objective morality

[Bronzeage]

This is what we call talking a good game. Your highest moral principles still depend upon the result, otherwise known as the reward. You'll need an entire set of principles to define rewards and correlate them to results, all of which will be very subjective.

With the God idea doubt plays a big part. Even believers suffer doubt, so their motives (which only they and their God knows) are guided not by outright perception of reward but by hope , often slim hope.It makes you hope that you are doing the right thing , that your motives are good.

So, imo, the foundation of morality is in the perception that God knows your motive, whereas people only see your act

That's great, but when you bring God into the argument, you rely on information which is not available to everybody. Why should anyone accept your word for it, when you say God sees your motive? There doesn't seem to be any test which can validate the results of a moral decision. How can we know we did the right thing?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Hi Bomb , I haven't got time to respond to all your points but the key one is that morality is based in motive , motive is necessarily based in mind ,therefore for there to be objective morality it is necessary that the world is a product of a mind.

But you had time to reply to other posters' posts. How do you select which posters or posts you reply to?

I'm asking because Bomb#20 is rasing the strongest objections to your claims and arguments, but you're not replying to those ones.

By the way, your conclusion does not follow from the premises you state. Perhaps, you have plenty more premises that you do not state, else your argument is a non-sequitur. Assuming that you have other premises, could you please state them?

By the way, also if the world is a product of a mind, then is that mind not in the world? If so, how do you distinguish the world from the entities that are not in the world? Please clarify.

Also, it might be interesting if you explained what you mean by "motive is based on mind", and "morality is based on motive".

By the way, one might "argue": mental illness is based on mind, therefore for there to be objective mental illness, it is necessary that the world be the product of a mind. Would you find that argument persuasive? If not, why not?

 

[Bomb#20]

This situation: You find yourself in a strange land, where one of their strange practices is virgin sacrifice. Let's say they feed virgins to a dragon. Some virgins see this as an honor, others don't like the idea. You can save the virgins by having sex with them. Some are happy to see you, others less so. You don't know until you are face to face with each virgin. There is also a time factor. You might pass up the resistant virgins and leave them to their fate, but each virgin you leave intact means one eager virgin will be eaten by the dragon.

The moral question for you is, if you discover you actually enjoy this work, should quit because you just realized you are having fun?

Are we talking about Kandran again? I love Kandran!

Let's pass over the question of whether a virgin has the right to autonomy and should be allowed to choose death by dragon before dishonor by me, the question of whether I ought to pass over the resistant virgins because I can deflower the willing ones faster and thus save more before Kandran puts a stop to all this nonsense, and the question of whether I can save more virgins by slaying Kandran. If I rape a virgin who'd rather be eaten than put out, I'm raping her to save her life. I'm not doing it for fun, even if I incidentally happen to have fun in the process. Fun or no fun, I wouldn't do it if she weren't doomed to be eaten unless stripped of her maidenhead.

I didn't know rules had a principle of the division of labor.

Um, yes, you did know it, Mr. "Don't kill your friends. Don't steal your friend's stuff.".

Thy shalt not kill.
What if someone is trying to kill me.
Okay, then you can kill to save your own life.
What about if he is trying to kill my brother.
Okay, you can kill to save your brother.
What if he just wants to kill me and my brother, but hasn't actually tried to kill either of us yet?
Okay, you have to go back to the "Love thy neighbor" rule.
But he wants to kill me. Why can't I kill him first?
Because you can't kill someone who is not trying to kill you at this moment.
But if he sneaks up on me, I'll be dead.
Then, he has done something which is a violation of objective morality.

I realize you're saying all that only for rhetorical effect; but why is it that people looking for sample moral rules always reach out to a bunch of, if you'll pardon the phrase, Bronze-age goat herders?

 

[Bronzeage]

Are we talking about Kandran again? I love Kandran!

Let's pass over the question of whether a virgin has the right to autonomy and should be allowed to choose death by dragon before dishonor by me, the question of whether I ought to pass over the resistant virgins because I can deflower the willing ones faster and thus save more before Kandran puts a stop to all this nonsense, and the question of whether I can save more virgins by slaying Kandran. If I rape a virgin who'd rather be eaten than put out, I'm raping her to save her life. I'm not doing it for fun, even if I incidentally happen to have fun in the process. Fun or no fun, I wouldn't do it if she weren't doomed to be eaten unless stripped of her maidenhead.

I didn't know rules had a principle of the division of labor.

Um, yes, you did know it, Mr. "Don't kill your friends. Don't steal your friend's stuff.".

Thy shalt not kill.
What if someone is trying to kill me.
Okay, then you can kill to save your own life.
What about if he is trying to kill my brother.
Okay, you can kill to save your brother.
What if he just wants to kill me and my brother, but hasn't actually tried to kill either of us yet?
Okay, you have to go back to the "Love thy neighbor" rule.
But he wants to kill me. Why can't I kill him first?
Because you can't kill someone who is not trying to kill you at this moment.
But if he sneaks up on me, I'll be dead.
Then, he has done something which is a violation of objective morality.

I realize you're saying all that only for rhetorical effect; but why is it that people looking for sample moral rules always reach out to a bunch of, if you'll pardon the phrase, Bronze-age goat herders?

If you like Kandran, you'll love Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.

Let's not get confused here. I'm the one who doesn't believe there is an objective morality. My position is human morality is the set of rules humans developed which allow them to live in close proximity and cooperate in order to survive. After that, it's just a subjective analysis of the situation. There is nothing more subjective than judging an act to be moral or immoral, based on the motive for the action and not the results of the action.

 

[Keith&Co.]

How about this? Listen carefully to the arguments on both sides, and then rule against the side whose arguments are all mind-blowingly stupid. Have you read what passes for reasoning among the anti-gay-rights?

Oh, i can tell which arguments are compelling. And i can see where some people offer a logical argument and some people take shortcuts through emotional bullshit. And people who say 'it's logical to assume' and pretend they have an argument.

But that doesn't get me any closer to finding out how my opinion, or society's current moral code, compares to the creators Objective Morality that's embedded in the universe.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If God created this place then it is logical to think that He values order (this place utterly depends on order )...moral order as much as any other form of order.

What? That's not logical.
You're positing a god who created a predictable universe that is orderly AND created humans with free will and the capacity for unpredictable behavior. Electrons move towards or away from a charge because of how they're made and how they react to conditions. They're not capable of independent behavior.
Humans are capable of self-destructive behavior, of acting out of spite or confusion or hormone imbalance or poor impressions...

Why would you begin to think that a creator of orderliness would tolerate such a component to his creation, much less actually design it in?

And you're doing it backwards, as usual. We're asking for evidence of objective moralty, you're presupposing a creator and concluding morality. Not offering any evidence nor identifying an objective moral.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If there is a Creator He must value order.

Feel free to show how chaos theory supports this.
Or how human history supports this.

He invented us with the ability to consider His will based on His use of order.

Stop preaching and show this to be a trait of the creator.

It is reasonable to believe that a Being that necessarily places order in high regard would also place order within morality.

Please feel free to show how this is 'reasonable.' Show your work, as they said in class.
How do you bridge from physical orderliness to moral codes being embedded?

I think that order is evidence of intent...until you can prove to me that you would be more creative after a lobotomy .

Nice.
This doesn't prove that all order is evidence of intent. Just that if my brain isn't working, my brain isn't going to work. That's a stunning observation.

So. I pour a number of fluids into a jar and leave it there. When i come back some time later, they've separated into layers. How can you show that intent was required for this to be possible?

 

[Bomb#20]

Can someone who supports objective morality tell me how do we decide if gay rights is on the objective list or not?

How about this? Listen carefully to the arguments on both sides, and then rule against the side whose arguments are all mind-blowingly stupid. Have you read what passes for reasoning among the anti-gay-rights?

Oh, i can tell which arguments are compelling. And i can see where some people offer a logical argument and some people take shortcuts through emotional bullshit. And people who say 'it's logical to assume' and pretend they have an argument.

But that doesn't get me any closer to finding out how my opinion, or society's current moral code, compares to the creators Objective Morality that's embedded in the universe.

Hey, you asked for a supporter of objective morality to give you a procedure. If you require what you're looking for to belong to a creator and be Capitalized and be embedded in the universe, talk to apeman. What I'm giving you is the procedure we also use for deciding if mice and men are objective cousins. True, there might be a more accurate hypothesis floating around out there, because a creator might really have Created the World in six days six thousand years ago, with objective non-cousin mice and men embedded in it, intelligently designed to look exactly like objective cousins. If so, I can give you no procedure by which we could possibly discover that.

 

[fromderinside]

Hey, you asked for a supporter of objective morality to give you a procedure. If you require what you're looking for to belong to a creator and be Capitalized and be embedded in the universe, talk to apeman. What I'm giving you is the procedure we also use for deciding if mice and men are objective cousins. True, there might be a more accurate hypothesis floating around out there, because a creator might really have Created the World in six days six thousand years ago, with objective non-cousin mice and men embedded in it, intelligently designed to look exactly like objective cousins. If so, I can give you no procedure by which we could possibly discover that.

So you are arguing that fitness is a basis for morality?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

How about this? Listen carefully to the arguments on both sides, and then rule against the side whose arguments are all mind-blowingly stupid. Have you read what passes for reasoning among the anti-gay-rights?

Oh, i can tell which arguments are compelling. And i can see where some people offer a logical argument and some people take shortcuts through emotional bullshit. And people who say 'it's logical to assume' and pretend they have an argument.

But that doesn't get me any closer to finding out how my opinion, or society's current moral code, compares to the creators Objective Morality that's embedded in the universe.

1. Do you believe in objective mental illness?

2. If the answer is "yes", what procedure would you use in order to find out whether being gay is on the list?

3. If your procedure is to take a look at some list that psychologists, etc., make, how would they go about making the list?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Hey, you asked for a supporter of objective morality to give you a procedure.

To find the objective morality claimed to be embedded in the universe, independent of humans, yes. Sorry if i was unclear.

 

[Keith&Co.]

1. Do you believe in objective mental illness?

Yes.

2. If the answer is "yes", what procedure would you use in order to find out whether being gay is on the list?

First, identify what causes homosexuality.
Then determine if the cause, compared to heterosexuality, is some sort of failure or simply an alternative.
For example, having a left eye that's dominant would probably not be an illness of the right eye. Being blind in the left eye would be an illness.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

First, identify what causes homosexuality.
Then determine if the cause, compared to heterosexuality, is some sort of failure or simply an alternative.

There are plenty of causes, and I'm not sure why the cause would be the issue - rather than the phenomenon we're dealing with, namely homosexuality.
But still, okay, you say one needs to determine whether the cause is "some sort of failure". Do you think there is objective failure?
If so, I would ask: what procedure do we have in order to determine whether something is a failure?
By the way, would you agree then that those who do not know what causes homosexuality (i.e., all of us) should remain undecided as to whether it's a mental illness?
I'm not saying that that is not so. I'm just asking (in order to address the issue of objectivity depending on your reply).

For example, having a left eye that's dominant would probably not be an illness of the right eye.

But we do not know what causes having a left eye that's dominant. So, Do dou think that we do not know whether having a left eye that's dominant is an illness? (maybe not an illness of the right eye, but an illness of the brain). Should we remain undecided?
Similarly, we do not know what causes left-handedness.
But even without knowing whether those are illnesses, it seems you agree that there is objective illness, and there is a fact of the matter as to whether or not they're illnesses, right?

Being blind in the left eye would be an illness.

At least for most of the time humans have been around, the causes of blindness from birth (in one or both eyes) were unknown.
So, given that they did not know the causes, should people have remained undecided as to whether people born blind had an illness?
Or do you think there is an alternative procedure, which doesn't need to take a look at the causes? If so, why can't that procedure be applicable to homosexuality? Moreover, why can't a similar procedure (if there is one in the case of blindness, and which does not look at the causes) be appliable to moral questions?

More to the point: why do you think that there is objective mental illness? Do you see any difference (in terms of procedures to ascertain cases) between mental illness and moral badness, that makes a difference regard to objectivity?

 

[Bomb#20]

Hey, you asked for a supporter of objective morality to give you a procedure. If you require what you're looking for to belong to a creator and be Capitalized and be embedded in the universe, talk to apeman. What I'm giving you is the procedure we also use for deciding if mice and men are objective cousins. True, there might be a more accurate hypothesis floating around out there, because a creator might really have Created the World in six days six thousand years ago, with objective non-cousin mice and men embedded in it, intelligently designed to look exactly like objective cousins. If so, I can give you no procedure by which we could possibly discover that.

So you are arguing that fitness is a basis for morality?

No. I'm observing that the arguments actually offered against gay rights are about as stupid as the bilge creationists put out, and I'm arguing that stupidity is no better a basis for morality than it is for natural history.

 

[Bomb#20]

Are we talking about Kandran again? I love Kandran!

If you like Kandran, you'll love Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.

Oh man, that was one seriously weird movie.

Let's not get confused here. I'm the one who doesn't believe there is an objective morality. My position is human morality is the set of rules humans developed which allow them to live in close proximity and cooperate in order to survive. After that, it's just a subjective analysis of the situation.

I know that's your position; I'm just pointing out places where your arguments for it break down.

There is nothing more subjective than judging an act to be moral or immoral, based on the motive for the action and not the results of the action.

Do you have an argument for that assertion, or is it just a peculiar premise you hope your readers share? I find it rather arbitrary and counterintuitive. What on earth does the motive/result distinction have to do with the subjective/objective distinction? Moreover, as Hume pointed out, actions render a person criminal only as they are proofs of criminal principles in his mind. A motive has far more to tell us about the principles in a person's mind than a result has -- a result after all may be quite different from what he intended.

 

[Bomb#20]

As far as I can tell, my best empirical models include the diagnosis of schizophrenia as highly predictive of certain future observations, given past observations, so it is as built in to the fabric of the world as any other bit of ontology at the level of macroscopic description.

1) It is an objective fact about Smith's mind that he prefers wine to beer.
2) It is an objective fact about Smith's mind that he values having $3 less than he values having a gallon of gasoline in his car.
3) It is an objective fact about Smith's mind that he has symptoms of schizophrenia.

1') It is an objective fact that Smith says, "wine is better than beer."
2') It is an objective fact that Smith says, "gas is worth at least $3."
3') It is an objective fact that Smith says, "the CIA is sending me messages through my dental work."

1'') It is not an objective fact whether or not wine is better than beer.
2'') It is not an objective fact that gasoline has more than or less than $3 worth of labor-value "stored up" in it.
3'') But there is, in fact, an objective fact of the matter about whether or not there is information transfer from a certain government agency to a certain person's mouth.

One of these things is not like the other. When a realist disagrees with an antirealist over the mind-dependence of, say, monetary value, they are disagreeing over the truth of sentences like 2'', not 2 or 2'.

I'm not following why you believe that. Are you suggesting that the Labor Theory of Value is an element of the semantics of objective value claims?

There is the (philosophically) trivial or banal claim that cars are dependent on minds, since cars are causally consequent on beings with minds. But it would be highly non-trivial -- indeed, it would be earth-shattering -- to learn that cars depend on minds in the sense that whether or not the sentence "cars exist" was true depended on whether the speaker believed in cars, or had a negative attitude towards cars.

I'm not sure what your point is. If you mean my criticism of apeman's argument is trivial and banal, what of it? The ugly facts by which beautiful theories are slain usually are trivial and banal. If you mean one can choose to reinterpret his "just in our minds" criterion to mean something more reasonable, something about beliefs or attitudes that will not be slayable by the ugly fact I presented, possibly so. But in that case his criterion ought to be rewritten rather than reinterpreted; otherwise the availability of multiple interpretations will almost certainly be put to good use for the purpose of equivocation.

Just as it would be highly non-trivial to learn (as a current of 20th century thought around such figures as Foucault and Szasz actually once asserted!) that schizophrenia qua medical diagnosis is culturally relative, and simply a way of society's elites to delegitimize alternate ways of thinking by calling it a "sickness".

Indeed it would.

 

[apeman]

More of the same. This 'place' is interesting to us, but that's still inside our heads. You have no evidence for your god other than your willingness to credit him with things you find appealing.
And that's no answer. How do we detect this 'will's' desire for us to behave in a certain way? What tells you that in all the vastness of this 'place' that's so interesting to us, the creator even notices us?
I tend the lawn around my house, an act of will, but if there are ants out there that find it interesting or amenable or a good place to live, i flat out don't give a rat's ass. Logic isn't for assumptions. You use assumptions to START the logical chain, then find logical conclusions for your starting assumptions.
That's kinda basic.
If you think you can logically assume something, you're just dressing your opinion up, playing 'let's pretend' that it can compete with objective facts.

including His moral works (all his works involve order).He wouldn't create a tool to work against Himself would He?

Just more assumptions and bare assertions.
No logic, no evidence, no processing.

There's no reason to think there's a creator, nor is there any evidence of morality embedded in creation. Except that you want it to be true... Which isn't a compelling argument for others.

If there is a Creator He must value order. He invented us with the ability to consider His will based on His use of order.It is reasonable to believe that a Being that necessarily places order in high regard would also place order within morality.

I think that order is evidence of intent...until you can prove to me that you would be more creative after a lobotomy .

If there is a creator, above all else He values indifferent, chaotic destruction that inevitably spirals toward even its own decay. The universe is characterized by violent events occurring with no regard for human values. Filled with unfathomably deep, dark stretches of pure meaninglessness. Viewed from any point within it, it appears on the whole as a uniform soup of gas and rubble. Beneath the law-like behaviors of some of its constituent parts lies an unpredictable, redundant, asymmetrical array of forces that blindly do whatever they do. Our best attempts to explain it are aesthetically lopsided. Even nothingness itself, upon closer inspection, is revealed to be a furious magma in constant agitation. The universe as we know it just exploded onto the scene, and spit us out as a very late afterthought. It is the very antithesis of the kind of 'order' that human moral systems strive for.

You automatically assume that this world (universe) exists in such a way that it is indifferent towards us, whereas a theist believes it is all here for us, that nothing exists here without having some bearing on us . The easiest way of visualising this is to see this existence as being akin to a dream, so that only objects that feature in the "dream" actually exist here.

In the theist view (though they may not recognise it!) we live in the mind of God, we are sub-sets of His mind that have a kind of limited autonomy from Him (dependent but free to act within the possibilities available to us) ...that's why He is all knowing etc.

 

[apeman]

With the God idea doubt plays a big part. Even believers suffer doubt, so their motives (which only they and their God knows) are guided not by outright perception of reward but by hope , often slim hope.It makes you hope that you are doing the right thing , that your motives are good.

So, imo, the foundation of morality is in the perception that God knows your motive, whereas people only see your act

That's great, but when you bring God into the argument, you rely on information which is not available to everybody. Why should anyone accept your word for it, when you say God sees your motive? There doesn't seem to be any test which can validate the results of a moral decision. How can we know we did the right thing?

You make it sound as though the no God theory is somehow less of a jump than the God theory.The no God theory makes huge assumptions...such as this world mindlessly makes itself as if we have any proof of such a possibility! At least the God theory is backed up by the fact that order requires intention...at least we know jet engines have to be intended and the laws of nature that back them are necessarily as complicated and predictable and therefore intended.

We know we have done the right thing when our motives are good (morals exist within motive), the act itself (without motive) is amoral.

 

[apeman]

If God created this place then it is logical to think that He values order (this place utterly depends on order )...moral order as much as any other form of order.

What? That's not logical.
You're positing a god who created a predictable universe that is orderly AND created humans with free will and the capacity for unpredictable behavior. Electrons move towards or away from a charge because of how they're made and how they react to conditions. They're not capable of independent behavior.
Humans are capable of self-destructive behavior, of acting out of spite or confusion or hormone imbalance or poor impressions...

Why would you begin to think that a creator of orderliness would tolerate such a component to his creation, much less actually design it in?

And you're doing it backwards, as usual. We're asking for evidence of objective moralty, you're presupposing a creator and concluding morality. Not offering any evidence nor identifying an objective moral.

I'm not pre-supposing a Creator, I've already explained why there is good reason for believing in His existence.

This world is orderly, it is governed by the laws of nature which I guess you think "emanate" from it. It is only mind that has the capacity to act with a degree of freedom from the world in which it exists....God (if there is one) must have done this for a reason...maybe He wants company , I don't know.

An example of an objective moral truth is that you should not harm another for fun...the morality exists in the words "for fun".

 

[Bronzeage]

That's great, but when you bring God into the argument, you rely on information which is not available to everybody. Why should anyone accept your word for it, when you say God sees your motive? There doesn't seem to be any test which can validate the results of a moral decision. How can we know we did the right thing?

You make it sound as though the no God theory is somehow less of a jump than the God theory.The no God theory makes huge assumptions...such as this world mindlessly makes itself as if we have any proof of such a possibility! At least the God theory is backed up by the fact that order requires intention...at least we know jet engines have to be intended and the laws of nature that back them are necessarily as complicated and predictable and therefore intended.

We know we have done the right thing when our motives are good (morals exist within motive), the act itself (without motive) is amoral.

You've completely missed the point. If you are going to use God as the source of your objective morality(God says do this, God says don't do this, etc), you are drawing on data to which only you have access. If I ask God whether or not it is moral to steal bread, if my children are starving, I don't get a definitive answer. I could ask you, but I would have to believe you have a perfect understanding of God's nature and intentions.

My motives are always good and I want to feed my children. How was I to know the baker also has children who will go hungry because thief stole their bread? They are also sad that I killed their father because he interrupted me while I was stealing bread for my hungry children. My motives were good, and while I did not burgle the bakery with the intention of murder, my children's lives are at stake, and I can't let anyone deter me because my motives are good.