Objective morality

[vepurusg]

the difference being that I acknowledge inhereted subjectivity

Your position: Subjectivity interfering with an otherwise objective (fact, not opinion) process through bias contaminates the rest of it with that subjectivity, making it all subjective (opinion) and no longer Objective (not opinion).

My position: Subjectivity interfering with an otherwise objective (fact, not opinion) process through bias contaminates it with error, reducing its accuracy and/or precision, but does not transmute an objective issue into opinion- it remains objective (not opinion), but just less accurate. It does become less objective (unbiased), but not less objective (not opinion).


Your position also fails to acknowledge that bias produced by humans or by an unexpected magnetic field influencing mechanical measurements (also a bias) is not fundamentally different- they are all sources of experimental error. And experimental error is merely inaccuracy. Human bias has no special magical quality that any uncontrolled environmental error lacks.

Your position would only be consistent with the non-existence of objectivity anywhere- No science could possibly be objective (there is always minor interference from bias somewhere).

My position is only accurate, in that is reflects word usage, and gives credence to the understanding that scientific methodology creates more objective (less biased) results, which are objective (not opinions), and not subjective (opinions).

where you seem to suggest it can be completely removed

I did not say that.

It is only opinion while it is in the brain or the respective memetic form. When it fraudulently influences real world collection of objective data, it merely becomes error. Indistinct from any other error. It does not carry a magical quality simply because it arose from a human being instead of malfunctioning lab equipment. Error is error.

Error can not be entirely removed. It doesn't matter where it came from.

This whole thing strikes me somewhat as the difference between copyleft and public domain in copyright law.

five point scales, [...] which becomes the basis for 'objectified' subjective data, it is true that it is not truly objective

No, it's objective that the person answered "1" or "3" or whatever they answered.

The answer is the answer- that is objective data.

Whether or not the answer reflects their true beliefs (they could have been lying, or misunderstood the question, etc.) is not a question of subjectivity, but a question of accuracy.

Self-reporting is considered inherently inaccurate to a degree, because humans are bad at converting their feelings into numbers consistently even when they are being honest.

That makes the results inaccurate- not subjective.

while attempts can indeed be made to objectify things they remain 'as inherently a matter of opinion' - absolutely I do think that and that is no misunderstanding.

Then something is broken somewhere :areyoucra

Have you ever heard the term "Objective Opinion"?

It's using "Objective" as the first definition I mentioned: Unbiased, or a low amount of bias.
That is to say, something can be "Objective subjectivity".
That's not an oxymoron.

The second definition of objective would be an oxymoron- that which is not an opinion. Luckily, experimental bias isn't an opinion- it's a source of mere error.

I agree they are objective, since the opinions of those within that system do not alter let alone comprise its underlying characteristics

The same is true for the system I advanced.

If you think it is not, then that is our argument.

even you have attempted to incorporate people's opinion on torture within your metric

No, I didn't. I pointed out this misunderstanding on your part earlier too.

Opinion does not affect the makeup of the goal or the Heuristic at all.

This suggests a pretty complete misunderstanding of what I'm saying morality is.



Let me ask you a question:

Can you design an objective heuristic to maximize the production of Chocolate on this planet given a certain propaganda budget?

If not, what CAN you design an objective Heuristic to do?

Science is a Heuristic; do you deny its objectivity?

they were designed (From Dictionary.com Design - 3. to intend for a definite purpose - Purpose - 2. an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal) to achieve desired goals... desires are inescapably 'a matter of opinion'.

The 'Purpose' or the 'Desired result' is the Goal.
You even admitted the goal can be objective.

This sounds very much like the argument from design against evolution. Manipulating definitions to try to prove something that does not follow logically.

An equation is not, and never can be, an opinion without holding an explicit opinion as a value. People can have opinions about equations. People can create equations wherein the choice of values are influenced by opinion- but unless they insert an opinion as a value in the equation itself, the equation is not an opinion.

Here's an equation which is an opinion:

Bob: "Sweetness / Bitterness = Deliciousness"
Sally: "Saltiness / Sourness = Deliciousness"

What is Delicious is an opinion.

Here's an equation which is not an opinion:

Bob: "Sweetness / Bitterness = Deliciousness to Bob"
Sally: "Sweetness / Bitterness = Deliciousness to Bob"
Bob: "Saltiness / Sourness = Deliciousness to Sally"
Sally: "Saltiness / Sourness = Deliciousness to Sally"

What is Delicious to Bob is a fact, and not an opinion.
What is Delicious to Sally is a fact, and not an opinion.


If I were doing the former, then you would be correct- if I incorporated an opinion, then the Heuristic would be subjective.
However, I am only doing the latter: I am incorporating facts.


If you don't understand that what is Delicious is an opinion, while what is delicious to Bob is a matter of fact (about which he might lie on a survey, or answer inconsistently, but still fact despite the poor method of collecting it) then there is no possible communication here.

There is no way to differentiate between such metrics as being inherently more moral,

There is: Logic.

design involves exercising opinion to effect the nature of the heuristic obtained.

I already said, clearly, that such an occasion would never be permitted- that would be an egregious violation.

You have asserted this twice, and this is the second time I am explicitly denying it.

I want to make it amply clear: The very notion that opinion of the morality of the result should be used to affect the nature of the heuristic itself and 'fine-tune' it is offensive and morally repulsive.

That would be a clear violation of the objectivity of morality.

Failing to select science where you have the opportunity to do so, is always because of hubris or apathy; therefore it is immoral because the outcomes are sub-optimal.

Not quite.

Definition: A relative Moral failing (v.s opportunity) --> Evil (This is pretty much tautological)

We agree: Rejection of science results in the suboptimal efforts towards a goal.

Given a goal of morality, Rejection of science --> suboptimal efforts towards moral goal --> relative moral failing --> Evil.

Side note:
Who do we blame for that Evil? I don't know. We have to follow the cause.

Evil --> Moral failing --> Suboptimal efforts --> Rejection of science --> ???

What caused rejection of science?

Apathy:
Can we end there, and just consider Apathy to be the fault of the individual?
Yes: It's the individual's fault due to Apathy.
No --> What caused the apathy?

Hubris:
Can we end there, and just consider Hubris to be the fault of the individual?
Yes: It's the individual's fault due to Hubris.
No --> What caused the Hubris?

Something else:
Can we end there, and just consider whatever it is to be the fault of the individual?
Yes: It's the individual's fault due to whatever.
No --> What caused that something else?


I don't have a problem with there being other causes. Hubris and Apathy are just the chief causes I have identified.

When I have a bite mark on my arm, I imagine it is probably from a mosquito. it could have been a spider. Either way, whatever bit me, it itches (and that is the important point).

- > The exclusion of all other potential reasons for action/inaction; that you have identified 'three relevant dimensions' does not mean that there are only three!

Very true, and I would gladly consider others given evidence.

I believe in the Strong force, the Electroweak force, and Gravity.

I'm very ready to believe in more forces given any hint that they exist. It would excite me to discover a new force, if anything. I'm open to them: I invite them into my heart.

Fear of change, Fear of uncertainty etc for example would be another factor;

Fear is a matter of relative apathy.

I'm afraid of there being a scorpion in my shoe when I put it on to leave the house, but if I let that stop me from going anywhere, I couldn't have been very invested in my endeavor to begin with.
If somebody really cares, they'll find an ounce of courage to overcome fear.

Fear of losing meaning in their lives, or fear of discovering there is no heaven, is much stronger still- yet if they really care about morality, they'll have the motivation to face those fears (rather than come up apathetic, using them as excuses).

 

[Skeptisch]

Fear of losing meaning in their lives, or fear of discovering there is no heaven, is much stronger still- yet if they really care about morality, they'll have the motivation to face those fears (rather than come up apathetic, using them as excuses).

Fear, in my “objective opinion ”, is what keeps the dictator in the sky on his throne, at least for now.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Once again you have dissected my post... I was attempting to make this easier for people to read by avoiding that while still addressing the issues raised.... once again I will attempt to make a compacted version incorporating my response in a fashion that enables people looking into this thread to read and understand it - as opposed to a line for line debate style (WHICH I AM WILLING TO DO IN PMs OR ON A MEMBER BOARD, NOT HERE)

The key issue of difference is in the understanding of the term subjectivity. The definition that you have expressly identified was the incorporation of opinion; contrasted with the definition you identified for objectivity which did not incorporate opinion; so therefore, according to the definitions you identified, anything which incorporates opinion is subjective. This differs from the common usage of the term which denotes something which is contingent upon opinion in some substantive fashion.

Spoiler: My position and argument

I have been writing according to the definition that you identified, in this scenario the incorporation of even the tiniest portion of opinion makes it non objective, because opinion is subjective; I have however acknowledge that some things are more subjective than others and indicate that I personally believe that this is a gradated scale

My position on this does not fail to address the issue of mechanical and other bias (namely non opinion interference, errors and so forth) - I cannot believe that you are attempting to suggest that desire to live (for example) is categorised in the same manner as an electromagnetic fluctuation which causes interference with a clock (for example). 'Human bias' has one 'magical quality' which differentiates it... the DEFINITIONS which you identified, i.e. it is an OPINION; thus the former is Subjective because it incorporates opinion, while one is Objective (because it does not incorporate opinion) - that they could be called 'experimental errors' is ridiculous, that would suggest that the desire to live is an experimental error... [self edited. I am truly sorry, that was uncalled for, I lacked coffee and have had a troubling morning - still that is no excuse].

The degree of subjectivity may change, the fact that it is no longer purely objective (has no incorporation of subjectivity) does not.

Spoiler: My Response to my understanding of your most recent argument

On Subjective and Objective
Your use of the word objective seems to oscillate between common usage and the definition that you have proposed; in later posts in particular you have seemed to be more inclined to suggest the common usage was more appropriate to the argument you were making rather than the definition you provided; I agree that definition is more fitting for the position and argument you have expressed - however it does not reflect the definitions you yourself proposed.

For this reason where I have been using the definitions you provided and you have been using common usage definitions, I have read your arguments to imply that something subjectivity can be removed through application of science; in common usage terms they can indeed be made 'objective' however, by the definition you identified it will ALWAYS be 'subjective'.

Objective opinion is term used to denote the ATTEMPT to remove as much subjectivity as possible from an opinion, it does not mean that it has no subjectivity within it, only that the attempt has been made to remove that subjectivity ((an interesting but somewhat irrelevant point here is that the capacity individuals have to effectively remove this subjectivity is dramatically effected by their skill at critical thinking, which identifies assumptions and biases and suspending or redressing the influence of those biases, as such some people's 'Objective opinion' may be little different from their 'Opinion' because they are unskilled at critical thinking - an interesting if irrelevant point, unless you assume that the term objective should include the flexibility to incorporate some degree of subjectivity, hence common definition versus given definition))

On Heuristics
By common usage of the term objective, I can design such a mechanism by which to determine the maximum chocolate production. By the definition you identified however, it is impossible for ANYONE to do so, because design inherently incorporates subjectivity (in ways I have comprehensively covered in other posts so will not repeat).

Actually you DID attempt to include a subjective (incorporating opinion) element in your heuristic on shoes and torture; you included 'Desire' in your heuristic when attempting to discern the most relevant choice when identifying monkey aversion to becoming shoes, or when presented with the torture question, in each case these desires (or opinions) you perceived as a relevant element of your heuristic. Desire is an expression of opinion, hence it is subjective - so you DID attempt to incorporate it.

The logical framework (True and false, Possible and Impossible etc) is incapable of comparing (or expressing that comparison of)options, it can only be used to examine an option or a set of options (for contradictions for example). Logic has nothing to say on this other than to determine if they are inherently self contradictory (possible or not possible); not which is superior.

Science being a heuristic, would depend on the definition used - but generally I would suggest that it is indeed a heuristic, in which case I would agree it is objective IN SO FAR as it deals with observations; however it is far less so (and therefore subjective because it is non zero subjectivity) with represent to its attempts to explain or predict, given that those rely on opinion (informed and justifiable, but opinion nonetheless) ((interesting but irrelevant - these areas btw are the areas within science that often get competing or even superseding theories, because there was insufficient objective data and the subjective understanding of that data was incomplete))

On changing heuristics; this was expressed for contingency (to allow for attempts to limit inaccuracy of the heuristic for example) - though I find it rather humorous that you claim it would be immoral to do so given you have suggested previously doing just that about the issue of intelligence in the torture case; i.e. I criticised the IQ score as a basis by which to identify moral superiority as it means the desires of those with a higher intelligence are more important (they have greater rights) than others, you suggested alternative measures such as EQ, MRI data and more... how very... interesting, so SOMETIMES it is okay (and even necessary) to alter the design and other times it isn't (instead that would 'be a clear violation of the objectivity of morality'). Interesting that.

On Goals
I admit ALL goals are objective; selection as being the designated goal (or one of them) is not objective (I have covered this in earlier posts and will not again).

For the case of your deliciousness example; ignoring that none of the terms are defined and are assumed to be capable of the functions (eg division) applied to them, the final set of four statements are just that, a statement which happens to be an equation. You have not provided an equation which objectively identifies deliciousness (morality) but rather you have simply recorded their understanding (opinion) of deliciousness (morality) and then assumed that each person has access to the information in that record, it has become a record of opinions on deliciousness (morality), the data record itself is objective, but the information it contains (let alone the knowledge it pertains to) are subjective: Bob is of the opinion that Deliciousness according to bob is obtainable by dividing Sweetness according to bob by Bitterness according to bob ((WHILE IGNORING THAT IS A NONSENSICAL STATEMENT LIKE MANY RELIGIOUS CLAIMS)). Collection of the data is not the only problem, the nature of the source data (not so much the record data) is a major limitation; but not nearly so important as criteria selection.

On Reasoning
My main issue was with the assumption that apathy and hubris are the only two reasons which people reject science, they are not; particularly given that those two terms denote a moral failing as opposed to some other sort of failing I found the assertion not just untrue but also potentially offensive to others (not to me). Sure, if you want to condense it to say it is their fault go ahead, I don't overly mind, I would instead say it is the result of the failings of the characteristics of their world view (which may also incorporate apathy and hubris), but hey, I am just a nice guy like that.

Fear is not a matter of apathy; Fear is independent of the (lack of) Interest, as for 'relative' apathy... Well if you wish to suggest that, then courage is also a matter of apathy (because it is relative fear), as is resolve (relative courage) as is obstinate (relative resolve).... when you start blurring the demarcations of the terms they really become nonsensical. There are many potential other causes (other than apathy, hubris and fear) if you delimit the potential causes to those you have already identified and attempt to incorporate new causes with a term like 'relative' then you are merely attempting to stretch the meaning to incorporate new concepts... in which case the terminology you originally used lose their meaning.

 

[vepurusg]

according to the definitions you identified, anything which incorporates opinion is subjective.

You are misrepresenting my definition and usage. Something is either 100% fact, or 100% opinion.

I have put it clearly:

Opinion: "Chocolate is delicious"
Fact: "Chocolate is delicious to Bob"

If you disagree with that, then you do not, in fact, understand the difference between fact and opinion.

You have not provided an equation which objectively identifies deliciousness (morality)

Deliciousness was not a stand-in for morality.

It is an equation which objectively identifies that which is delicious to Bob.

Objectively identifying that which is delicious is not coherent, since what is delicious is an opinion. There is no such thing as objective deliciousness.


With regards to word usage, you're playing reducto ad absurdum with this, and illogically trying to break down language to support your argument- it doesn't work.

The degree to which the phrase is unclear is merely that- lack of clarity- not an issue of opinion. Anything involving language at all has a degree of ambiguity- something doesn't need to be an opinion to be unclear, and lack of clarity doesn't imply an opinion.

Bias, on the other hand, which yields error in factual analysis, or slanted deviation from a "normal"/socially normalized opinion, in that of matters of opinion, is a gradation.


The morality I have identified is objective- that you are misunderstanding what that means doesn't change that fact.

I'm pretty sure anybody else reading can tell the difference between fact and opinion, and knows that statements that reference opinions relative to their holders are not opinions, but become 100% facts, because they have been put into an absolute context.


We can do the same with something like light.

Relative statement: That light looks red.
Relative statement: That light looks blue.

The light looks neither red nor blue, but appears to be so relative to the observer in a reference frame moving towards or away from it at relativistic speeds.

Absolute statement: That light looks red to the observers on the space ship moving away from its source at relativistic speed.
Absolute statement: That light looks blue to the observers on the space ship moving towards its source at relativistic speed.

It's not a difficult concept.

Opinion: "Chocolate is delicious"
Fact: "Chocolate is delicious to Bob"

It's the same deal: only opinion specifically relates to that which is relative to certain qualities of cognitive perception and correlation.

Philosophically, the distinction is irrelevant.

As we understand the brain better, the distinction will be less and less necessary in common usage too.

An opinion is merely an incomplete, or not contextualized, statement of fact.
To complete it, and yield 100% fact, we need only designate that to which it refers.

This differs from the common usage of the term which denotes something which is contingent upon opinion in some substantive fashion.

That refers to the usage as a gradation of bias, which has nothing to do with something being fact or opinion in nature of presentation.

I cannot believe that you are attempting to suggest that desire to live (for example) is categorised in the same manner as an electromagnetic fluctuation which causes interference with a clock (for example).

If you choose not to understand that, then you are incapable of understanding my position.

This world is a naturalistic process; the two are not fundamentally different in their materialistic natures. Both can be measured given the proper technology.

that they could be called 'experimental errors' is ridiculous, that would suggest that the desire to live is an experimental error.

The desire to live is an experimental error when it influences data collection to reduce accuracy or precision.
It is not an experimental error when it minds its own business.

What is difficult to understand in the principle that humans are complex machines?

Given sufficient technology to conduct measurement, we can speak of desire to live in the same way we can now speak in precise mechanical terms about the tension in a clock spring.

One is vastly more complicated, but only in the way that a modern super computer is more complicated than a primitive mechanical logic gate made from gears and rods.

The logical framework (True and false, Possible and Impossible etc) is incapable of comparing (or expressing that comparison of)options, it can only be used to examine an option or a set of options (for contradictions for example). Logic has nothing to say on this other than to determine if they are inherently self contradictory (possible or not possible); not which is superior.

Yes, that is how logic works; it is binary. Either impossible (certainly false), or possible (not yet demonstrated false, and maybe true).
Which is why I eliminate all other prospective systems. There is only one possible system remaining- ergo, in so far as there concept exists, that system is true.

I find it rather humorous that you claim it would be immoral to do so given you have suggested previously doing just that about the issue of intelligence in the torture case

You have misunderstood what I was saying.

The Heuristic MUST have its functions updated, irrespective of output, if there are objective factual advances (e.g. if it is proven that EQ is a better model than IQ for predicting the relevant factors of cognitive capacity).

The Heuristic MUST NEVER be changed to meet more closely the expected or preferred output.

If it it changed, it must be done "blind" to the output of the Heuristic, and in accordance with the preponderance of scientific evidence, with respect to the logical objective moral goal.

I would instead say it is the result of the failings of the characteristics of their world view (which may also incorporate apathy and hubris), but hey, I am just a nice guy like that.

The Apathy or Hubris could certainly be the fault of the world view itself, rather than the person.

Like I said, blame isn't so important to me. More important is solving the problem.


Regarding fear:

10 fear + 11 motivation = action (courage)
10 fear + 9 motivation = inaction (cowardice)

Inaction in the presence of fear is a deficit of motivation (relative apathy)

If you're afraid, you need to care the extra mile to overcome that. Or if you can not overcome the fear directly, then you should work on ameliorating that fear.

If somebody gives up, in that regard, it is a matter of apathy- we should work to overcome cowardice, not accept it because we don't care enough.

 

[1robin]

Without God, morality is reduced to whatever mode of behavior human beings happen to favor either because of their genetic makeup or conventional accords. There is no action that is objectively right or wrong. Rape, hate, murder and other such acts are only wrong because they have been deemed to be so in the course of human evolution.

Had human evolution taken a different course, these acts might well have been the valued elements of our moral code. Even Nazi morality would be right had the Nazis succeeded in their quest for world dominance. Unless the world contains behavioral guidelines that transcend human decisions and genetic determinism, there is no reason why anyone should object to such conclusions.

Though some religious people do not live up to the moral principles they espouse, it is not true that genuine religious devotion makes no difference to one’s moral commitments. It is missionaries, and not atheists, who regularly give up their own comforts and accept unbelievable amounts of pain and suffering to better the lives of societal outcasts, not just through preaching but also through education, technology, and humanitarian relief. Our failure to live up to what we know to be right provides empirical evidence for the need for God’s intervention in our lives.

Those who insist that objective morality makes no difference to human autonomy still expect morality to guide the behavior of others. That our society is saturated with transcendent moral sentiments accounts for the popularity of some television programs that arrest our attention night after night. Perhaps ninety percent of the shows depend exclusively on our ability to apply objective moral standards to the actions of the characters. Should the Judeo-Christian moral bank close its doors to our cultural psyche, the bankruptcy of human-centered morality would eventually send our spiritual tentacles scouring for an alternative transcendent anchor.
The New Atheism and Morality
This is of course from the internationally beloved philosopher Ravi Zacharias and says it in a way I never could.

 

[ArtieE]

Without God, morality is reduced to whatever mode of behavior human beings happen to favor either because of their genetic makeup or conventional accords. There is no action that is objectively right or wrong. Rape, hate, murder and other such acts are only wrong because they have been deemed to be so in the course of human evolution.

In other words, you are of the opinion that most of the population of the world who don't believe in your God are immoral? That most of the population of the world don't know right from wrong? That they don't have for example logic, reason and common sense or empathy or compassion or love or conscience to guide them? How can you have such a low opinion of your fellow human beings?

Though some religious people do not live up to the moral principles they espouse, it is not true that genuine religious devotion makes no difference to one’s moral commitments. It is missionaries, and not atheists, who regularly give up their own comforts and accept unbelievable amounts of pain and suffering to better the lives of societal outcasts, not just through preaching but also through education, technology, and humanitarian relief. Our failure to live up to what we know to be right provides empirical evidence for the need for God’s intervention in our lives.

So in your world only the 33 percent of people who are Christians are good people and all the rest are immoral and incapable of good deeds?

Those who insist that objective morality makes no difference to human autonomy still expect morality to guide the behavior of others. That our society is saturated with transcendent moral sentiments accounts for the popularity of some television programs that arrest our attention night after night. Perhaps ninety percent of the shows depend exclusively on our ability to apply objective moral standards to the actions of the characters. Should the Judeo-Christian moral bank close its doors to our cultural psyche, the bankruptcy of human-centered morality would eventually send our spiritual tentacles scouring for an alternative transcendent anchor.

How about the Islamic moral bank or the Hindu moral bank in the Dharmashastras?

 

[Nakosis]

Should the Judeo-Christian moral bank close its doors to our cultural psyche, the bankruptcy of human-centered morality would eventually send our spiritual tentacles scouring for an alternative transcendent anchor.

I don't think so necessarily.
My morality is my sense of right and wrong. It's development is a matter of circumstance rather than organization. My upbringing, my culture, my experiences provide the foundation of my morals.

There is group morals as well. Like a religious moral or ethical code which isn't really my morals. It's an artificial morality I agree to, to be accepted in the group. I suppose it is as objective as we can get since it is something agreed to as a group.

It's a group standard. However it is still not my morals. Occasionally my morals take precedence. I justify may actions according to my sense of right and wrong which may not meet the standards of the group.

The group chooses to punish me if I disobey their moral standard. Our group morality is our civil laws. It's what we vote for and agree to. I don't see the necessity of an objective morality even if such did exist.

IOW our civil laws are what they are. We don't need the Bible to support them.

This next question is a little bit of a tangent, but what do you think Jesus meant by the following?

Matt 5:20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

[tempter]

how do use objective morality to show evidence of God

You don't. God can't be proven. It's a belief system, nothing more.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Spoiler: First Post

You are misrepresenting my definition and usage. Something is either 100% fact, or 100% opinion.

The result may not be Objective (I the sense of without influence from bias), but it is not Subjective (opinion). It is still Objective (as in, a matter of fact rather than opinion).

So 'Influence' doesnt count? Or perhaps 'bias' in this case (from a PERSON CHOOSING some IQ/EQ criteria based on how wellthey BELIEVE the metric would deliver a moral outcome) is not subjective? A person's opinion on criteria isn't an opinion but a fact? You have used both the self defined version (which I subsequently adopted for use in this conversation) and the common usage at various times; you may not have intended to, it may have been oversight - still, you have used them both.

Opinion: "Chocolate is delicious"
Fact: "Chocolate is delicious to Bob"

If you disagree with that, then you do not, in fact, understand the difference between fact and opinion.

(...)
An opinion is merely an incomplete, or not contextualized, statement of fact.
To complete it, and yield 100% fact, we need only designate that to which it refers.
(...)

Deliciousness was not a stand-in for morality.

It is an equation which objectively identifies that which is delicious to Bob.

Objectively identifying that which is delicious is not coherent, since what is delicious is an opinion. There is no such thing as objective deliciousness.

With regards to word usage, you're playing reducto ad absurdum with this, and illogically trying to break down language to support your argument- it doesn't work.

The opinion and fact pairing of "Chocolate is delicious" and "Chocolate is delicious to Bob" are indeed valid (noting the limitation of the term delicious in its application such as degrees of deliciousness) but objective in the common usage of the term in relation to the concept it refers to most certainly. In that regard chocolate is delicious (to some varying extent) to bob is a 'fact'; however no matter how many people you sample, all you have obtained is a set of factual statements of subjective opinion about what deliciousness is - that does not determine that there is some 'objective deliciousness' let alone what it is, you can even determine what the mean (or other statistical measurement) of the subjective opinion indicates is delicious, that is not objective deliciousness, that is merely the mean of the sample of subjective opinion.

I am well aware you were not using it as a stand in for morality, however I was using it to draw a parallel - because (to paraphrase you), objectively identifying that which is moral is not coherent, since what is moral is an opinion.

The idea that you think that "There is no such thing as objective deliciousness" yet there IS such a thing as objective morality is an appeal to special pleading, the request that morality should be treated differently from other perceptions (such as perceived taste criteria) without proper differentiation, attempting to ignore the similarities and proposing differences which are either nonsensical or irrelevant.

My use of so called 'reducto ad absurdum' argument was not absurd in the slightest, I was using a reduction based approach in order to highlight to absurdity in the argument (not position per se) you had proposed and by the way a reducto argument is most readily recognised in a forum setting by quoting someone and breaking their comment down into very small peices, something I have been keen to avoid yet you refuse to do so - so this time I am replying to you in kind.

The degree to which the phrase is unclear is merely that- lack of clarity- not an issue of opinion. Anything involving language at all has a degree of ambiguity- something doesn't need to be an opinion to be unclear, and lack of clarity doesn't imply an opinion.

Bias, on the other hand, which yields error in factual analysis, or slanted deviation from a "normal"/socially normalized opinion, in that of matters of opinion, is a gradation.

(...)
That refers to the usage as a gradation of bias, which has nothing to do with something being fact or opinion in nature of presentation.
(...)

The morality I have identified is objective- that you are misunderstanding what that means doesn't change that fact.

I'm pretty sure anybody else reading can tell the difference between fact and opinion, and knows that statements that reference opinions relative to their holders are not opinions, but become 100% facts, because they have been put into an absolute context.

I completely agree with the concept of polymorphism making things unclear, however in resolving this lack of clarity, subjective, context dependant queues are used by people in attempting to resolve meanings; these can be largely informed by common and sound understandings based on potential word meanings and prior communications with a person, however they are also subject to other facts such as past experience with the words themselves, the concepts being discussed and so forth.

The bias or factual errors you commented on I readily noted several posts ago, may be considered to be objective provided those errors are NOT a matter of opinion (instead things like mechanical or methodological error); deviations in opinion however are according to the definition of subjective that you used (ie. a matter of opinion) subjective, any inclusion of such therefore provides a non objective outcome; it may be subjective by a small margin but it is still SUBJECTIVE.

You have not actually even DEFINED a morality, but rather a mechanism by which to maximise predetermined criteria.

Those are VERY different things, even if those criteria you determined because you hoped that they might be effective measues of morality, or the way they were incorporated into the heuristic (which btw usually involves a trial and error approach which you have said is immoral) which attempts different permutations of those selected criteria in order to achieve outcomes which were designated more moral.

We can do the same with something like light.

Relative statement: That light looks red.
Relative statement: That light looks blue.

The light looks neither red nor blue, but appears to be so relative to the observer in a reference frame moving towards or away from it at relativistic speeds.

Absolute statement: That light looks red to the observers on the space ship moving away from its source at relativistic speed.
Absolute statement: That light looks blue to the observers on the space ship moving towards its source at relativistic speed.

It's not a difficult concept.

Opinion: "Chocolate is delicious"
Fact: "Chocolate is delicious to Bob"

It's the same deal: only opinion specifically relates to that which is relative to certain qualities of cognitive perception and correlation.

Philosophically, the distinction is irrelevant.

Difference being that light is a wavelength which can therefore be readily measured while deliciousness cannot; the light 'looks red' is actually a poor expression of what is occuring, instead it should be said 'That light source emits light which, when it reaches this location exists within the portion of the light spectrum designated Red' It is not a statement of opinion but of fact given that the red spectrum is not an opinion, it is what humans have designated a certain portion of the light spectrum. The same does not hold true for deliciousness nor morality.

If you choose not to understand that, then you are incapable of understanding my position.

This world is a naturalistic process; the two are not fundamentally different in their materialistic natures. Both can be measured given the proper technology.

The desire to live is an experimental error when it influences data collection to reduce accuracy or precision.
It is not an experimental error when it minds its own business.

What is difficult to understand in the principle that humans are complex machines?

Given sufficient technology to conduct measurement, we can speak of desire to live in the same way we can now speak in precise mechanical terms about the tension in a clock spring.

One is vastly more complicated, but only in the way that a modern super computer is more complicated than a primitive mechanical logic gate made from gears and rods.

They can indeed be measured... however the CRITERIA need to be selected from an infinite potential number of criteria, selection is subjective; benchmarks need to be designed, design is subjective.

The desire to live is not an experimental error, it is the response of an entity who is of the OPINION that it does not want to stop living (for whatever reason, this may not be limited to fear of pain and death, uncertainty of an afterlife and so forth) that is not an objective error, it is a subjective opinion. I self edited the first time I posted this comment, but since you are insistent on continuing to suggest that the desire to live is an experimental error, I would suggest that you cease your own experiment. No? Don't want to? Do not bother with justifications (I am sure there are many you could provide) - the desire to live is not an experimental error.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

The crux of things:

If you choose not to understand that, then you are incapable of understanding my position.

This world is a naturalistic process; the two are not fundamentally different in their materialistic natures. Both can be measured given the proper technology.

Indeed, it seems so - afterall, I am willing to recognise that opinion exists, it may be the result of extremely complex naturalistic processes, however opinion exists; to suggest that it is a mere experimental error is the same as concluding that concsciousness itself is an experimental error - it is not immoral, not moral but rather AMORAL.

If you think opinions are of no importance (which they are not if they are merely experimental errors) then in such a situation conciousness itself is unimportant, the very concept of morality is one that only conscious entities are capable of comprehending as it is the result of their comprehensions - a construct of concepts designed to examine that which is around them in order to determine their opinion on whether or not it was something they liked, was useful to them or one of a number of other such drives. In a situation where opinion is nothing but an error, morality itself does not matter.

And for the record, I am capable of understanding your position, I simply choose not to accept it.

Spoiler: end

The desire to live is an experimental error when it influences data collection to reduce accuracy or precision.
It is not an experimental error when it minds its own business.

What is difficult to understand in the principle that humans are complex machines?

Given sufficient technology to conduct measurement, we can speak of desire to live in the same way we can now speak in precise mechanical terms about the tension in a clock spring.

One is vastly more complicated, but only in the way that a modern super computer is more complicated than a primitive mechanical logic gate made from gears and rods.

They can indeed be measured... however the CRITERIA need to be selected from an infinite potential number of criteria, selection is subjective; benchmarks need to be designed, design is subjective.

The desire to live is not an experimental error, it is the response of an entity who is of the OPINION that it does not want to stop living (for whatever reason, this may not be limited to fear of pain and death, uncertainty of an afterlife and so forth) that is not an objective error, it is a subjective opinion. I self edited the first time I posted this comment, but since you are insistent on continuing to suggest that the desire to live is an experimental error, I would suggest that you cease your own experiment. No? Don't want to? Do not bother with justifications (I am sure there are many you could provide) - the desire to live is not an experimental error.

Yes, that is how logic works; it is binary. Either impossible (certainly false), or possible (not yet demonstrated false, and maybe true).
Which is why I eliminate all other prospective systems. There is only one possible system remaining- ergo, in so far as there concept exists, that system is true.

You have misunderstood what I was saying.

The Heuristic MUST have its functions updated, irrespective of output, if there are objective factual advances (e.g. if it is proven that EQ is a better model than IQ for predicting the relevant factors of cognitive capacity).

The Heuristic MUST NEVER be changed to meet more closely the expected or preferred output.

If it it changed, it must be done "blind" to the output of the Heuristic, and in accordance with the preponderance of scientific evidence, with respect to the logical objective moral goal.

However that is just it!!!! There is more than one prospective system, more than one potential heuristic that could be developed under the approach you suggest - yet there is no 'objective' way to compare those heuristics to determine which potential alternative upgrade is optimal or even if those upgrades are in fact more relevant than the original! Such as using IQ and desire only for your monkey decision, or using IQ and EQ and desire as you proposed after the torture example; there is no objective way to suggest that EQ would deliver a heuristic which more accurately identifies the choice that is most likely to deliver the most 'objectively moral' outcomes; because those 'objectively moral' outcomes are the preferred output!!!

There is no means by which to suggest that any given heuristic is more likely to deliver outcomes that are more objectively moral than anyother heuristic save for the selection of criteria, and the establishment of a metric for those criteria - those are SUBJECTIVE.

And that is my last post here, your comment "If you choose not to understand that, then you are incapable of understanding my position" indeed draws this to a close, because I agree with the reasoning - if you cannot overcome this limitation in your world view there is no point discussing things further.

 

[vepurusg]

since you are insistent on continuing to suggest that the desire to live is an experimental error, I would suggest that you cease your own experiment. No? Don't want to? Do not bother with justifications (I am sure there are many you could provide)

That was both extremely rude, and illogical. You're attacking a straw man, and doing it with phenomenal malice.

I'm sure anybody reading this can see how rational you're being in this conversation.

And that is my last post here,

I won't expect you to respond further. Indeed, after that comment, I'd rather you didn't.

I'll address what you've said and point out some of your errors for anybody still reading:

So 'Influence' doesnt count? Or perhaps 'bias' in this case (from a PERSON CHOOSING some IQ/EQ criteria based on how wellthey BELIEVE the metric would deliver a moral outcome) is not subjective?

Correct. Those are not opinions, but matters of error.

There is one absolute metric that would deliver the correct moral calculus (just as there should be one Unified Field Theorem). As we do not know what it is yet, making a mistake in forming the metric is a matter of error, not opinion.

Just as the world is roughly spherical- mistakenly believing it is flat is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact which is in error.

When we're dealing with something objective (like the shape of the earth, or morality) biases introduce errors in fact.

When we're dealing with something subjective (like how delicious or beautiful something is) biases are not error, but the nature of the opinion themselves.

A person's opinion on criteria isn't an opinion but a fact?

That's a loaded question. It's not an opinion at all.

You can't be of the "opinion" that the Earth is flat- the shape of the Earth is a matter of fact, not opinion. You can be of the belief or understanding that the Earth is flat- belief of a particular fact is not a matter of opinion.

The opinion and fact pairing of "Chocolate is delicious" and "Chocolate is delicious to Bob" are indeed valid (noting the limitation of the term delicious in its application such as degrees of deliciousness) but objective in the common usage of the term in relation to the concept it refers to most certainly. In that regard chocolate is delicious (to some varying extent) to bob is a 'fact'; however no matter how many people you sample, all you have obtained is a set of factual statements of subjective opinion about what deliciousness is - that does not determine that there is some 'objective deliciousness' let alone what it is, you can even determine what the mean (or other statistical measurement) of the subjective opinion indicates is delicious, that is not objective deliciousness, that is merely the mean of the sample of subjective opinion.

I'm glad you understand that. That is all correct. Why you can not understand other applications is beyond me.

Deliciousness is an opinion- it is only a fact when expressed in its context of the holder(s).

Morality, on the other hand, can not be compared- because it is fact, rather than opinion.

If somebody has a different view of what is moral, it is only as relevant as somebody having a different view as to the shape of the Earth- one person is right, and one person is wrong.

objectively identifying that which is moral is not coherent, since what is moral is an opinion.

You are presupposing that- you have provided no evidence that morality is an opinion (and indeed, I have provided a proof to the contrary). You might as well say:

"objectively identifying the shape of the Earth is not coherent, since the shape of the Earth is an opinion"

You're wrong. It's as simple as that.

The idea that you think that "There is no such thing as objective deliciousness" yet there IS such a thing as objective morality is an appeal to special pleading,

Oh, really?

Is it an appeal to special pleasing to suggest that there is such a thing as an objective shape of the Earth?

The bias or factual errors you commented on I readily noted several posts ago, may be considered to be objective provided those errors are NOT a matter of opinion (instead things like mechanical or methodological error);

In the case of facts, error is error. One can not have an opinion as to the nature of something that is objective. If somebody estimated the Earth as flat, that would be an ERROR, and would not indicate that the shape of the Earth became an opinion.

You have not actually even DEFINED a morality, but rather a mechanism by which to maximise predetermined criteria.

I did define morality, several times, and I deduced it logically via process of elimination.

The same does not hold true for deliciousness nor morality.

No, it does not hold true for:
Delicious
Beautiful
Stinky
Frightening


It does hold true for:
The shape of the Earth
Objective morality
Mass, Energy
Logic

The desire to live is not an experimental error, it is the response of an entity who is of the OPINION that it does not want to stop living

I said it could introduce error.

The desire of a being to live is not an opinion. Either they do or do not want to live- that is a matter of fact, which is relative to each respective being.

I am not of the OPINION that I don't want to die. I have knowledge of the FACT that I don't want to die.

You still don't seem to be able to differentiate clearly between fact and opinion. I don't know why you have trouble with this- it is probably because of your biases (such as that you have already decided that morality is an opinion- though that is a false fact on your part).

If you think opinions are of no importance (which they are not if they are merely experimental errors) then in such a situation conciousness itself is unimportant, the very concept of morality is one that only conscious entities are capable of comprehending

The concept of a circle is one that only conscious entities are capable of comprehending. All concepts are only comprehended by consciousness. That's a useless assertion on your part.

In a situation where opinion is nothing but an error, morality itself does not matter.

It's a good thing, then, that morality is not opinion, but FACT.

If you could only understand that point, you would come much farther in being able to comprehend reality.

And for the record, I am capable of understanding your position, I simply choose not to accept it.

You clearly are not, as even in the past post you made numerous errors in distinguishing fact from opinion. You can't differentiate them clearly- of course you can't understand how morality might be objective. You're working off of assumptions and dogma here- it's not rational, and it won't lead you to a rational conclusion (such as understanding and accepting my argument).

there is no objective way to suggest that EQ would deliver a heuristic which more accurately identifies the choice that is most likely to deliver the most 'objectively moral' outcomes

There is; it's called science. As we understand cognition better, the preferred functions for reflecting capacity to hold and comprehend relevant desires will be revealed through experimentation using objective methodology.

If you don't understand how science works to do this, you need to better inform yourself on how the scientific method works. We do not understand the universe around us merely by guessing- and we certainly don't understand it through opinion.

 

[1robin]

In other words, you are of the opinion that most of the population of the world who don't believe in your God are immoral? That most of the population of the world don't know right from wrong? That they don't have for example logic, reason and common sense or empathy or compassion or love or conscience to guide them? How can you have such a low opinion of your fellow human beings?
So in your world only the 33 percent of people who are Christians are good people and all the rest are immoral and incapable of good deeds?How about the Islamic moral bank or the Hindu moral bank in the Dharmashastras?

I do not believe that Atheists are necessarily immoral. I can't actually believe you believe that is what I think. I believe all humans are born with a conscience from God. If there is such a thing God is the only source possible. If religion is tossed out and with it objective morality, all that is left is arbitrary morality. There is no longer a rational for something being good or bad. Evolution takes a zig instead or a zag and another set of random morals develop. There is no reason for a person to not wipe out all other humans that do not potentially benefit him in a direct way. An atheist can be moral but his atheism is not what enables that. For example Stalin wiped out 15million of his own people because of and consistent with his atheism. By what authority can you declare cannibalism to be wrong and force someone to stop it, or Aztec ritual sacrifice. In Atheism their common sense, evolution, and logic led them to their practice and is just as valid or invalid as the atheists. It would have to be decided by an arbitrary subjective standard and that is insufficient. Or you could just stop them by virtue of your own value system, but what you have done is taken his soverignty away and asserted your own without justification. Because you have destroyed God who was necessary you have to become God and claim soverignty over others. Atheism/evolution is morally bankrupt but atheists partly because they live in a culture where religious objective morals exist in some amount and their God given conscience is operating are not. Islam and Hinduism at least have a rational for establishing objective morals (the transcendent) Atheism does not.

 

[1robin]

I don't think so necessarily.
My morality is my sense of right and wrong. It's development is a matter of circumstance rather than organization. My upbringing, my culture, my experiences provide the foundation of my morals.

Hello Nakosis, that would make your moral system arbitrary and of no more validity than the Aztec's or Stalin's. Their morals came about by the same manner as yours.

There is group morals as well. Like a religious moral or ethical code which isn't really my morals. It's an artificial morality I agree to, to be accepted in the group. I suppose it is as objective as we can get since it is something agreed to as a group.

Since no groups morality is more valid than another there is nothing but the assertion of one groups severegnty over another determined arbitrarily by force. It is insufficient for a just moral framework, since you get rid of a trancendant Godly authority it is necessary that someone become God.

It's a group standard. However it is still not my morals. Occasionally my morals take precedence. I justify may actions according to my sense of right and wrong which may not meet the standards of the group.

The group chooses to punish me if I disobey their moral standard. Our group morality is our civil laws. It's what we vote for and agree to. I don't see the necessity of an objective morality even if such did exist.

IOW our civil laws are what they are. We don't need the Bible to support them.

When Jefferson wrote down our rights he was asked to justify them. He did not say any of what you did. He was not very religous but even he could see that without God rights are arbitrary and so God is the only competent basis for them.

This next question is a little bit of a tangent, but what do you think Jesus meant by the following?Matt 5:20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

This is a tangent but as I have a good grasp on this particular verse I will respond. To permanently dwell with a perfect God we must also become perfect. God will not dwell with sin and rebellion forever. By our efforts this is impossible. Jesus is the only perfect being that ever existed, when a person places faith in him and is born again then Christ's perfect record is credited to that person legally by God. Our rightousness becomes perfect legally even though our conduct is not. The pharisees believd they were rightous because of their obedience even though it wasn't. Mathew was saying our conduct like the pharisees will never be perfect, but Christs rightousness was and is credited to us through our faith and so exceeds them.

this theme is reccurent throughout the whole bible. Any time you see justification, atonement, conversion, redeemed, etc........it is not based on our rightousness but by virtue of Christ's which is accredited to us when we trust in him and are reborn.


(Romans 4:6-8)

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 7 "BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED. 8 BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT."​

 

[Nakosis]

Hello Nakosis, that would make your moral system arbitrary and of no more validity than the Aztec's or Stalin's. Their morals came about by the same manner as yours.

Yes, agreed. I don't see that's as a problem however.

Since no groups morality is more valid than another there is nothing but the assertion of one groups severegnty over another determined arbitrarily by force. It is insufficient for a just moral framework, since you get rid of a trancendant Godly authority it is necessary that someone become God.

Just? That's the qualifier you seek? Just is honorable and fair. Do you think man can develop a nature that is honorable and fair? Obviously this is not the case for everyone but I think man has that potential.

When Jefferson wrote down our rights he was asked to justify them. He did not say any of what you did. He was not very religous but even he could see that without God rights are arbitrary and so God is the only competent basis for them.

There are different concepts of God. Our certainty about God's will is limited IMO. Unless you communicate directly with God, you are relying on what others claim as God's law. Regardless of how well intended any particular prophet, still still have freewill. Which IMO means their accuracy is always subject to question. You also have the freewill as to which concept of God to follow. I suspect most follow the "God" of who's morality they feel comfortable with. This allows us to arbitrarily choose a God who's law/will fits our inherent nature.

This is a tangent but as I have a good grasp on this particular verse I will respond. To permanently dwell with a perfect God we must also become perfect. God will not dwell with sin and rebellion forever. By our efforts this is impossible. Jesus is the only perfect being that ever existed, when a person places faith in him and is born again then Christ's perfect record is credited to that person legally by God. Our rightousness becomes perfect legally even though our conduct is not. The pharisees believd they were rightous because of their obedience even though it wasn't. Mathew was saying our conduct like the pharisees will never be perfect, but Christs rightousness was and is credited to us through our faith and so exceeds them.

Thank you, understand I respect your opinion as a Christian.

this theme is reccurent throughout the whole bible. Any time you see justification, atonement, conversion, redeemed, etc........it is not based on our rightousness but by virtue of Christ's which is accredited to us when we trust in him and are reborn.

I have a personal moral issue with this concept. I do not think it is right to allow the action/sacrifice of someone else to justify me. I'm not saying it is right or wrong. It is just a problem I have with the Christian concept. I'd rather face any judgement on my own merits or lack of them. I would be accountable for my own actions. That is just inherent in my nature and not something I can set aside.

(Romans 4:6-8)

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 7 "BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED. 8 BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT."​

If man is not worthy of God, then man is not worthy. I don't want anything that I don't deserve. If I am not acceptable as I am then I'm ok with that.

That is the nature of my morality, I can't change that. If God needs me to use the merits of another to justify myself, I can't give that to God. To do so would be to deny the truth of my nature.

My hope is that man's inherent nature can develop into one of righteousness. Then the law will no longer be necessary because what need does a righteous man have for the law?

 

[1robin]

Yes, agreed. I don't see that's as a problem however.

It would not be if all men had the same ideas of morality. It becomes a substantial one if we don't agree. For instance by what justification could you have stopped Hitler. His moral compass is derived from the same sources you claim your is. Their is no valid reason in your system that gives you the right to stop him. If you did your justification would be a derived from outside your paradigm.

Just? That's the qualifier you seek? Just is honorable and fair. Do you think man can develop a nature that is honorable and fair? Obviously this is not the case for everyone but I think man has that potential.

I doubt it. Man has an iherent flawed moral sytem described in the bible and witnessed through history. I will not claim to know that but it is a reasonable conclusion. We are no more moral today than 4000 yrs ago. We have some values that are better and some others that are worse than they did. Kruschev was willing to start a nuclear war with the US in the 60's that would have killed most of the life on this planet. He changed his mind for some reason but he was at one time fully committed, I don't see any growth there. Look at the abortion of millions of babies that committed no sin, because the one guilty of the sin would rather an innocent being pay rather than the one responsible.

There are different concepts of God. Our certainty about God's will is limited IMO. Unless you communicate directly with God, you are relying on what others claim as God's law. Regardless of how well intended any particular prophet, still still have freewill. Which IMO means their accuracy is always subject to question. You also have the freewill as to which concept of God to follow. I suspect most follow the "God" of who's morality they feel comfortable with. This allows us to arbitrarily choose a God who's law/will fits our inherent nature.

Well I think that for this topic to illustrate that the transendant or supernatural is as narrow as we need to be.

Thank you, understand I respect your opinion as a Christian.

Thank you, and I will say you display a respect and humility that is rare in a person who disagrees with Christianity.

I have a personal moral issue with this concept. I do not think it is right to allow the action/sacrifice of someone else to justify me. I'm not saying it is right or wrong. It is just a problem I have with the Christian concept. I'd rather face any judgement on my own merits or lack of them. I would be accountable for my own actions. That is just inherent in my nature and not something I can set aside.

Well I understand your reasoning, we do not want to owe or be subject to any authority. The bible spells that out clearly. We want to earn our place so to speak. The bible considers that an aspect of pride which is the greatest hinderance to faith and also extremely hard to overcome. The bible makes it absolutly clear that our record will never justify us before him. You will have to look to another less attested and IMO false system if you are relying on your record.

If man is not worthy of God, then man is not worthy. I don't want anything that I don't deserve. If I am not acceptable as I am then I'm ok with that.

Well if you remember that the whole reason for the creation of man was to for us through freewill to establish a genuine love for God, then any system that I can earn approval in does not necessitate a love of God but does increase self love (pride).

That is the nature of my morality, I can't change that. If God needs me to use the merits of another to justify myself, I can't give that to God. To do so would be to deny the truth of my nature.

Well of course the bible says the natural state of man is flawed and to rectify this he must be reborn by faith in Christ but even that work is not complete until we are ressurected and purified. You have a soverign right to exercise freewill to not choose God but only at your peril. The bible being a book written by the creator of man has uncanny insite into all the philosophies and rationals we will develope. Yours is addressed by this verse and many others.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

My hope is that man's inherent nature can develop into one of righteousness. Then the law will no longer be necessary because what need does a righteous man have for the law?

Even if we could (but I see no evidence that we will) we are still going to die and that ability will be of no use then. You are perfectly free to accept or deny biblical truth and I have no desire to force any beliefs on any other but that freewill comes with consequences if not used correctly or wisely.

 

[ArtieE]

I do not believe that Atheists are necessarily immoral. I can't actually believe you believe that is what I think. I believe all humans are born with a conscience from God. If there is such a thing God is the only source possible.

Of course not. Simply read about the evolution of morality and animal altruism.

If religion is tossed out and with it objective morality, all that is left is arbitrary morality.

Which religion? Christianity, Islam or Hinduism or some other religion?

There is no longer a rational for something being good or bad.

Of course there is. Logic, reason and common sense or empathy or compassion or love or conscience for example.

Evolution takes a zig instead or a zag and another set of random morals develop. There is no reason for a person to not wipe out all other humans that do not potentially benefit him in a direct way. An atheist can be moral but his atheism is not what enables that. For example Stalin wiped out 15million of his own people because of and consistent with his atheism.

Nothing to do with atheism. Was God an atheist because He was capable of drowning practically every person on the planet?

By what authority can you declare cannibalism to be wrong and force someone to stop it, or Aztec ritual sacrifice.

Logic, reason and common sense or empathy or compassion or love or conscience for example.

Atheism/evolution is morally bankrupt but atheists partly because they live in a culture where religious objective morals exist in some amount and their God given conscience is operating are not. Islam and Hinduism at least have a rational for establishing objective morals (the transcendent) Atheism does not.

So Muslim or Hindu morals don't come from Allah or the Hindu gods but from the Christian God?

 

[Oryonder]

It's easiest to explain if you first take morality in the context of that which is relevant to action- not simply belief for belief's sake which has no bearing on real action.

That is, a genuine functional goal.

Without that, it's a little tricky.


Once we reach that point, it's easy to dismiss all moral systems that are illogical or unscientific on the grounds that the world views they represent are less probable (and so their consequences relative to a goal can be self-contradictory, or unpredictable in the context of a real reality, and they are immoral beliefs on the grounds of their moral improbability and inconsistency).

That eliminates all claims to legitimacy of revealed religions and spiritual gnosis- relegating those to random/arbitrary sources. Being the most common historical grounds for elaborate moral systems, and still practiced by the majority, eliminating these disqualifies the majority of world opinions on morality.

What is left over is that which can be derived from logic.

One then dismisses innate goals, because acceptance of those as morality would make the term meaningless (as mentioned before).

Things like Satanism and Objectivism are out. That also disqualifies social and instinctive moral drives (hormonally based altruism, which has its own gratification and is about as relevant as sleeping or eating to philosophical morality), as well as social contract and game theory, as representing the source of objective morality (though those things definitely come into play in functional application of moral goals).

These are principles currently levied as the most rational forms of naturalistic morality by their advocates- separating them as an essential categorical division and eliminating them from consideration is essential (removing the bulk of serious competition).

Eliminating the innate or selfish goals, we're left with the other side of the self/selfless dichotomy.

Selection of any arbitrary "selfless" goal would be selfish (based on personal preference)- e.g. we can not simply choose a goal out of the blue because that choice reflects selfish desires and innate tendency, which would make morality irrelevant (such arbitrary goals fall into the former category as opinions).

This is an important categorical division among all possible goals; most possible goals being arbitrary in this respect, and so being invalidated.

Revealed morality being out already, we have to narrow it down to the science of the matter.

Rather than consideration for one's self, it is consideration for something that is not.
The only thing that is not oneself that possesses a concept capable of being considered (an interest) is another intelligent adaptive information system.

One is forced to narrow the consideration to interests that are capable of being relevant, as compared to non-interest.

e.g. We can't consider the non-interest of a rock to be painted purple as a moral goal, because no such interest exists in reality, so such an interest would be an arbitrary and self serving creation of our own imaginations (thus disqualified as having a selfish origin).

This point narrows things down massively- there are a finite number of real interests, and a virtually infinite number of unreal/imaginary interests.

We can only consider the interest of things that have interests; but in order to be non arbitrary, we must consider the interests of everything that has interests to the extent those things have said interests (anything else would be an inconsistent personal bias).

Moral relevance relative to the entity's consciousness/intelligence, in a sense- a pig has more acute and elaborate interests, and more capacity to hold them, than a house fly, for example. We have to look here hard at cognition. Adaptive neural networks in a computer simulation can be considered similarly, as can even physical evolutionary forces.

In the balance, one derives something not terribly unlike utilitarianism, but with regards to the interest of a being that can possess them as opposed to a measure of mere pleasure or pain- which may approximate those interests, but does not represent the totality of them (e.g. interests can extend beyond one's lifespan).

Interests have clear exchange rates in terms of sacrifice and willingness to experience pain to see them through; Nietzsche articulated this to some degree in his formulation of the "will to power", but the influences here are manifold, and complex enough that with our current knowledge of cognition we can only approximate them (though approximate them we should, as the greater good to ignoring them- e.g. striving closer to that goal of consideration than would be a less accurate model).

Naturally one makes use of science and logic through empirical observation, game theory, etc. to maximize efficiency in striving for one's goal (I think that goes unsaid), so there's plenty more I could go into as to execution, but the point was only to elucidate a non-arbitrary consistent and coherent goal at the exclusion of its alternatives.


I'm assuming morality is some kind of behaviorally relevant methodology of positive consideration for some goal.
Barring that, we might be able to say, rather than consideration for the other beyond oneself, morality could be complete lack of consideration for anything (not even oneself)- but that is something of a non-goal rather than a goal (e.g. due to the way the mind works via motivation, it does not result in a non-random behavior/methodology which can be practiced, and is functionally suicidal).

That potential definition is ruled out semantically, if not also logically (a goal to consider nothing must consider itself, thus negating its purpose). That gets into ontologically tricky, "This statement is false" territory.

The problem with your theory is that you do not point out who gets to make the rules and who's perspective is right. Who gets to create the test by which moral action is judged ? At some point social contract theory must come into play yet you negate this theory.

There is no intelligent adaptive information system that does not have rules. Like any model, the initial assumptions rule the outcome. The decision on what rules and assumptions such a system would operate under will involve agreement among individuals to a "social contract" of sorts.

Utilitarianism in practice ends up in a horrible nightmare of dull utopianism. Who gets to decide what is best for the masses ? Utilitarianism ignores individual rights and freedoms such that individual rights and freedoms get trampled on the basis of the most inane justifications.

Pure logic in utilitarianism can eventually lead to a place where can not get out of bed in the morning because "statistics show that folks who get out of bed have a higher probability of falling down the stairs".

 

[Nakosis]

It would not be if all men had the same ideas of morality. It becomes a substantial one if we don't agree. For instance by what justification could you have stopped Hitler. His moral compass is derived from the same sources you claim your is. Their is no valid reason in your system that gives you the right to stop him. If you did your justification would be a derived from outside your paradigm.

My morality is such to not cause others unnecessary harm or allows others to be cause unnecessary harm. Preventing the Nazis from causing others harm is well within my paradigm. I don't need a valid reason for that. It's inherent to my nature.

I doubt it. Man has an iherent flawed moral sytem described in the bible and witnessed through history. I will not claim to know that but it is a reasonable conclusion. We are no more moral today than 4000 yrs ago. We have some values that are better and some others that are worse than they did. Kruschev was willing to start a nuclear war with the US in the 60's that would have killed most of the life on this planet. He changed his mind for some reason but he was at one time fully committed, I don't see any growth there. Look at the abortion of millions of babies that committed no sin, because the one guilty of the sin would rather an innocent being pay rather than the one responsible.

What about you? Would you start a nuclear war that would kill most of the life on the planet? There are hundreds of individuals I'm sure you can site that had no problem causing others unnecessary harm, but that is not you and I. I'm I to be accountable for those that would, even if it is not my nature?

Well I think that for this topic to illustrate that the transendant or supernatural is as narrow as we need to be.

I just don't see any guarantee that your transcendent experience or mine is absolute. Or anyone's. You trust what? An understanding provided to you through the Holy Spirit? If I, or someone else, trusts or claims to trust the same yet we disagree? I don't see a resolution among believers who claim a different theology.

Thank you, and I will say you display a respect and humility that is rare in a person who disagrees with Christianity.

You're welcome, but I like people. I don't see a benefit in alienating others because of their beliefs. I don't always like their actions and sometimes I have to deal with them in a manner that seems appropriate in the moment. However I don't have any ill will towards others.

Well I understand your reasoning, we do not want to owe or be subject to any authority. The bible spells that out clearly. We want to earn our place so to speak. The bible considers that an aspect of pride which is the greatest hinderance to faith and also extremely hard to overcome. The bible makes it absolutly clear that our record will never justify us before him. You will have to look to another less attested and IMO false system if you are relying on your record.

It's not pride. It's concern for the suffering of others. I don't think it is fair that others are accountable and suffer if I do not. I'd rather suffer along side my fellow man justly. I'll accept whatever suffering is due me because I am not anymore special then the next person. The least I can do is share in the suffering that is due us.

Well if you remember that the whole reason for the creation of man was to for us through freewill to establish a genuine love for God, then any system that I can earn approval in does not necessitate a love of God but does increase self love (pride).

I extend love to all beings, even God. If that is not enough then it is not enough. I cannot be other then what I am.

Well of course the bible says the natural state of man is flawed and to rectify this he must be reborn by faith in Christ but even that work is not complete until we are ressurected and purified. You have a soverign right to exercise freewill to not choose God but only at your peril. The bible being a book written by the creator of man has uncanny insite into all the philosophies and rationals we will develope. Yours is addressed by this verse and many others.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

I see man as having two natures. A material one and a spiritual one. We can allow our material nature to overpower our spiritual nature. Natural man is one who concerns themselves with material things. However I see in man the evolution of his spirit. There are men of great spirit in the world and they are not all Christian. I would not judge them simply for the label of Christian or lack of it.

Even if we could (but I see no evidence that we will) we are still going to die and that ability will be of no use then. You are perfectly free to accept or deny biblical truth and I have no desire to force any beliefs on any other but that freewill comes with consequences if not used correctly or wisely.

Yes we will die and if judged, I am content to be judged according to the life I lived. I'm not asking for anything else. If my life was not sufficient then I will accept whatever fate deemed necessary.

 

[1robin]

Of course not. Simply read about the evolution of morality and animal altruism.

I regard this idea as bad one for many reasons, however that is irrelavent. There is no basis for objective morals found in evolution which is what is necessary for human justice needs.

Which religion? Christianity, Islam or Hinduism or some other religion?

That is a whole other huge subject. I have not made a case or claim as to which one is correct, so I will not defend it. However either of the three provide a more logical (or really any at all) rational for objective morals than evolution or human reason.

Of course there is. Logic, reason and common sense or empathy or compassion or love or conscience for example

None of these are absolutes. If you rewind evolution those parameters would have produced a completely different result. (It's arbitrary). Since the cannables arrived at their point of view using the same methods you used for yours, and there is no absolute standard to appeal to, you have two choices. Leave them to eat each other which is consistent with you rational, or stop them on the basis that might makes right and you assert your soverignty over his which cannot be justified within your principles behind your system. There is no reason in atheistic evolution for me to help anyone outside of their usefullness to my survival, and many times to help someone requires a risk to my survival. Beings may still take that action but it cannot be justified by atheism/evolution. Evolutionary theory suggests there is one over all driving force, natural selection based on suvival advantages. It cannot justify anything outside that paradigm.

.Nothing to do with atheism. Was God an atheist because He was capable of drowning practically every person on the planet?

It had quite a bit to do with atheism. His sole (or primary) reason for being chosen by Lenin based on Marx's ideals for leadership was his complete rejection of religion. He justified what he did by his lack of belief in the Christian concept of the sanctity of worth of human life. It was also consistent with evolution, by killing off the competition and enslaveing through terror he was increasing the chances of his survival. Your flood analogy I just covered with another person. The bible records that man had become completly corrupt. They had exercised their freewill to reject God and embrace evil totally. He reasoned with them for a hundred years they had no desire to repent. He destroyed a group of evil people in order to stop a potentially infinately larger group from creating untold years of opression, violence, inhumanity, and depravity.

.

So Muslim or Hindu morals don't come from Allah or the Hindu gods but from the Christian God?

IMO many of their morals come from the abrahamic God, especially Islam, but were added to and distorted by their religion. That is quite another type of claim than what we are discussing though.

 

[ArtieE]

I regard this idea as bad one for many reasons, however that is irrelavent. There is no basis for objective morals found in evolution which is what is necessary for human justice needs.

Why are many religious people seemingly incapable of understanding right from wrong to such an extent that they need a deity to tell them? What is wrong with them?

There is no reason in atheistic evolution for me to help anyone outside of their usefullness to my survival, and many times to help someone requires a risk to my survival. Beings may still take that action but it cannot be justified by atheism/evolution. Evolutionary theory suggests there is one over all driving force, natural selection based on suvival advantages. It cannot justify anything outside that paradigm.

Yes it can. You simply keep ignoring the facts. Vervet monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in doing so they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked. Do you think that this behavior was actually hard-wired into their brains by God as He made them?

He justified what he did by his lack of belief in the Christian concept of the sanctity of worth of human life.

There doesn't appear to be much respect for human life in the OT either...

It was also consistent with evolution, by killing off the competition and enslaveing through terror he was increasing the chances of his survival.

Are you describing the manner in which God in the OT commanded the killing off of the competition to His chosen people? Survival of the strongest, the strongest in this case being the ones with God on their side?

Your flood analogy I just covered with another person. The bible records that man had become completly corrupt. They had exercised their freewill to reject God and embrace evil totally. He reasoned with them for a hundred years they had no desire to repent. He destroyed a group of evil people in order to stop a potentially infinately larger group from creating untold years

of opression, violence, inhumanity, and depravity.

Just as long as you think you have a good reason for genocide then I guess you have no problem with it? Hitler thought he had good reasons too...

Just a question... where would your objective morality actually come from? It couldn't come from a deity of course, because obviously different deities have different moralities...