Morality

firedragon said:

Saying something objectively is not objective morality.

Also, I never made a claim about what objective morality contains. Like avoiding harm or what ever. Hope you understand.

Click to expand...

I genuinely don't. What do you think objective morality is, and what content do you think it actually contains?

firedragon said:

So you are saying that people have become good and cooperate in order to be selfish, to survive.

Click to expand...

Well "good" is relative to the group. Let's say a big group of people who are settled in one area face a famine and there's not enough food, nor other resources. The settlement 5 miles away has a surplus of food. The leadership of the first group may feel obligated to his tribe and they decide to attack the other for their resources. Add on to this that their god says this is what it wants, would the people protest this theft and murder? No, the god said it is moral to attack the other group, so says the leadership.

So morality can apply to the select tribe, but not apply to others since they are different. The survival of the first tribe is driving their suspension of morals. We can look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs as to where a rational person or group will begin to suspend the ideals they hold in order to survive. The mother who steals a loaf of bread to feeb a hungry child, it breaks the law, but is it wrong? Morals get fuzzy as hardship rises. Of course this doesn't mean the hardship is material. In the case of the rise of Nazism the hardship was bruised national pride. It was easy to exploit a marginalized group to inflate nationalism. This seems to be what's going on in conservative politics in the USA in recent years. It's something to examine and be wary of before it goes too much further.

We can look at the slave holders of the Confederate South, their economics depended on free labor. In a sense they were trapped because they had invested in buying people instead of hiring them. But the bottom line is that their survival, both financially and culturally, was tied to owning these people, and the whites simply dismissed the notion that black people were fully human and were owed basic dignity. It's easy for a group of people to be immoral when they benefit in one way or another.

Brian2 said:

I would agree that there is no objective morality without a higher being, our creator who knows objective morality and tells us about it. Otherwise it's anything goes, or law of the jungle or rule of the majority when it comes to morals.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately a higher creator being doesn't solve the problem either, it just pushes it back a step. Why should we care what a higher being says about morality?
What is it about her edict on ________ that actually makes that edict moral?

Answering that question requires us to do the hard work of actually determining the moral rationale involved. And once we understand the rationale, we don't need a higher being to make the declaration for us, we can just declare it ourselves and the deity becomes an unnecessary middle woman.

And as I said, no matter what moral rationale is used, it still comes down to a bedrock determination each person has to make as to whether they should care about the health and well being of other people or not. And if you don't, there is no "objective" statement that can be made to demonstrate that the person must accept that as a value. We can only make objective statements on morality once some fundamental principles or goals are shared.

firedragon said:

Tzortzis probably used Darwin and Shohorab. Same sources.
Darwins "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex." You can get the whole context.
I agree that this true. Observable phenomena is true. But why is it?

Click to expand...

I am curious as to why both you and Mr. Tzortzis reference Darwin for your argument. Surely you understand that Charlie Darwin is not the last word in Life Sciences and Human Behavioral Studies. There has been a whole lot of added understanding since the mid-nineteenth century.

You have garnered a lot of quality responses to your OP making the case that those ideas and behaviors that we label and categorize under morals and ethics are derived from human beings themselves and are not derived from, or imposed on humanity, from some external source. Do you agree?

IMO, there is no absolute morality. It is created by one's society. Other societies may have other standards. I read about a tribe in Malenasia, where husbands and wives are considered enemies but they do have sex and children. The wife lives in her parents home and comes only in the night.

wellwisher said:

The confusion about morality is that morality was designed for group cohesion and not the whims of the individual. Morality is based on the concept that the team can become more that the sum of its parts. While a good team requires the individual places limits on themselves for the benefit of the team.

Click to expand...

Im sorry Well-wisher. There is no evidence for that. This is speculation. I dont say its nonsensical speculation, but its speculation nevertheless.

MikeF said:

I am curious as to why both you and Mr. Tzortzis reference Darwin for your argument. Surely you understand that Charlie Darwin is not the last word in Life Sciences and Human Behavioral Studies. There has been a whole lot of added understanding since the mid-nineteenth century.

You have garnered a lot of quality responses to your OP making the case that those ideas and behaviors that we label and categorize under morals and ethics are derived from human beings themselves and are not derived from, or imposed on humanity, from some external source. Do you agree?

Click to expand...

If you want to ask questions from another person somewhere else, you have to ask them. If you ask me about someone else and what their motivations were for anything, I can either make some random speculation or say I have no clue.

I agree that the forum members have contributed very good things. But I dont agree that there is one single proof given by anyone that there is no objective morality whatsoever.

Thus MikeF, if you wish to make a proper philosophical or scientific case, please go ahead.
Thanks.

Aupmanyav said:

IMO, there is no absolute morality. It is created by one's society. Other societies may have other standards. I read about a tribe in Malenasia, where husbands and wives are considered enemies but they do have sex and children. The wife lives in her parents home and comes only in the night.

Click to expand...

Well, there is a tribe in Africa where the women have all the freedom and men wear a face veil.

One dilemma someone like you would face is, when you demonise the whole of Islam as violent, murderous, inherently evil as such, its a theology with over a billion people. In this case alone, it is not subjective in morality but the whole of Islam is of one single morality that you have defined as evil, but when it comes to this conversation morality is subjective.

How do you solve that problem?

1213 said:

I think that is a silly idea. No one wants to be killed against his will.

Click to expand...

Its a philosophical query. Also, no one said "one wants to be killed AGAINST HIS WILL" which is internally contradicting. If someone wants to be killed, it is his will so it cannot be against his will.

Left Coast said:

I genuinely don't. What do you think objective morality is, and what content do you think it actually contains?

Click to expand...

The thread is not about content. So of course I will not respond to that.

You asked what I think objective morality is so let me direct you to a post. It basically gives the defiant view and a general view unelaborated.

#155

wellwisher said:

If you look at the ten commandments in the context of the team all these rules make sense; good coaching.

Click to expand...

While I like your team analogy, the 10 commandments are not what you seem to think they are.
The first 4, for example, have nothing at all to do with morality and everything with the jealousy, pettyness and psychological insecurities of Jawhe.

Thou shall not steal, if followed, saves physical and emotional resource and enhance team security and unity. Do you feel better about your neighbors the everyone is honest ro do you feel closer when there are thieves among you?

Click to expand...

However, morality isn't black and white like that.
"Lying is wrong" is oftenly stated as if some kind of set in stone thing for example. But like with almost everything, it depends... if it's 1943 and the gestapo asks you were some jewish family is hiding and you know the answer... lying would be the moral thing to do, as telling to truth would be like signing the family's death sentence.

In the news, shoplifting and stealing is rampant in San Fransisco due to Democrats party teaching immorality; relative morality.

Click to expand...

Please, leave your political propaganda at the door.

No, the democrats aren't telling anyone to "steal and shoplift", nor do they support such.
Let's be serious.

Relative morality is based on the premise that anyone can be a coach

Click to expand...

No. First "relative morality" is pretty much a strawmen. The actual term would be "secular morality" or "humanism" or alike.

And not, it's not based on the premise that "anyone can be / is a coach". It rather is based on the idea that nobody is a "coach". And no "person" decides what is moral or not.
Rather, that morality is a conclusion based on reason.

Something is god/bad for such and such reason.
Not because some perceived authority says so.

Morally is based on the premise that only elite coaches can win the championship.

Click to expand...

No. That's what "divine command theory" is based on. It's what theistic absolute morality is. Where "god" is the "unquestionable coach".

In secular humanism, there are no coaches - let alone unquestionable ones.
There are instead only reasoned arguments.

The best moral systems are scalable from local to international championships; expanded team spirit; esprits de corp.

Click to expand...

Yes. And the best system is underpinned by reason, not by perceived authorities.

firedragon said:

If you want to ask questions from another person somewhere else, you have to ask them. If you ask me about someone else and what their motivations were for anything, I can either make some random speculation or say I have no clue.

Click to expand...

Certainly, you would be speculating as to Mr. Tzortzis's reasons, but you could have responded with your reasons for your selection and use of the same quote, same non-quote extended example, on the same subject.

firedragon said:

I agree that the forum members have contributed very good things. But I dont agree that there is one single proof given by anyone that there is no objective morality whatsoever.

Thus MikeF, if you wish to make a proper philosophical or scientific case, please go ahead.
Thanks.

Click to expand...

I see now what it is boiling down to. You are falling back on the same justification used to argue for the existence of a God, that despite there being no evidence that a God or Gods exist, one cannot prove that it/they do not, or cannot, exist. It seems your position is that if morality comes from human beings and human beings come from God/s, then morality, by extension, comes from God/s.
You will only be satisfied that morals and ethics are subjective if one proves to you that it is impossible for God/s to exist. As you need/want God/s to exist, no one will convince you, regardless the argument.

firedragon said:

Im sorry Well-wisher. There is no evidence for that. This is speculation. I dont say its nonsensical speculation, but its speculation nevertheless.

Click to expand...

No, there's plenty of evidence for it.

It's called behavioral biology.
You should check it out. I linked Stanford university course in my first reply to this thread. It's all on youtube, the full course, for free.

firedragon said:

I agree that the forum members have contributed very good things. But I dont agree that there is one single proof given by anyone that there is no objective morality whatsoever.

Click to expand...

You're again failing at the burden of proof...........

It's upto the one that claims that there IS an objective morality, to support that claim with evidence.
So, do you claim there is such a thing for an objective morality? If yes, what is your evidence for that claim?

Thus MikeF, if you wish to make a proper philosophical or scientific case, please go ahead.
Thanks.

Click to expand...

Proper scientific cases are made for positive claims. Not for dismissals of empty unevidenced claims.

firedragon said:

Well, there is a tribe in Africa where the women have all the freedom and men wear a face veil.

One dilemma someone like you would face is, when you demonise the whole of Islam as violent, murderous, inherently evil as such, its a theology with over a billion people. In this case alone, it is not subjective in morality but the whole of Islam is of one single morality that you have defined as evil, but when it comes to this conversation morality is subjective.

How do you solve that problem?

Click to expand...

First of all, it's obviously not true that a billion muslims all follow the same "islamic morality".
Clearly there is no such thing.

For example, al-qaida's view of morality is rather different from ISIS' view of morality. So much so that they are willing to kill eachother over it.

And I'm sure that your morality differs quite a lot from the morality of both al-qaida and isis, isn't that the case?

It's an obvious falsehood to claim that all muslims follow a single islamic morality.
That is demonstrably and obviously false.

MikeF said:

Certainly, you would be speculating as to Mr. Tzortzis's reasons, but you could have responded with your reasons for your selection and use of the same quote, same non-quote extended example, on the same subject.

Click to expand...

Evolutionary ethics is a specific philosophical tradition.

MikeF said:

I see now what it is boiling down to. You are falling back on the same justification used to argue for the existence of a God, that despite there being no evidence that a God or Gods exist, one cannot prove that it/they do not, or cannot, exist. It seems your position is that if morality comes from human beings and human beings come from God/s, then morality, by extension, comes from God/s.
You will only be satisfied that morals and ethics are subjective if one proves to you that it is impossible for God/s to exist. As you need/want God/s to exist, no one will convince you, regardless the argument.

Click to expand...

You have a right to your opinion.

firedragon said:

Evolutionary ethics is a specific philosophical tradition.

Click to expand...

Behavioral biology, is a science.

You have a right to your opinion.

Click to expand...

Not an opinion.

firedragon said:

The thread is not about content. So of course I will not respond to that.

You asked what I think objective morality is so let me direct you to a post. It basically gives the defiant view and a general view unelaborated.

#155

Click to expand...

If we're not going to talk about the content it seems rather bizarre to discuss some amorphous abstract concept. Objective morality is only relevant to anyone's life if we actually know what's expected of us. That's the whole point of morality generally: to guide us as to what we ought do.

The definition you offered is also confusing:

A great many of our moral rules are the same ones around the globe simply because we are all of the same human species. Thats the only objective morality we'd ever know, and it is an objective morality even if it isn't an ultimate, absolute, or unchanging one.

Click to expand...

So by this definition, "objective" morality is basically moral rules agreed to by the consensus of people around the world. That's "the only objective morality we'd ever know." But then you say:

Objective morality in my understanding is moral absolutes that transcend human consensus, human reasoning and debate, relativism or biology.

Click to expand...

So this is a contradiction. Is "objective morality" the morality of the consensus of people around the world, or isn't it?

Left Coast said:

If we're not going to talk about the content it seems rather bizarre to discuss some amorphous abstract concept. Objective morality is only relevant to anyone's life if we actually know what's expected of us. That's the whole point of morality generally: to guide us as to what we ought do.

The definition you offered is also confusing:

Click to expand...

Yeah. If you think its absurd to discuss morality as a subject without listing down some content. this thread is not relevant to you. So I think that would end the discussion.

If you want another definition of objective morality, a moral system could be designated objective if it finds its source outside of humanity or the allowance that such a system could be considered if it tries to derive it objectively rather than subjectively. It could also be explained as morality gathered objectively and not from personal opinion or expression of interest and desire.

Left Coast said:

So by this definition, "objective" morality is basically moral rules agreed to by the consensus of people around the world. That's "the only objective morality we'd ever know." But then you say:

Click to expand...

I was quoting an atheist who had his own opinion. I even gave the name. The book is called "end of christianity, how faith fails". You have misquoted it above, and you are about to misquote again. Your comment:

Left Coast said:

So this is a contradiction. Is "objective morality" the morality of the consensus of people around the world, or isn't it?

Click to expand...

I didnt say anything about objective morality being a "consensus", nor did the quote from Loftus. Please read that quote once more so that you understand.

firedragon said:

Yeah. If you think its absurd to discuss morality as a subject without listing down some content. this thread is not relevant to you. So I think that would end the discussion.

If you want another definition of objective morality, a moral system could be designated objective if it finds its source outside of humanity

Click to expand...

Do you know of any such systems?

or the allowance that such a system could be considered if it tries to derive it objectively rather than subjectively.

Click to expand...

So the word has multiple meanings? A moral system can be objective if it tries to be objective? What if it tries but fails?

It could also be explained as morality gathered objectively and not from personal opinion or expression of interest and desire.

Click to expand...

How would you go about "gathering morality objectively?"

I was quoting an atheist who had his own opinion. I even gave the name. The book is called "end of christianity, how faith fails". You have misquoted it above, and you are about to misquote again.

Click to expand...

I quoted you. So if I misquoted the book, that is because you misquoted the book. I didn't fact check you, I just took your post at face value. Did you misquote the book? If so, what's the correct quote?

Your comment:

I didnt say anything about objective morality being a "consensus", nor did the quote from Loftus. Please read that quote once more so that you understand.

Click to expand...

What do you think a consensus is, other than an agreement between multiple parties? If you define objective morality as, "our moral rules are the same ones around the globe," that's morality by consensus.