming results tell us the theory (morality) stands if it is of the sort I specified earlier.

The just so's can't confirm the results for meeting the objectives that prescribe with their received orders sine there is no objective method for doing so.

It is for those living in a group and subscribing to a system of morality to exercise their judgement relative to any objectively derived desired outcome. I have nothing but disdain for any teaching that tells we must do thus and so because authority says so. We should guide ourselves based on our understanding of the data and theoretical implications derived through individual exercise of adjusting ones locus in the decision matrix relative to, say, such as avoidance of violence. If you are a temperamental parent your guidance should be in the direction of deferring punishment for misbehavior to one more suited to non-violent responses (aggressive husband should defer to the shoulder guiding spouse for child behavior adjustment and correction) and other choices along those lines.

 

[Bronzeage]

Actually good, life and health, can define, be the objective of, morality.

You've lost me again. "One shouldn't guide to minimize of social indexes of violence as social grouping become more accepting is a bad idea? " What does this mean?

As for good, life, health, the second and third can be easily recognized, but good is still a vague term. What is good?

Good enough.

A good life and living in good health are the objectives of morality. A good life is one where one lives in concert with others receiving benefits for contributions and receiving support for needs (doncha like those commie notions) based on rules developed to ensure that such is the case if followed by individuals (don't carry knives, don't beat children or weaker persons, don't shut out members of your group based on physical attributes, beliefs, or differences in training or living conditions, all coming from minimize violence as part of the moral cod, for instance. Similarly with health there are a set of coda arising out of fairness and desire for group health as codes for individuals.

What do we do to people who carry knives, beat children or weaker persons, shut out members of your group based on physical attributes, beliefs, or differences in training or living conditions?

Going back to the plague and famine question, how does your moral code apply in times of shortage and peril?

 

[fromderinside]

Actually good, life and health, can define, be the objective of, morality.

You've lost me again. "One shouldn't guide to minimize of social indexes of violence as social grouping become more accepting is a bad idea? " What does this mean?

As for good, life, health, the second and third can be easily recognized, but good is still a vague term. What is good?

Good enough.

A good life and living in good health are the objectives of morality. A good life is one where one lives in concert with others receiving benefits for contributions and receiving support for needs (doncha like those commie notions) based on rules developed to ensure that such is the case if followed by individuals (don't carry knives, don't beat children or weaker persons, don't shut out members of your group based on physical attributes, beliefs, or differences in training or living conditions, all coming from minimize violence as part of the moral cod, for instance. Similarly with health there are a set of coda arising out of fairness and desire for group health as codes for individuals.

What do we do to people who carry knives, beat children or weaker persons, shut out members of your group based on physical attributes, beliefs, or differences in training or living conditions?

Going back to the plague and famine question, how does your moral code apply in times of shortage and peril?

Persons are guided through mostly non-violent means to conform to the will of their peers to live without the threat of violence at every individual's meeting with another. the Leviathan should be encouraged to enforce only to the extent it is necessary to keep knives off the street so as to maintain order and access to desired things like access to health care, freedom from persecution, etc. the carrot encouragement to access and benefit from data should be encouraged.

First it isn't a 'code'. It's outcomes from a process used to guide here and now. In times of shortage and peril the 'code' becomes more harsh since constraints on life and health increase, on the shoulder becomes firmer and consequences are more graphically communicated. For the group or culture the rate at which the leviathan comes down on transgressors becomes more consequential as well. Being good becomes harder, requires more from each of us, is more clearly defined. After all what I'm using as a template for building such a code is fitness. Acceptance circles would be pressured at the boundaries and more care to ones daily behavior would be more consequential.

Still the guidance toward increasing understanding through data and analysis should soften blows from what happens now in times of shortage where things like capitalism are used as guides for choice of codes and options.

 

[Bronzeage]

Actually good, life and health, can define, be the objective of, morality.

You've lost me again. "One shouldn't guide to minimize of social indexes of violence as social grouping become more accepting is a bad idea? " What does this mean?

As for good, life, health, the second and third can be easily recognized, but good is still a vague term. What is good?

Good enough.

A good life and living in good health are the objectives of morality. A good life is one where one lives in concert with others receiving benefits for contributions and receiving support for needs (doncha like those commie notions) based on rules developed to ensure that such is the case if followed by individuals (don't carry knives, don't beat children or weaker persons, don't shut out members of your group based on physical attributes, beliefs, or differences in training or living conditions, all coming from minimize violence as part of the moral cod, for instance. Similarly with health there are a set of coda arising out of fairness and desire for group health as codes for individuals.

What do we do to people who carry knives, beat children or weaker persons, shut out members of your group based on physical attributes, beliefs, or differences in training or living conditions?

Going back to the plague and famine question, how does your moral code apply in times of shortage and peril?

Persons are guided through mostly non-violent means to conform to the will of their peers to live without the threat of violence at every individual's meeting with another. the Leviathan should be encouraged to enforce only to the extent it is necessary to keep knives off the street so as to maintain order and access to desired things like access to health care, freedom from persecution, etc. the carrot encouragement to access and benefit from data should be encouraged.

First it isn't a 'code'. It's outcomes from a process used to guide here and now. In times of shortage and peril the 'code' becomes more harsh since constraints on life and health increase, on the shoulder becomes firmer and consequences are more graphically communicated. For the group or culture the rate at which the leviathan comes down on transgressors becomes more consequential as well. Being good becomes harder, requires more from each of us, is more clearly defined. After all what I'm using as a template for building such a code is fitness. Acceptance circles would be pressured at the boundaries and more care to ones daily behavior would be more consequential.

Still the guidance toward increasing understanding through data and analysis should soften blows from what happens now in times of shortage where things like capitalism are used as guides for choice of codes and options.

The Leviathan? WTF?

Your whole idea broke down when you said, "Being good becomes harder,...". Moral codes have to make being good easier, and the only way to do this is make being bad very hard. You propose an interesting thought experiment, but has no application in real life.

 

[arkirk]

Actually good, life and health, can define, be the objective of, morality.

You've lost me again. "One shouldn't guide to minimize of social indexes of violence as social grouping become more accepting is a bad idea? " What does this mean?

As for good, life, health, the second and third can be easily recognized, but good is still a vague term. What is good?

Good enough.

A good life and living in good health are the objectives of morality. A good life is one where one lives in concert with others receiving benefits for contributions and receiving support for needs (doncha like those commie notions) based on rules developed to ensure that such is the case if followed by individuals (don't carry knives, don't beat children or weaker persons, don't shut out members of your group based on physical attributes, beliefs, or differences in training or living conditions, all coming from minimize violence as part of the moral cod, for instance. Similarly with health there are a set of coda arising out of fairness and desire for group health as codes for individuals.

What do we do to people who carry knives, beat children or weaker persons, shut out members of your group based on physical attributes, beliefs, or differences in training or living conditions?

Going back to the plague and famine question, how does your moral code apply in times of shortage and peril?

Persons are guided through mostly non-violent means to conform to the will of their peers to live without the threat of violence at every individual's meeting with another. the Leviathan should be encouraged to enforce only to the extent it is necessary to keep knives off the street so as to maintain order and access to desired things like access to health care, freedom from persecution, etc. the carrot encouragement to access and benefit from data should be encouraged.

First it isn't a 'code'. It's outcomes from a process used to guide here and now. In times of shortage and peril the 'code' becomes more harsh since constraints on life and health increase, on the shoulder becomes firmer and consequences are more graphically communicated. For the group or culture the rate at which the leviathan comes down on transgressors becomes more consequential as well. Being good becomes harder, requires more from each of us, is more clearly defined. After all what I'm using as a template for building such a code is fitness. Acceptance circles would be pressured at the boundaries and more care to ones daily behavior would be more consequential.

Still the guidance toward increasing understanding through data and analysis should soften blows from what happens now in times of shortage where things like capitalism are used as guides for choice of codes and options.

The Leviathan? WTF?

Your whole idea broke down when you said, "Being good becomes harder,...". Moral codes have to make being good easier, and the only way to do this is make being bad very hard. You propose an interesting thought experiment, but has no application in real life.

Fromderinside: Let me get this straight...You are calling YOUR PREFERENCES the objective of OUR MORALITY? The way you are using the word objective is as a noun and a military term, not as an adjective describing a method of observation. If morality is aiming at something, then it can have an objective which once met can then be abandoned in favor of the next objective.

What I am trying to point out to you there is nothing in the universe that we can point to and call a moral. All we can do is agree to agree, accept the transitory nature of our being, and try to be fair, regardless of the code said fairness can be filed under. It is really just a matter of how much can we agree on and how much good might that do us? That should not stop us from creating a pretty fair system of social rules.

 

[fromderinside]

Actually good, life and health, can define, be the objective of, morality.

You've lost me again. "One shouldn't guide to minimize of social indexes of violence as social grouping become more accepting is a bad idea? " What does this mean?

As for good, life, health, the second and third can be easily recognized, but good is still a vague term. What is good?

Good enough.

A good life and living in good health are the objectives of morality. A good life is one where one lives in concert with others receiving benefits for contributions and receiving support for needs (doncha like those commie notions) based on rules developed to ensure that such is the case if followed by individuals (don't carry knives, don't beat children or weaker persons, don't shut out members of your group based on physical attributes, beliefs, or differences in training or living conditions, all coming from minimize violence as part of the moral cod, for instance. Similarly with health there are a set of coda arising out of fairness and desire for group health as codes for individuals.

What do we do to people who carry knives, beat children or weaker persons, shut out members of your group based on physical attributes, beliefs, or differences in training or living conditions?

Going back to the plague and famine question, how does your moral code apply in times of shortage and peril?

Persons are guided through mostly non-violent means to conform to the will of their peers to live without the threat of violence at every individual's meeting with another. the Leviathan should be encouraged to enforce only to the extent it is necessary to keep knives off the street so as to maintain order and access to desired things like access to health care, freedom from persecution, etc. the carrot encouragement to access and benefit from data should be encouraged.

First it isn't a 'code'. It's outcomes from a process used to guide here and now. In times of shortage and peril the 'code' becomes more harsh since constraints on life and health increase, on the shoulder becomes firmer and consequences are more graphically communicated. For the group or culture the rate at which the leviathan comes down on transgressors becomes more consequential as well. Being good becomes harder, requires more from each of us, is more clearly defined. After all what I'm using as a template for building such a code is fitness. Acceptance circles would be pressured at the boundaries and more care to ones daily behavior would be more consequential.

Still the guidance toward increasing understanding through data and analysis should soften blows from what happens now in times of shortage where things like capitalism are used as guides for choice of codes and options.

The Leviathan? WTF?

Your whole idea broke down when you said, "Being good becomes harder,...". Moral codes have to make being good easier, and the only way to do this is make being bad very hard. You propose an interesting thought experiment, but has no application in real life.

In the case of reduced resources the means for making bad harder are assurance of more certain punishment within the frame with which I'm currently working. Scarce resources pressure any fixed setting around a given in situ code so being good from sufficient resources to scarce resources becomes harder. Parameters are adjusted to reestablish as functioning balance where violence continues to be reduced, although more slowly due to competitive headwinds, if information and communication continue to expand sharing of data and refinement of laws.

I'm getting pretty close to blowing in the wind here. However I found it to be a rewarding exercise.

 

[Bronzeage]

Actually good, life and health, can define, be the objective of, morality.

You've lost me again. "One shouldn't guide to minimize of social indexes of violence as social grouping become more accepting is a bad idea? " What does this mean?

As for good, life, health, the second and third can be easily recognized, but good is still a vague term. What is good?

Good enough.

A good life and living in good health are the objectives of morality. A good life is one where one lives in concert with others receiving benefits for contributions and receiving support for needs (doncha like those commie notions) based on rules developed to ensure that such is the case if followed by individuals (don't carry knives, don't beat children or weaker persons, don't shut out members of your group based on physical attributes, beliefs, or differences in training or living conditions, all coming from minimize violence as part of the moral cod, for instance. Similarly with health there are a set of coda arising out of fairness and desire for group health as codes for individuals.

What do we do to people who carry knives, beat children or weaker persons, shut out members of your group based on physical attributes, beliefs, or differences in training or living conditions?

Going back to the plague and famine question, how does your moral code apply in times of shortage and peril?

Persons are guided through mostly non-violent means to conform to the will of their peers to live without the threat of violence at every individual's meeting with another. the Leviathan should be encouraged to enforce only to the extent it is necessary to keep knives off the street so as to maintain order and access to desired things like access to health care, freedom from persecution, etc. the carrot encouragement to access and benefit from data should be encouraged.

First it isn't a 'code'. It's outcomes from a process used to guide here and now. In times of shortage and peril the 'code' becomes more harsh since constraints on life and health increase, on the shoulder becomes firmer and consequences are more graphically communicated. For the group or culture the rate at which the leviathan comes down on transgressors becomes more consequential as well. Being good becomes harder, requires more from each of us, is more clearly defined. After all what I'm using as a template for building such a code is fitness. Acceptance circles would be pressured at the boundaries and more care to ones daily behavior would be more consequential.

Still the guidance toward increasing understanding through data and analysis should soften blows from what happens now in times of shortage where things like capitalism are used as guides for choice of codes and options.

The Leviathan? WTF?

Your whole idea broke down when you said, "Being good becomes harder,...". Moral codes have to make being good easier, and the only way to do this is make being bad very hard. You propose an interesting thought experiment, but has no application in real life.

In the case of reduced resources the means for making bad harder are assurance of more certain punishment within the frame with which I'm currently working. Scarce resources pressure any fixed setting around a given in situ code so being good from sufficient resources to scarce resources becomes harder. Parameters are adjusted to reestablish as functioning balance where violence continues to be reduced, although more slowly due to competitive headwinds, if information and communication continue to expand sharing of data and refinement of laws.

I'm getting pretty close to blowing in the wind here. However I found it to be a rewarding exercise.

You have been blowing in the wind from the beginning.

What does this mean: "Scarce resources pressure any fixed setting around a given in situ code so being good from sufficient resources to scarce resources becomes harder."

How do we assure bad becomes harder when it is in a person's best interest to be bad? If I hoard food or steal food in order to feed my family, are you willing to use violence to recover it? You are left with a moral code which demands starvation of the group be met by killing people until the food supply matches the population. Sounds good, doesn't it?

 

[arkirk]

Actually good, life and health, can define, be the objective of, morality.

You've lost me again. "One shouldn't guide to minimize of social indexes of violence as social grouping become more accepting is a bad idea? " What does this mean?

As for good, life, health, the second and third can be easily recognized, but good is still a vague term. What is good?

Good enough.

A good life and living in good health are the objectives of morality. A good life is one where one lives in concert with others receiving benefits for contributions and receiving support for needs (doncha like those commie notions) based on rules developed to ensure that such is the case if followed by individuals (don't carry knives, don't beat children or weaker persons, don't shut out members of your group based on physical attributes, beliefs, or differences in training or living conditions, all coming from minimize violence as part of the moral cod, for instance. Similarly with health there are a set of coda arising out of fairness and desire for group health as codes for individuals.

What do we do to people who carry knives, beat children or weaker persons, shut out members of your group based on physical attributes, beliefs, or differences in training or living conditions?

Going back to the plague and famine question, how does your moral code apply in times of shortage and peril?

Persons are guided through mostly non-violent means to conform to the will of their peers to live without the threat of violence at every individual's meeting with another. the Leviathan should be encouraged to enforce only to the extent it is necessary to keep knives off the street so as to maintain order and access to desired things like access to health care, freedom from persecution, etc. the carrot encouragement to access and benefit from data should be encouraged.

First it isn't a 'code'. It's outcomes from a process used to guide here and now. In times of shortage and peril the 'code' becomes more harsh since constraints on life and health increase, on the shoulder becomes firmer and consequences are more graphically communicated. For the group or culture the rate at which the leviathan comes down on transgressors becomes more consequential as well. Being good becomes harder, requires more from each of us, is more clearly defined. After all what I'm using as a template for building such a code is fitness. Acceptance circles would be pressured at the boundaries and more care to ones daily behavior would be more consequential.

Still the guidance toward increasing understanding through data and analysis should soften blows from what happens now in times of shortage where things like capitalism are used as guides for choice of codes and options.

The Leviathan? WTF?

Your whole idea broke down when you said, "Being good becomes harder,...". Moral codes have to make being good easier, and the only way to do this is make being bad very hard. You propose an interesting thought experiment, but has no application in real life.

In the case of reduced resources the means for making bad harder are assurance of more certain punishment within the frame with which I'm currently working. Scarce resources pressure any fixed setting around a given in situ code so being good from sufficient resources to scarce resources becomes harder. Parameters are adjusted to reestablish as functioning balance where violence continues to be reduced, although more slowly due to competitive headwinds, if information and communication continue to expand sharing of data and refinement of laws.

I'm getting pretty close to blowing in the wind here. However I found it to be a rewarding exercise.

You have been blowing in the wind from the beginning.

What does this mean: "Scarce resources pressure any fixed setting around a given in situ code so being good from sufficient resources to scarce resources becomes harder."

How do we assure bad becomes harder when it is in a person's best interest to be bad? If I hoard food or steal food in order to feed my family, are you willing to use violence to recover it? You are left with a moral code which demands starvation of the group be met by killing people until the food supply matches the population. Sounds good, doesn't it?

Would not Ayn Rand say good is stealing that food so your people can eat? Bad is letting them starve. As for those others out there...they're outside the circle. She was no Socrates. You see how people get their ideas of what good is? How do we avoid making things like killing and robbery "good?" We do it by negotiating a social code that serves us all and imperatively eliminates certain acts as not acceptable...things like murder, theft, etc. But it is our agreement that we value these things not happening and nothing in nature that makes these imperative prohibitions what we might call moral. It is a negotiated preference of certain preferences. The only thing objective about the operation is listening carefully during the negotiation and getting the idea as true as possible to what we all think it means. All social rules are a wrestling match between preferences and semantic misdirection.

 

[Bronzeage]

Would not Ayn Rand say good is stealing that food so your people can eat? Bad is letting them starve. As for those others out there...they're outside the circle. She was no Socrates. You see how people get their ideas of what good is? How do we avoid making things like killing and robbery "good?" We do it by negotiating a social code that serves us all and imperatively eliminates certain acts as not acceptable...things like murder, theft, etc. But it is our agreement that we value these things not happening and nothing in nature that makes these imperative prohibitions what we might call moral. It is a negotiated preference of certain preferences. The only thing objective about the operation is listening carefully during the negotiation and getting the idea as true as possible to what we all think it means. All social rules are a wrestling match between preferences and semantic misdirection.

Ayn Rand is a strange case.

When a population is under extreme stress, it redefines group identity. If one reads the history of the cradle of civilization, which was the place humans codified morality(sometimes called the Ten Commandments, there were many other versions), one will see, robbing and killing to obtain food was the norm. Negotiating alliances with other groups was a critical element of survival, but the only thing which ensured survival was a surplus of food.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

For posters interested in reading and/or arguing on the issue of what it would take for morality to be objective - as well as a number of related issues - , I think some crucial points may be about to be debated here.

(At least, I'm going to try to discuss and/or debate the issue with Staircaseghost)

I'm thinking about maybe starting a thread on Mackie's Error Theory...or internalism - in case the discussion over at The Secular Outpost doesn't happen or is slow. I'll wait for now...