Objective morality?

[Mock Turtle]

I'm sure some here know about what happens (or what used to happen) to the elderly and/or very young in some of the more traditional societies - the ones that have survived despite the encroachment of 'civilisation', and which no doubt existed for long periods in our past - most of such in fact. That is, that if any individuals weren't seen as essential to the group survival and they might have caused the group not to survive, then they were 'jettisoned' - a more benign word perhaps for often what did happen to them. This often applied to any elderly who were not really capable of looking after themselves alone, or where the very young could not be taken care of successfully given the resources available - birth of infants too close together perhaps. And any who know much about animal behaviour know this is true of many non-human species too - whether it is those that will kill the offspring of a future partner (so their genes lived on) or where those deemed sickly at birth were simply abandoned or killed - being a waste of resources.

So, why do we expect any objective morality to occur in human life, especially when we have cases such as hatred towards homosexuality, trans people, or those deemed worthy of death for certain crimes, and where appropriate morality might equally be seen as 'expedient to our purposes' - as to which some tend to accept these and others not. With the religiously minded often determining as to such things. Unless one does have the view that we just are not evolved animals - like all other life.

And isn't it the case that we might deem other such things necessary (or expedient) - as to human survival in the future - so as to throw objective morality into the bin?

PS I did already know about much of the above, but the thread was initiated by some of the things in the Jared Diamond book I'm currently reading - The World Until Yesterday: What Can We Learn From Traditional Societies?

 

[Brian2]

There are probably some very good things we can learn from some traditional societies also. It would not all be bad.
But what are we judging good and bad by anyway?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Which are these societies that jettisoned their old and young? When and where did these things happen?

 

[wellwisher]

There are probably some very good things we can learn from some traditional societies also. It would not all be bad.
But what are we judging good and bad by anyway?

Morality was designed for the group and not the individual. The group makes it easier to be objective to the value of a moral system, since the needs of the team have far fewer group sweets spots, than trying to optimize every ego at the same time. How would you optimize the criminal and the spiritual person the same time, without tons of defensive resources? If they were on the same team, then each could play a role for the team; Captain and the enforcer instead of criminal and victim.

A team will require one sacrifice their ego for the team, so they can play for the glory of the team. The individuals, on the other hand, will each want to be the star, which create an impossible task for the coach if the goal is a team victory.

Israel in the ancient times, was a small country, surrounded by larger and more powerful opponents. It was always under pressure to being run over. Survival meant it needed to work as a team, instead of becoming a bunch of egos, all pulling in all directions. Morality was designed to get the most out of this small team so it could compete. In International Sports, excellent teams can appear from small countries, since good teams do not need infinite population or resources, to optimize egos, like in the mega countries. The team in this case show how efficient this team morality is. Efficiency is an objective measure.

If you go through the ten commandments, many ego may not like one or more of them. If you were a thief, by trade, not stealing would put you; ego, in a bind. He will never feel full. But as a team, if none of us steal from each other, we will need fewer resources for defensive measures. There is more to fortify the walls.

The first Commandment is there is one God and not to put false gods before him. Religious arguments can divide people, while puffing up egos. This conflict can be useful to the ego, but it can ruin team spirit, if teammate no longer have each other backs. The idea of the 1st Commandment was avoid such arguments or keep them to yourself, since we need the team integrated and friendly with each other.

It is easier to see objectivity for team based morality, while ego morality has so many options due to ego diversity that it all becomes objective to one but subjective to all.

We have two political parties which no longer get along. How would you make them one team? First each will need to rein in their egos enough to see the need for the larger team. Relative morality will not work since this is what has led to the divide. We would need an objective goal for the big team. This occurred with wars, when the urgent needs of all; full team, become more pressing than the vanity of egos optimized by divide. Even enemies will work together since they need the whole team to show up. This is an objective example of team morality.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Which are these societies that jettisoned their old and young? When and where did these things happen?

Some of the tribes mentioned by Diamond that have been known to do this - the Inuit of the Arctic, the Hopi of North America, the Witoto of South America, and Aboriginal Australians. Others mentioned too.

For the elderly, apparently it could occur in two scenarios - nomadic hunter-gatherers, where they had to shift camp and where it was more important to the group as a whole to not be burdened by those who couldn't carry anything themselves but needed carrying. Another might be in Arctic or desert scenarios, where food supply was very limited and hence given to those more necessary for group survival.

 

[PureX]

I'm sure some here know about what happens (or what used to happen) to the elderly and/or very young in some of the more traditional societies - the ones that have survived despite the encroachment of 'civilisation', and which no doubt existed for long periods in our past - most of such in fact. That is, that if any individuals weren't seen as essential to the group survival and they might have caused the group not to survive, then they were 'jettisoned' - a more benign word perhaps for often what did happen to them. This often applied to any elderly who were not really capable of looking after themselves alone, or where the very young could not be taken care of successfully given the resources available - birth of infants too close together perhaps. And any who know much about animal behaviour know this is true of many non-human species too - whether it is those that will kill the offspring of a future partner (so their genes lived on) or where those deemed sickly at birth were simply abandoned or killed - being a waste of resources.

So, why do we expect any objective morality to occur in human life, especially when we have cases such as hatred towards homosexuality, trans people, or those deemed worthy of death for certain crimes, and where appropriate morality might equally be seen as 'expedient to our purposes' - as to which some tend to accept these and others not. With the religiously minded often determining as to such things. Unless one does have the view that we just are not evolved animals - like all other life.

And isn't it the case that we might deem other such things necessary (or expedient) - as to human survival in the future - so as to throw objective morality into the bin?

PS I did already know about much of the above, but the thread was initiated by some of the things in the Jared Diamond book I'm currently reading - The World Until Yesterday: What Can We Learn From Traditional Societies?

I think there may be some confusion between objective morality and idealized or perfected morality. Seems to me the examples you mentioned were very "objectively" based. Very pragmatic responses to the objective reality that those people were living in. And the only reason they appear needlessly brutal to us is because we have the luxury these days of contemplating an idealized morality. The morality that should exist in a perfect reality.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I think there may be some confusion between objective morality and idealized or perfected morality. Seems to me the examples you mentioned were very "objectively" based. Very pragmatic responses to the objective reality that those people were living in. And the only reason they appear needlessly brutal to us is because we have the luxury these days of contemplating an idealized morality. The morality that should exist in a perfect reality.

Not sure I can accept that. These all seem rather subjective and seemingly based upon tradition and/or the circumstances in which they might find themselves - such that these are the appropriate actions to take. They might view them as being objective, but from an outside view surely these are all subjective morality? Given that these often are extreme circumstances.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

objective-morality

No such thing if by objective we mean existing outside of the minds of moral agents and waiting to be discovered empirically. It's a concept invented by those speaking for gods intended to invalidate contradictory moral values out of hand.

 

[Brian2]

Morality was designed for the group and not the individual. The group makes it easier to be objective to the value of a moral system, since the needs of the team have far fewer group sweets spots, than trying to optimize every ego at the same time. How would you optimize the criminal and the spiritual person the same time, without tons of defensive resources? If they were on the same team, then each could play a role for the team; Captain and the enforcer instead of criminal and victim.

A team will require one sacrifice their ego for the team, so they can play for the glory of the team. The individuals, on the other hand, will each want to be the star, which create an impossible task for the coach if the goal is a team victory.

Israel in the ancient times, was a small country, surrounded by larger and more powerful opponents. It was always under pressure to being run over. Survival meant it needed to work as a team, instead of becoming a bunch of egos, all pulling in all directions. Morality was designed to get the most out of this small team so it could compete. In International Sports, excellent teams can appear from small countries, since good teams do not need infinite population or resources, to optimize egos, like in the mega countries. The team in this case show how efficient this team morality is. Efficiency is an objective measure.

If you go through the ten commandments, many ego may not like one or more of them. If you were a thief, by trade, not stealing would put you; ego, in a bind. He will never feel full. But as a team, if none of us steal from each other, we will need fewer resources for defensive measures. There is more to fortify the walls.

The first Commandment is there is one God and not to put false gods before him. Religious arguments can divide people, while puffing up egos. This conflict can be useful to the ego, but it can ruin team spirit, if teammate no longer have each other backs. The idea of the 1st Commandment was avoid such arguments or keep them to yourself, since we need the team integrated and friendly with each other.

It is easier to see objectivity for team based morality, while ego morality has so many options due to ego diversity that it all becomes objective to one but subjective to all.

We have two political parties which no longer get along. How would you make them one team? First each will need to rein in their egos enough to see the need for the larger team. Relative morality will not work since this is what has led to the divide. We would need an objective goal for the big team. This occurred with wars, when the urgent needs of all; full team, become more pressing than the vanity of egos optimized by divide. Even enemies will work together since they need the whole team to show up. This is an objective example of team morality.

So good and bad is being judged by what people want as a group?
But that of course does not always lead to what is actually good or bad imo. Sometimes there is group blindness to what is good and bad while there is openness to what makes life more pleasant or prosperous for the group.

 

[PureX]

No such thing if by objective we mean existing outside of the minds of moral agents and waiting to be discovered empirically. It's a concept invented by those speaking for gods intended to invalidate contradictory moral values out of hand.

Actually, it's yet another failure of materialist empiricism to grasp that perception is conception and therefor materialist empiricism negates the foundation of it's own premise.

 

[Brian2]

No such thing if by objective we mean existing outside of the minds of moral agents and waiting to be discovered empirically. It's a concept invented by those speaking for gods intended to invalidate contradictory moral values out of hand.

Does that mean that slavery in Biblical times is really not absolutely right or wrong? or that raping or murdering someone is not absolutely right or wrong?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Actually, it's yet another failure of materialist empiricism to grasp that perception is conception and therefor materialist empiricism negates the foundation of it's own premise.

I'll bet that means something to you. It's meaningless to me. I can't begin to paraphrase it into anything coherent. It also addresses none of the comment quoted.

And as usual, you claim failure without demonstrating any such failure. You're constantly condemning empiricism and rigorous thought, implying that they miss something valuable, but can never say what that is or demonstrate how it has been of value to you or why others should want it for themselves.

Does that mean that slavery in Biblical times is really not absolutely right or wrong? or that raping or murdering someone is not absolutely right or wrong?

It means what it says, that the idea that slavery is immoral does not exist outside of the minds of moral agents. The sun has objective existence. It's beauty when setting does not. Why? Because the sun sets even if there is no mind to apprehend it, but it is only beautiful to a conscious agent with aesthetic sensibilities, which he adds to the experience. Likewise with moral intuitions. They're not out there in space anywhere to be experienced.

 

[Brian2]

It means what it says, that the idea that slavery is immoral does not exist outside of the minds of moral agents. The sun has objective existence. It's beauty when setting does not. Why? Because the sun sets even if there is no mind to apprehend it, but it is only beautiful to a conscious agent with aesthetic sensibilities, which he adds to the experience. Likewise with moral intuitions. They're not out there in space anywhere to be experienced.

That our sense of beauty and morality are internal does not make them any less real than something out there.