• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Objective morality

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
What do you mean "another social group?" I am saying that this rule can apply to all groups. What to do with an offender is simple: equal punishment. Our whole rehabilitation based system is a joke, it accomplishes nothing. Torture the rapist, kill the murderer, take from the thief...
In other words, violate the free will of the offender.

Thus the "objective" moral is subjective to ones adherence to it.
 

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
The former, of course; I can't say that the latter would make sense given my position.

I'm assuming that the word is meaningful to deduce that it must then represent a consistent and coherent concept. I went over my assumptions a few pages back.
You "prove" that the only objectively good option is to support other peoples interests. What if someone else wants a third person dead? Who's interest should I suppose then?
I see what you are saying, that kind of makes sense. It's not actually objective, although we can set up a system the is logically best for everyone, and logic is objective not subjective. Interesting point. If by objective morality we mean that there is a moral system that can be discovered and proven (like the laws of logic or physics), then no there is no such thing.
You lack a criteria for deciding what is ideal or not. Logic will only tell you how to achieve the ideal. ;)
 

jasonwill2

Well-Known Member
What do you mean? If we set up objective morals, the individual disagreeing means nothing. That's like saying 2 + 2 = 4 is subjective because you can disagree.

We say that the moral law is do not harm / interfere with the free will of others.
You say, 'hey, I want to rape someone, so I'm going to."
Well, that's all fine and dandy, but suffer the consequence for violating the law. Same as now except one law that can apply to all.

Rape can be good if populations are really low and they need the strongest genes to be passed on down as well as the women won't have sex williningly... that or the group dies out.

Also rape is relatively common in the animal kingdom.
 

The Sum of Awe

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
I see what you are saying, that kind of makes sense. It's not actually objective, although we can set up a system the is logically best for everyone, and logic is objective not subjective. Interesting point. If by objective morality we mean that there is a moral system that can be discovered and proven (like the laws of logic or physics), then no there is no such thing.

We already have a system, and as it is entirely subjective, it is tangled up. We can't have another.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
In other words, violate the free will of the offender.

Thus the "objective" moral is subjective to ones adherence to it.

Well firstly I already agreed it's subjective. But if you violate someone's free will what right do you have to have yours respected? It's such unbelievably simple logic that it's over looked.

Rape can be good if populations are really low and they need the strongest genes to be passed on down as well as the women won't have sex williningly... that or the group dies out.

Also rape is relatively common in the animal kingdom.

Firstly, this is highly disturbing. Rape is not acceptable, and to believe rape is ok is both appaling and quite ignorant. As for the animal kingdom, it's a little different there. There is no rational or logic, no free will really either. They do what's in their nature, and I doubt that there is rape in a human context.

We already have a system, and as it is entirely subjective, it is tangled up. We can't have another.

Obviously this is all theoretical, which is why I usually don't bother with such threads. Humanity is ridiculously stupid, to think we can use our gift of rational thinking and actually be logical is a dream, I accept that haha.
 

vepurusg

Member
Don't interfere with the free will of others.
Simple, logical, and not a very long list.

That's close, but it results in contradictions because some may will to do harm- it needs to be an objective goal, not a simple commandment.

E.g. that doesn't allow you to interfere with the free will of a murderer to interfere with the free will of somebody who wishes to live, because it is an irrefutable command instead of a goal.

In order to be consistent, we must consider the balance of the consequences in the form of a goal we can measure,

Something more like 'take those actions which yield the least harm/abide the least interference with the free will of others'-- that is, the goal is least harm, or least interference. That might involve stopping a murderer (involving harm of the murderer) for the greater good.

It may seem like a fine hair to split, but it's essential.


Without considering the balance of consequence with respect to a goal, we are paralyzed to act in any way that would create the slightest imposition to prevent greater evil later-- and because almost everything we do inevitably contributes slightly to imposition upon others, we are ultimately paralyzed.

If you aren't familiar with it, I suggest you look into Utilitarianism.

I don't agree completely with it (the goal of happiness is a good one, but not perfect- some people, by their own free will, put other things above their own happiness, or their own avoidance of suffering, so we should consider that will), but the logic of application is valid.

Take a morally true goal of respecting the will of others (simpler formulation)/abiding the least interference with others' free will, and plug that into the logical and empirical process of the most probable actions to reach that goal, and then you have something :yes:

What do you mean? If we set up objective morals, the individual disagreeing means nothing. That's like saying 2 + 2 = 4 is subjective because you can disagree.

Unfortunately, some people just don't, or won't, understand it.

Well, that's all fine and dandy, but suffer the consequence for violating the law. Same as now except one law that can apply to all.

Like I mentioned, that doesn't work when morality is objective and logical, instead of deontological (which is illogical and arbitrary)- it applies equally to those who would punish. One cannot interfere with the free will of a criminal when you state the moral commandment as such.

e.g. Two wrongs don't make a right- they make two wrongs.

Instead, we must state the moral commandment as striving towards a moral goal, thus giving people the liberty to take the best actions to reach it. E.g. logical consequentialism, instead of deontology.

That allows one to stop the criminal to prevent greater evil. Then, and only then, can you establish moral law from logic. :)
 

vepurusg

Member
You "prove" that the only objectively good option is to support other peoples interests. What if someone else wants a third person dead? Who's interest should I suppose then?

The balance of interests of all intelligent/conscious beings.

As I said before, one CAN represent them in mathematical terms as multi dimensional vectors, and do sound logical comparisons of one's options based on that.

One does not favor the murderer- one imprisons, kills, or rehabilitates the murderer- for the protection and good of all.

It's a balancing act, and the small harm against the will of the murderer is overwhelmed by the prevention of the greater harm against the will of many others.

Look into a popular form of Consequentialism called Utilitarianism (this is similar), but don't assume (like some who criticize Consequentialism without understanding it) that it is mutually exclusive to Virtue ethics, or that it lacks consideration for Social contract and Game theory (which are in fact logically essential for its valid application).
 

jasonwill2

Well-Known Member
Firstly, this is highly disturbing. Rape is not acceptable, and to believe rape is ok is both appaling and quite ignorant. As for the animal kingdom, it's a little different there. There is no rational or logic, no free will really either. They do what's in their nature, and I doubt that there is rape in a human context.

In terms of evolutionary forces, human desires, and psychological drives, people don't have as much free will as we think. For example acts outside of one's personality (an out of character act) are extremely rare in real life... they much more common in fiction and the popular mind. You can always count on someone to act as their personality dictates.

Absolutism rules in terms of people's behavior as both history of individuals and nations will show. If one thing can be counted on for future generations, it is human behavior and and nature.

Likewise the urge to rape, much like the urge for sex, is most likely due to a combination of genetics and the environment. Studies have shown that by a very young age the personality is set in, and it is possible that certain events from toddler ages can lock in sexual desires that will lay dormant.

Rape was seen as okay for thousands of years and seen as more moral than even masturbation because at least the former produced children (assuming heterosexual rape).

And if there is a very small population, rape may be necessary to ensure the continence of the group for future generations. Rape is no more disgusting, no, I dare say less so, than murder and war. We think nothing of a war going on in x country, but rape? OH NO!

Rape is seen as more evil than killing a man in cold blood, which is odd. Rape can produce life and at least (in most cases) leaves the victim alive. Murder always kills. Now I am not saying that rape is good, but that there are much worse crimes that can damage the victim much more as to leave them... well not alive.

Murder is worse than rape, but at least rape can have an evolutionary upside. Also people are animals too. More intellegent animals yes, but still animals. We have only a tiny bit more freewill than animals, but only a tiny bit.

edit: actually murder can have an evolutionary upside too, unless you specifically define it as unlawful killing... and in the wild it's just then killing a predator or your prey that you eat.
 
Last edited:

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
In terms of evolutionary forces, human desires, and psychological drives, people don't have as much free will as we think. For example acts outside of one's personality (an out of character act) are extremely rare in real life... they much more common in fiction and the popular mind. You can always count on someone to act as their personality dictates.

Yes, this is true for the most part. There are only a handful of things an individual can choose to do given all the circumstances, but they are free to choose from that handful. As for always acting in one's general nature, very false. What about the drug addict who flushes their stash down the toilet and quits cold turkey in a moment of clarity (aka me haha)? That is not in keeping with their nature; an addict quitting. What about the manically depressed individual who doesn't attempt to kill themselves when every part of them is screaming to commit suicide?


Likewise the urge to rape, much like the urge for sex, is most likely due to a combination of genetics and the environment. Studies have shown that by a very young age the personality is set in, and it is possible that certain events from toddler ages can lock in sexual desires that will lay dormant.
Yes, there is a lot to genetics as well as how one is raised that could lead one to be a sex offender. It is a disease in a way, but that does not make it right. You aren't going to change someone's genetic makeup through rehabilitation, that's for sure.

Rape was seen as okay for thousands of years and seen as more moral than even masturbation because at least the former produced children (assuming heterosexual rape).
Well it was accepted that the world was flat, cannibalism was a legitimate spiritual practice, female circumcision still exists to this day, that does not make it right. Claiming that "it was ok back then" actually harms your argument, just a pointer.

And if there is a very small population, rape may be necessary to ensure the continence of the group for future generations. Rape is no more disgusting, no, I dare say less so, than murder and war. We think nothing of a war going on in x country, but rape? OH NO!
First of all, if there is a small population and nobody is willing to have sex, let them die out. Rape is still no acceptable. As for murder, rape is most definitely worse. I assume I was correct that you are ignorant to the severity or rape. The fact that the rapist lets the victim live is the very reason that it is worse than murder. War is different, it is not individual against individual, but war is quite immoral as well as illogical and fueled by stupidity.

Rape is seen as more evil than killing a man in cold blood, which is odd. Rape can produce life and at least (in most cases) leaves the victim alive. Murder always kills. Now I am not saying that rape is good, but that there are much worse crimes that can damage the victim much more as to leave them... well not alive.
Rape is more evil than murder (see above and apply some thought). Who cares if rape produces life? There is a reason even some hard core pro-lifers say that a rape victim can abort the baby. Again, the fact that you are alive after rape is what makes it worse.

Murder is worse than rape, but at least rape can have an evolutionary upside. Also people are animals too. More intellegent animals yes, but still animals. We have only a tiny bit more freewill than animals, but only a tiny bit.
Still disagree that murder is worse, but I've seen the fallout from rape many times so I may be more aware of what it really does. As for people, of course we are animals. Go observe your dog (if you have one) for a few weeks. Really think about how that dog thinks, how it works. You will find we are quite different from animals simply because we can rationalize and think to a greater extent. Animals are pretty much just another cog in the machine that is nature, whereas humans are free to go against nature and destroy it. This is why many spiritual paths see man as the "microcosm" of reality.
 

jasonwill2

Well-Known Member
Yes, this is true for the most part. There are only a handful of things an individual can choose to do given all the circumstances, but they are free to choose from that handful. As for always acting in one's general nature, very false. What about the drug addict who flushes their stash down the toilet and quits cold turkey in a moment of clarity (aka me haha)? That is not in keeping with their nature; an addict quitting. What about the manically depressed individual who doesn't attempt to kill themselves when every part of them is screaming to commit suicide?


Yes, there is a lot to genetics as well as how one is raised that could lead one to be a sex offender. It is a disease in a way, but that does not make it right. You aren't going to change someone's genetic makeup through rehabilitation, that's for sure.

Well it was accepted that the world was flat, cannibalism was a legitimate spiritual practice, female circumcision still exists to this day, that does not make it right. Claiming that "it was ok back then" actually harms your argument, just a pointer.

First of all, if there is a small population and nobody is willing to have sex, let them die out. Rape is still no acceptable. As for murder, rape is most definitely worse. I assume I was correct that you are ignorant to the severity or rape. The fact that the rapist lets the victim live is the very reason that it is worse than murder. War is different, it is not individual against individual, but war is quite immoral as well as illogical and fueled by stupidity.

Rape is more evil than murder (see above and apply some thought). Who cares if rape produces life? There is a reason even some hard core pro-lifers say that a rape victim can abort the baby. Again, the fact that you are alive after rape is what makes it worse.

Still disagree that murder is worse, but I've seen the fallout from rape many times so I may be more aware of what it really does. As for people, of course we are animals. Go observe your dog (if you have one) for a few weeks. Really think about how that dog thinks, how it works. You will find we are quite different from animals simply because we can rationalize and think to a greater extent. Animals are pretty much just another cog in the machine that is nature, whereas humans are free to go against nature and destroy it. This is why many spiritual paths see man as the "microcosm" of reality.

Knowing a number of people very personally that have been molested/raped, I can say that I think they are very much glad they are alive. Now if someone is brutally raped and beaten and left with lots and lots and lots of bodily injury as opposed to a "softer" rape... then yes that can be really bad but not everyone wants to die when they are raped... not all rapes are "brutal" as not all rapists use excessive force. That is more determined by their pathology and what kind of rapist they are. For example a power-reassurance rapist wouldn't need to do any more in terms of damage other than to restrain the victim, but a sexual sadist would go beyond that and hurt them greatly. Also rape gets less years than murder in many cases if I recall correctly. You may of seen cases of aggravated rape as opposed to just rape... which is somewhat different as the former is really really violent and the later isn't as physically damaging AFAIK. But this is off topic.

Also as for Manic-Depression... you looked at my title, didn't you? I should let you know that it is also within our nature to want to be well and survive... the examples you gave are not out of character actions because it is human nature as well as many people's personalities to not want to die or be greatly harmed. The reason you flushed your stash is because your human instinct over-rided your nature to want to use the substance... addiciton is somethign your body learns, the desire to survive is somethign your body always had, and will never get rid of. So it was actually the stronger part of your nature that won out against the addiction. Hence both examples are human nature being manipulated to your advantage. Hence my argument still stands.

Also it's not "Manically depressed' as it's either mania or depression, they never coincide at the same time... they cycle between mania and depression. So using "manically" as an adjective isn't accurate. It's a hyphenated word not because Mania describes the depression, but because both depressive and manic are adjectives to the word "disorder". I have the disorder I think I would know this in case your wondering ;) Though it does sound cooler than "bipolar".
 

blackout

Violet.
There is no 'morality' found anywhere in nature.
(besides the ideas, claims and thoughts of humans)

It is a philosophical construct of man.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
Actually both examples were based on myself. I don't feel the need to openly display on my title that I am bipolar same as I do not feel the need to immediately announce it to people the second we meet. I have the disorder too, mature past that need to brag about it though, it kind of sucks. Manic depression is the same as bipolar.

As for drug addiction, which you also don't seem to have any experience with, it changes your nature. This is why you have withdrawals which can, at times, literally kill you. When you are addicted to a drug, your survival instincts want you to keep taking it. It feels like you will die if you don't take it. And, for the rest of your life even after long sobriety, you still feel, at times, that you need that to survive. Survival instincts are not rational, they aren't based on logic but crude emotion.

Anyways, all rapes are brutal. I could go into more detail on this topic, but I refuse to debate with a person who rationalizes rape and thinks that being bipolar is something to brag about and wear on your sleeve.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
'morality' is subject to/subjective to the experience/experiences of human beings.

I agree. Even if we set up laws for all humans there is nothing really objective about them. Simply the majority of people sharing a subjective moral system. It is quite like Utilitarianism, which I saw mentioned earlier. But, Utilitarianism is not necessary the best choice. The question of an objective moral system is "who enforces it"? There is nobody to do so.
 

blackout

Violet.
Hopefully the shared human experience gives rise to empathy.

A combination of survival instinct and empathy hopefully give rise to a society
where individualism is protected and cherished,
but not at the cost/(rape and plunder) of the collective well being.

Still, I don't call this morality,
more pragmatism, and common (or shared) sense/sensibility.
 
Last edited:

jasonwill2

Well-Known Member
Actually both examples were based on myself. I don't feel the need to openly display on my title that I am bipolar same as I do not feel the need to immediately announce it to people the second we meet. I have the disorder too, mature past that need to brag about it though, it kind of sucks. Manic depression is the same as bipolar.

As for drug addiction, which you also don't seem to have any experience with, it changes your nature. This is why you have withdrawals which can, at times, literally kill you. When you are addicted to a drug, your survival instincts want you to keep taking it. It feels like you will die if you don't take it. And, for the rest of your life even after long sobriety, you still feel, at times, that you need that to survive. Survival instincts are not rational, they aren't based on logic but crude emotion.

Anyways, all rapes are brutal. I could go into more detail on this topic, but I refuse to debate with a person who rationalizes rape and thinks that being bipolar is something to brag about and wear on your sleeve.

I have bipolar which I know is the same as manic depression. But I will admit I do not have experience with drug addiction.

The reason it was in my title is because I have come to accept that it is a major part of my personality make-up. I can't seperate my identity from it anymore. Before it said "manic-depressive Satanist" because the disorder has played into how I practice magic and how I view Satan deeply, but I only changed it recently as I changed my religion back to Satanism.

edit: we sorted this out via PM and all is well now
 
Last edited:

blackout

Violet.
Avoiding pain is a very real thing and not just philosophical.


Sounds like you described morality.

More like the rules of the road.

No one wants to get hit,
so they generally stay on their own side,
and stop at red lights and stop signs.

People who are more empathetic
stop also because they don't want to hit anyone else either.
People who aren't,
if not wrecking their own car isn't enough,
maybe heavy fines and jail will do the trick.

If everyone doesn't cooperate with traffic patterns
it will hurt both individuals, and society as a whole.

Still, I don't see this as morality.
Pragmatism, empathy, common sense, survival instinct....
 

InformedIgnorance

Do you 'know' or believe?
Oh, but it does; that's the tricky part.

Morality is of a quality that it changes relative probability into a binary of moral/amoral based on principles of opportunity cost (see economics).

It is immoral to follow a system that is less probably moral when one has the opportunity to follow a system that is more probably moral.

Imagine you have two boxes in a building which will shortly be exploding.

You can carry only one out to safety.

You know that box A has a 99% chance of being filled with kittens/puppies/babies/(choose your moral prerogative- whatever), and box B has a 0.00001% chance of being filled with said filling.

It becomes clear that, with the impossibility of certainty, even if you might turn out to be wrong, the moral choice (given the knowledge that the box is statistically filled with your moral prerogative to the respective degrees mentioned), is the more probable moral action of the two.

Following a less probable system for morality is less moral than following a more probable one. That makes the only moral system to follow (following the system being a moral choice in itself) the most probable one (unless or until you get more information, changing that probability).

Follow? :D
Wonderful! You have provided one example where the outcomes of your CHOICE which is probabilistic and has 'positive' outcomes to infer parallel to WORLD VIEW (very different from a choice) which may also be probabilistic but has NO discernible intrinsic outcomes - certainly none with 'positive' and or 'negative' outcomes in the manner you provided for your boxes - in an attempt to suggest the two are similar, when they are not. It would be like suggesting that having a preference for a certain colour (lets say red) is more moral since you might one day be a situation where a red box might have a 99% chance of having kittens in it and a blue box had a 1% chance - the CHOICE might potentially be said to be more moral, the WORLD VIEW that incorporates a preference for some colour (lets say 'blue') on the other hand has no intrinsic moral ramifications.

You might therefore suggest that it is not the world view that rejects science but the choice to reject science which is evil.... but there is nothing to suggest that the acceptance of science is 'good' or 'positive' or that the rejection is 'bad' or 'negative' there are indeed negative outcomes of rejecting science, however there may also be positive outcomes, just as there as positive outcomes for accepting science and there may also be negative outcomes. NONE OF WHICH YOU HAVE PROVIDED ANY ARGUMENT FOR A POSITION THAT THEY ARE 'NEGATIVE' IN ANY 'MORAL' FASHION.

This is why rejection of science is evil. Even if 'science' turned out to be wrong, we have a moral obligation to accept it as the most objective and probably true source of information we have until better information is available.
Ridiculous. For starters you have made the unsupported assumption that the correctness of information is not merely a moral objective but the ONLY one pertinent to the issue of 'rejecting' science.

No, it affects the probability.

A source being a true omniscient and omnibenevolent deity would be the most probably moral.

If that deity is false, however, it can only be assumed to be a random or unreliable source- with a probability comparable to chance/guessing.
So? Would that mean we cannot reliably assume that killing someone is immoral for example? Just because we do not accept the authenticity or legitimacy of the source does not mean that it does not include some elements of truth.

I'm ruling out systems based on innate selfishness; which being the basis of morality would make the term meaningless. Objectivism and Satanism can also be ruled out on logical grounds, however, due to internal inconsistencies (this just takes longer to demonstrate).
I am sorry, however you continue to rule things out (without demonstrating the reasoning) on the basis of assumptions that are poorly founded.
 
Last edited:

vepurusg

Member
It would be like suggesting that having a preference for a certain colour (lets say red) is more moral since you might one day be a situation where a red box might have a 99% chance of having kittens in it and a blue box had a 1% chance - the CHOICE might potentially be said to be more moral, the WORLD VIEW that incorporates a preference for some colour (lets say 'blue') on the other hand has no intrinsic moral ramifications.

You completely misunderstood my example, though I appreciate that you've given it some thought.

I will try to clarify it a bit for you:

Rigorous, peer reviewed, scientific methodology demonstrates that box A has a 99.999% chance of containing kittens, and box B has a 0.001% chance.

Some guy off the street who claims to hear the voices of aliens (though provides no evidence for this, and likewise provides no evidence that the aliens are good instead of evil) says box A has a 0% chance of containing kittens, and box B has a 100% chance.

This is where world view influences choice. This is where a world view that rejects science- acting on the choice to reject science- is evil. It results in less reliable moral action.


The only way favoring red would be more moral is if it were demonstrated that red boxes were always more likely to contain kittens, and that there wasn't some other situation (say, bags) where the red choice would be less likely to contain the kittens.


You might therefore suggest that it is not the world view that rejects science but the choice to reject science which is evil....

I would say both are; the world view is of an evil quality, because it promotes evil. And the choice to reject science (where choice is made) is evil.

but there is nothing to suggest that the acceptance of science is 'good' or 'positive' or that the rejection is 'bad' or 'negative' there are indeed negative outcomes of rejecting science, however there may also be positive outcomes, just as there as positive outcomes for accepting science and there may also be negative outcomes.

In the context of a person with a moral will, the acceptance of science (reliable knowledge itself), is inherently beneficial to any material moral goal. Ignorance is harmful to a moral goal.

Of course, an innately evil person accepting science would make him or her better at being evil- but he or she was already evil to begin with for other reasons (accepting science wasn't more immoral, just more efficient). That is, the application of science can be used for good or evil (the application of that knowledge being the evil act in that case, not the presence of it). When we speak of morality, we implicitly speak of the subversion or sabotage of good potential; it's not very coherent to speak of an evil person's knowledge as evil when it is the motivation itself that is driving the evil act.

It wouldn't be unfair to clarify the point:

"If you have good intentions, rejecting science it evil"

But I think this is sufficiently implicit anyway- anybody concerned with not being evil would already have good intentions (or want to have them).


Ridiculous. For starters you have made the unsupported assumption that the correctness of information is not merely a moral objective but the ONLY one pertinent to the issue of 'rejecting' science.

This is not an unsupported assumption; it is supported in my example, and I have also supported it in the thread 'rejection of science is evil', if you are interested in my arguments there.

So? Would that mean we cannot reliably assume that killing someone is immoral for example?

No. Scientific methodology is quite reliable. Just because it is not absolutely certain, doesn't mean it isn't the most probable.

Just because we do not accept the authenticity or legitimacy of the source does not mean that it does not include some elements of truth.

That is true, but those elements are necessarily less reliable. They are the box with the 0.001% chance of containing kittens. To choose to rescue that box at the cost of the other is immoral.

I am sorry, however you continue to rule things out (without demonstrating the reasoning) on the basis of assumptions that are poorly founded.

Assuming the word is useful, and the concept coherent, is not unreasonable.
It is only to say:
"In so far as objective morality exists at all, it must mean this..."

When we discuss what objective morality might be, we have already accepted the working assumption that it may exist.
 
Top