Objective Morality...

[Shadow Wolf]

I, on the other hand, with many gazilions in agreement, contend that morality is universal and deduced rationally from the ultimate value held by 98%+ of the general population, that good order is the goal of any moral code--with which apparently none but despots (including theocrats) and anarchists will disagree!!!!

If morality is universal, why are some cultures shocked and appalled at the idea of child soldiers, while in some cultures it's a very normal and everyday part of life?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Yeah, but there's no data to support that one.
If it is held by 98% of the population it rather likely has a genetic base.

What evidence is there to support the natural determination of morality, other than the evolution of self-aware sentient creatures which can deduce universal morality?

The well-being of conscious organisms is my test.

Cockroaches being equal in status to homo sapiens I presume?

If morality is universal, why are some cultures shocked and appalled at the idea of child soldiers, while in some cultures it's a very normal and everyday part of life?

It's universally deductible and very simple, at least concerning adults, but it becomes lost among all the other issues that are called morality but serve only to support the religion that proclaimed them--e.g. be fruitful and multiply, and go to your indoctrination center (aka church) on Sunday.

Morality concerning children and animals is not so clear cut and varies depending on age, the particular right and the species. Those are moral grey areas. Genocide is an issue that's better to talk about than child soldiers since it involves entire populations. Some cultures consider genocide to be possibly the worst of all evils, while others (I'm sure you can think of some examples) consider genocide to be a divine imperative, or rationalize it to be naturally so.

 

[Sapiens]

What evidence is there to support the natural determination of morality, other than the evolution of self-aware sentient creatures which can deduce universal morality?

Look into the concept of Evolutionarily stable strategies (ESS).

Cockroaches being equal in status to homo sapiens I presume?

Humor me one of my pet peeves, it will make you look smarter: Genus names are capitalized, specific names are lower case, the entire name is either underlined or italicized. Not "homo sapiens" but rather: Homo sapiens or Homo sapiens.

Do you think that cockroaches are conscious?

It's universally deductible and very simple, at least concerning adults, but it becomes lost among all the other issues that are called morality but serve only to support the religion that proclaimed them--e.g. be fruitful and multiply, and go to your indoctrination center (aka church) on Sunday.

Morality concerning children and animals is not so clear cut and varies depending on age, the particular right and the species. Those are moral grey areas. Genocide is an issue that's better to talk about than child soldiers since it involves entire populations. Some cultures consider genocide to be possibly the worst of all evils, while others (I'm sure you can think of some examples) consider genocide to be a divine imperative, or rationalize it to be naturally so.

Neither genocide nor child solders increase the well-being of conscious organisms.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Look into the concept of Evolutionarily stable strategies (ESS).

I take it it's too involved to summarize in your own words for a message board?

Do you think that cockroaches are conscious?

I think all animals with a nervous system that enables them to react to stimuli are conscious. But only a few animals have primitive self-awareness, and apparently only humans are fully so--and that's what generates our internal moral compass, whether we choose to pay attention to it or not, thus our moral free will. Beautiful in it's simplicity, and morality is almost as simple--for adult humans.

Neither genocide nor child solders increase the well-being of conscious organisms.

True, but what's your point? Where do cockroaches fit into your scheme of things--assuming you have one?

 

[Sapiens]

I take it it's too involved to summarize in your own words for a message board?

It does not summarize quickly and I am too tired at the moment to try and walk someone through it. In case you are actually interested, let me give you the critical reference: Evolution and the Theory of Games: John Maynard Smith: 9780521288842: Amazon.com: Books

I think all animals with a nervous system that enables them to react to stimuli are conscious. But only a few animals have primitive self-awareness, and apparently only humans are fully so--and that's what generates our internal moral compass, whether we choose to pay attention to it or not, thus our moral free will. Beautiful in it's simplicity, and morality is almost as simple--for adult humans.



True, but what's your point? Where do cockroaches fit into your scheme of things--assuming you have one?

Let's not get into a semantic game of conscious vs. self-aware, those sorts of pissing contests are such an abysmal waste of time and resources.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Let's not get into a semantic game of conscious vs. self-aware, those sorts of pissing contests are such an abysmal waste of time and resources.

Semantic games? Pissing contests? If that's what you think, we're not only not on the same page, we're not even in the same universe. Such a cavalier out-of-hand dismissal of the importance of self-awareness with, well, no explanation at all, is nothing less than a rejection of reason itself.

You say you don't adhere to a religion, but I think you do. It's one with a blind faith in the equal value of all life, where cockroaches and amoebas (and maybe even grass and rocks) are equivalent with humans. It is a religion, anchored as much in blind faith as any revealed religion; and it does have a name, Biocentrism. For biocentrists, self-awareness would be a concept attributable only to the biocentristic equivalent of the Devil himself.

 

[ArtieE]

I, on the other hand, with many gazilions in agreement, contend that morality is universal and deduced rationally from the ultimate value held by 98%+ of the general population, that good order is the goal of any moral code

"Good order" leads to better chances of survival of the individual and the community. Like all the things you list under. So since 98%+ of the general population evolved a survival instinct and "good order" increases chances of survival of course "gazilions" are in agreement.

Morality is honoring the EQUAL rights of ALL to life, liberty, property and self-defense; to be free from violation through force or fraud.

 

[ArtieE]

Yeah, but there's no data to support that one.
If it is held by 98% of the population it rather likely has a genetic base.

The survival instinct and other instincts.

The well-being of conscious organisms is my test.

Sure. Well-being leads generally to wanting to survive.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Morality concerning children and animals is not so clear cut and varies depending on age, the particular right and the species.

If morality is universal it applies equally and evenly to all people, to all species, to all ages. These areas that are "not so clear cut" would be very clear. There would be no gray areas.

The survival instinct and other instincts.

Just because we have this does not make evolution a source of morality. It may give us the ability to label morality because we have things like mirror neurons, but that in-and-of-itself does not make evolution and natural selection a source of morality. Further, it proves that morality is not objective from this perspective because not all animals have evolved the same capacity to view such things as immoral.

Sure. Well-being leads generally to wanting to survive.

There are far too many species that have lethal mating habits to support this idea.

 

[Sapiens]

Semantic games? Pissing contests? If that's what you think, we're not only not on the same page, we're not even in the same universe. Such a cavalier out-of-hand dismissal of the importance of self-awareness with, well, no explanation at all, is nothing less than a rejection of reason itself.

You say you don't adhere to a religion, but I think you do. It's one with a blind faith in the equal value of all life, where cockroaches and amoebas (and maybe even grass and rocks) are equivalent with humans. It is a religion, anchored as much in blind faith as any revealed religion; and it does have a name, Biocentrism. For biocentrists, self-awareness would be a concept attributable only to the biocentristic equivalent of the Devil himself.

Whoa ... all I'm pointing out is that we are using two different terms to mean the same thing.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

"Good order" leads to better chances of survival of the individual and the community. Like all the things you list under. So since 98%+ of the general population evolved a survival instinct and "good order" increases chances of survival of course "gazilions" are in agreement.

Not only better chances of survival, but of living fulfilling lives. As I said, the only ones who aren't in that 98% are anarchists and tyrants, both fighting against good order. If they want, we can set aside a walled in area where they can live out their violence to t their heart's content. Won't be long till they're down to .0002%.

BTW, the impetus for that good order among the 98% is enlightened self-interest.

If morality is universal it applies equally and evenly to all people, to all species, to all ages. These areas that are "not so clear cut" would be very clear. There would be no gray areas.

Would you given a gun to a 12 year-old, or give an 8 year-old full control of his property that's normally held in trust until adulthood? Would you let a 2 year-old go play in the street rather than violate his right to liberty by confining him to a playpen? Does a one second-old zygote have an absolute right to life no matter what because someone tells us that God thinks it's holy, beyond question, and immediately free from the mother and her rights? Aren't these rights acquired gradually? I don't see how you could call such transitions, which occur gradually and vary from culture to culture, including the age of adulthood, anything but grey. (Abortion is the most complex moral issue we face.)

As for animals, do cockroaches have a right to life? Go from there. Animals and young children, are all innocent, lacking as they do full self-awareness which enables the formulation and understanding of morality.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Whoa ... all I'm pointing out is that we are using two different terms to mean the same thing.

But they aren't the same thing. Self-awareness, particularly full self-awareness, is an infinite leap in evolution above simple consciousness.

 

[Sapiens]

But they aren't the same thing. Self-awareness, particularly full self-awareness, is an infinite leap in evolution above simple consciousness.

As you use them in that sentence they are different, as I use the term "consciousness" (without the modifier "simple") they are the same. I am happy to grant you that in some conversations "consciousness" is a term given to being aware of one’s environment and body and lifestyle, while "self-awareness" is the recognition of being "consciousness."

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

As you use them in that sentence they are different, as I use the term "consciousness" (without the modifier "simple") they are the same. I am happy to grant you that in some conversations "consciousness" is a term given to being aware of one’s environment and body and lifestyle, while "self-awareness" is the recognition of being "consciousness."

So.....you're saying that full self-awareness IS an infinite leap above the consciousness of the lower animals, which I simply termed "simple consciousness"?

 

[Sapiens]

So.....you're saying that full self-awareness IS an infinite leap above the consciousness of the lower animals, which I simply termed "simple consciousness"?

No, what I am saying is that I'm not going to get further involved in a BS semantic argument the point of which, since we do not differ on anything but the word definitions, escapes me. That's mental masturbation and I leave that to you to do alone.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

No, what I am saying is that I'm not going to get further involved in a BS semantic argument the point of which, since we do not differ on anything but the word definitions, escapes me. That's mental masturbation and I leave that to you to do alone.

So, whether self-awareness does or does not equal consciousness, is not worth your time other than to call it names like "mental masturbation". Ad hominem IS the most simplistic of all logical fallacies after all. But hey, as long as you have yourself convinced, what more could you want, obviously.

 

[`mud]

Gnosis compared to knowledge is the same as consciousness compared to conscious,
isn't it ? Do we need the word 'self' inserted ? I think not !
If it's not, then I don't get what the argument is about.
Other than that, something's in the salad besides Caesar's Dressing
'Splainittome
~
'mud

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Gnosis compared to knowledge is the same as consciousness compared to conscious,
isn't it ? Do we need the word 'self' inserted ? I think not !
If it's not, then I don't get what the argument is about.
Other than that, something's in the salad besides Caesar's Dressing
'Splainittome
~
'mud

Yeah, I guess self-conscious is about the same thing as self-awareness, but simple consciousness is much more widespread than self-awareness. Only a few animals (elephants, dolphins and higher primates), will be able to recognize that the reflection in the mirror is their own. Koko the gorilla who learned to sign, didn't referred to herself in the first person. It's what I call primitive self-awareness. It's one of the things we'll be looking for in AI.

Knowledge of the universality and inevitability of our mortality, that all life is mortal, and that other humans are self-aware as well, is what I'm calling full self-awareness. Knowledge of morality is impossible without self-awareness since without it, we, like the animals, would merely be following our genetic programming. We inherently know what is immoral because we can imagine ourselves being the victim of our own evil. Evil is not an external force, it's the internal temptation to choose to violate the rights of others who are also self-aware. To blame an external force is to displace the responsibility for the evil we choose to do--and we deny/condemn ourselves when we lie to justify our evil choices.

The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Bible is perhaps the best allegory it contains, except for the snake/Satan aspect. The ironic part is that their self-awareness, which first manifested itself as modesty, was only acquired after they disobeyed. But their "disobedience" happened before they had the necessary self-awareness to make such a choice. How can someone choose to disobey if they aren't even aware of their self? And it wasn't that they were condemned to labor and death for eating the apple, that's just drama. Rather, their self-awareness not only made them aware of good and evil, but also of their mortality.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't see how you could call such transitions, which occur gradually and vary from culture to culture, including the age of adulthood, anything but grey. (Abortion is the most complex moral issue we face.)

Rights are not the same as morals. "Rights" are things that are bestowed upon social and ethnic demographs the majority in-power group has deemed worthy of certain degrees of citizenship. "Morarls" are things that society at large, as well as many sub-cultures within that society, have deemed as being good and bad, right and wrong.
If morality were objective and universal, there would be no gray areas because we would know what is moral and what is immoral just as we know 3 * 4 = 12. It would be much more clear than it is now, it would be logical, there wouldn't be the amount of philosophical works their are on it, but rather, what we do have is a system that can't even give us a clear answer as to whether or not we should help those less fortunate than ourselves, and just exactly how much we should help.
It's a given that we do a lot of things that those in future generations consider immoral. The way we waste natural resources, our treatment of the mentally ill (as well as what we're willing to label is mentally ill), the way we allow people to go hungry while their is such an abundance, allowing the things we allow to be put into our food, throwing guns at a gun problem, I don't think the future is going to look at us in very high regards. This is because, inevitably, there will be shifts and changes in morality. Things we would never think of doing because they are too taboo future generations will do without even considering that their could ever be any moral implications behind their choice (how many women think about this when they put on a pair of jeans?).
The laws of physics do not change. They remain constant. Morality, on the other hand, changes so much and varies so widely that there is no way to suggest they may be universal or logically conclude they are objective.

 

[`mud]

And still, no salad dressing !
Get rid of the scriptures and you have a bit of a chance !
I get the image of a cave man with a rock in hand,
what he does with it determines his needs, no awareness needed.
Now eons later......let him read a book of religious writing......
~
'mud