Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

MushroomMan Mycology
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |  [ show all ]
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Ped]
    #3499638 -

Okay, so this is the argument:

You claim that natural rights exist objectively, you have tried to prove this from a few (true) statements about reality.

My objection is that you cannot reach this conclusion from your premises, due to the fact that you cannot derive moral truths from statements about what "is".

As I said before, you need to explain how your argument didn't reach a "should" conclusion from "is" premises.

Edit: Sorry, I was supposed to reply to Pinky..

Edited by deafpanda (12/14/04 07:27 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: deafpanda]
    #3502893 -

*Bump*

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: deafpanda]
    #3503968 -

*Bump*, come on pinky...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: deafpanda]
    #3504013 -

Patience, panda, patience.

I've been tied up in some real world stuff the last few days. It hasn't even been 24 hours since I moved this thread here. I'm between a shower and getting dressed for dinner right this minute so I have no time to do a complete post, but I'll leave you with this question to think about:

What is the definition of "morality" or "ethics"? To give an even broader hint, is the concept of morality applicable to non-living entities? Can one even define morality in terms of non-living entities?

And a parting comment which comes to mind after reviewing this thread: merely pronouncing the phrase "naturalistic fallacy" doesn't prove one cannot derive "should" from "what is". So far you have done nothing to support your assertion, just invoked the magic phrase "naturalistic fallacy" and then claimed that "everyone knows" it is impossible to derive "should" from "what is". The link you provided does nothing to prove that assertion either, it inveighs against the use of context-switching and/or context-dropping, neither of which I have done.

Now, maybe somewhere out in the world of philosophical writing there is a better explanation of exactly how the chain of thought referred to as "naturalistic fallacy" shows that it is impossible to derive "should" from "what is", but that link isn't it. If you can provide a better source I'd appreciate it.

You are challenging me to "show my work" step by step (which I have done) so you can examine it for error. The least you could do would be to extend to me the same courtesy.

I'll add more to this thread later tonight depending on when I return. Failing that I'll make every effort to get to it sometime tomorrow.


pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3504160 -

Just been wondering, what other aspects of existence other than the "no initiation of force" rule does this objective morality cover?


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3504369 -

Ok, no worries.

Ethics is the discussion of what is morally right and morally wrong. My view on morality is that it can only be described as subjective due to the fact that I don't believe that any idea of morality can be logically proved, and also due to the fact that there is such a diverse set of views of morality in the world.

I believe that it is impossible to actually know a moral fact.

It is possible to form moral opinions, take the example "killing people is bad". Moral opinions are composed of:

1) Beliefs about a verifiable state of affairs in the world. For example, killing people makes someone cease to exist, causes a lot of grief and maybe scares the community, etc..

2) A belief about the nature of morality. For example, causing grief, terror and loss of existence is morally wrong.

The point is that you cannot show logically that these things are morally wrong, you can show that murder causes loss of life but you are assuming that loss of life is a bad thing, which is a reasonable assumption in everyday conversation, but it is unprovable and thus betrays its lack of objectivity.

You would need to give me some good reasons why causing loss of life is a bad thing, and while I'd probably agree with those reasons, there is no justification that constitutes a logical proof since morals can't be objectively verified by some universal standard, they can't be seen or detected. All you could do is offer me up an idea of what morality is, like "it is wrong to initiate force against another person". While this is a statement that I agree with (sort of, its a bit more complicated than that, but that's another story), there is no way to verify it. You can't point to a piece of evidence in the real world, you can't deduce it from any objective facts.

Morality is an abstract concept, but unlike some other abstract concepts like maths, it cannot be logically deduced, it is in my opinion more similar to aesthetics. In the same way that you cannot logically show that something is beautiful, you cannot logically show that something is morally right.

Quote:
- reality exists (the universe)
- entities exist within the universe
- some of those entities are alive
- living entities must initiate purposeful action in order to continue to remain alive
- some of those living entities choose their actions consciously -- humans, for example
- if the actions chosen by a human to continue his/her life are thwarted, that human can no longer survive and will cease to exist as a living entity



Quote:
So far, every one of these steps is objectively verifiable through simple observation. To reach the final conclusion -- that it is immoral to initiate force against another-- a premise must be injected into the chain of reasoning. That premise is that a human, once born, has the right to attempt to continue living. If one rejects that premise, then of course anything goes and there is no point taking the discussion any further.



If you were to make the claim "If it is true that humans have a right to continue living" then there are objective rights, but it is a pretty pointless claim to make, it is almost a tautology.

It is not really the case that "anything goes" in morality without accepting your idea, I mean there are plenty of other useful definitions of right and wrong which are worthy of contemplation. I personally think that morality is a sort of function of our emotions and probably a few other factors, we judge actions' moral worth from how they make us feel. That would explain why people have such varying ideas of right and wrong.

You have asserted that "a human, once born, has the right to attempt to continue living". Tell me your justification for believing this and I will try and show you why it is a subjective justification. I will try and show you explicitly why it does not constitute logical proof. This is the important bit of my post.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: deafpanda]
    #3504992 -

"objective morality"

LOL that's a funny oxymoron.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: deafpanda]
    #3508570 -

Quote:
Ethics is the discussion of what is morally right and morally wrong.


It is considerably more than a "discussion". Your definition is circular in any event, since in this context "ethics" and "morals" are synonyms.

A more useful definition of morality (or ethics) is "a code of behavior by which humans live their lives". Or, to put it another way, the guiding principles by which a human's actions in a social context are either sanctioned or condemned. The purpose of ethics -- the very reason for the existence of the concept itself -- is to provide a code of values to guide human choices and actions.

Do you disagree with any of the above? If you don't disagree, I will continue, though I think by now you've probably figured out where agreement leads.


pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3512770 -

I agree with this definition. Carry on.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: ]
    #3513249 -

wow seven pages on this topic?

holy crap!

im not even interested really, to me its so obvious that no objective morality exists. Moral relativism is a fact. EVERYTHING is relative, including morals. If you think your morality is somehow a physical fact of existance and not your particular individual oppinion/belief your both egocentric, self deluded and ... wrong.

There is no dictate but do what thou wilt and do what thou can.

which is not to say you just go around fufilling your basic urges with your power, no, choosing not to hurt someone is a moral decision, choosing to hurt someone is a moral deicision, and in both cases there is no absolute factor involved, it is a preferance, a belief.

Morality is not like gravity, it has no existance except when people choose to believe in it and allow it to be.

This is hard for people to accept, because it means there is no real reason for there virtuous behaviour except the ingrained programming of there childhood and society and the looming threat of legal punishment.

get over it, morals are relative., yours may be good, and intellectually solid and logically defensible, but they are still simply a mental construct that you have chosen to make real for yourself alone.

from a metaphysical perspective, god created us all in his image, namely as creators of our own existance. He imbued us with the power to shape our realities as we will, and he doesnt care much what we do other than that.

Hard to believe isnt it?

im not going to convince any believers here, but god does not prefer good over evil, nor pacifism over violence. in fact god does not PREFER anything, and YOUR definitions of good and evil hardly concern him.

see god as the bible and other traditions depict him, as a being with a specific personality and a specific set of likes and dislikes, is nothing more than a mental construction by the peoples of the world to give wieght and credence to their own beliefs and values.

In other words the gods of the bible and the quaran and all that stuff were created in the image of there makers, and not vice versa...

but it gives people an anchor to cling to and a way to believe in their own values as something real and bigger than themselves.

god doesnt prefer that you live peacefully rather than violently, any more than he prefers a flowers blooming to a volcanos eruption.

all things, sickness and health, peace and war, are contained in his dream and they are all perfect.

do what thou wilt.


--------------------


Everything I post is fiction.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: deafpanda]
    #3516638 -

Fine. Let's proceed. First, let's remind ourselves of what is being discussed here --

Quote:
A code of behavior by which humans live their lives. Or, to put it another way, the guiding principles by which a human's actions in a social context are either sanctioned or condemned. The purpose of ethics -- the very reason for the existence of the concept itself -- is to provide a code of values to guide human choices and actions.



To review, you have said earlier in the thread you have no difficulty accepting my conclusions re morality as defined above if you accept that it is correct for an existing human to attempt to continue to exist.

Yet the definition above -- which we both agree on, remember -- presupposes that humans are in fact attempting to continue to exist. It is an essential part of the concept of morality. Those humans who choose not to attempt to continue their existence have no need of a code of ethics. For those humans such a code is -- quite literally -- a null concept. You can argue that humans have no inherent right to exist, but by making that argument you invalidate the concept of ethics. Not just objective ethics but arbitrary ethics as well. Any ethics.

Your argument boils down not to "there is no such thing as objective morality", but "it is neither right nor wrong for humans to attempt to continue to exist". And that is a completely different assertion.

Note that one can make the same assertion about any observable phenomenon in the universe. "It is neither right nor wrong for a round pebble to roll down a hill," for example. Nonetheless, round pebbles roll downhill. That's how round pebbles behave in the observable universe. That is the nature of round pebbles. Similarly, living entities attempt to acquire and keep the values (food, water, air) they require in order to remain in existence. That is how living entities behave in the observable universe. That is the nature of living entities.

But not all living entities require a code of ethics in order to continue their existence. A bacterium cannot choose to stop acquiring the values it requires to continue its existence, nor does it need to discover which values will continue its existence. There is no choice involved in their actions. The entire process is on autopilot. Bacteria have no need of a code of ethics. Such is not the case with human beings.




I'll stop here and await your comments.


pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Moonshoe]
    #3516648 -

Moonshoe writes:

im not even interested really, to me its so obvious that no objective morality exists. Moral relativism is a fact.

If you choose not to read demonstrations showing your belief is incorrect, you will of course hold the same view you did before you came across this thread.

If you believe it is not immoral to kidnap and torture to death three year old girls, you are of course free to do so.



pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3517105 -

"If you believe it is not immoral to kidnap and torture to death three year old girls, you are of course free to do so. "

you misunderstand. i never said that wasnt immoral. it is. immoral means does not conform to a system of morality. all im saying is that said system of morality is a creation of the mind only and not an objective fact of reality.

there is no basis for morality, even a morality that protects the life of innocent children, except personal preferance, social conditioning and of course such moralities help social structures to survive. however, that does not make them objective laws of the universe they are rather subjective laws of human societies.

there have been thriving long lasting cultures in the past, such as that of the aztecs, who considerd the ritual torture and rape of a child to be one of the highest devotional acts to the gods.for hundreds or thousands of years they sacraficed men women and children in ways that our society would fin horrible and always they thought it was for the good.

because there morality was different than ours, but both are 100% subjective.

sorry man just because it disgusts you doesnt mean it disgusts god or the universe


--------------------


Everything I post is fiction.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Moonshoe]
    #3517353 -

Moonshoe writes:

i never said that wasnt immoral. it is.

On what basis do you assert it is immoral? Aztec priests didn't believe it was immoral. Why do you?

Your position is no different from deafpanda's or any other moral relativist. If there is no objective morality, there is no morality whatsoever. You cannot simultaneously say there is no objective basis for a moral code and then in the next sentence say that torturing three year old girls to death is immoral. You contradict yourself by doing so.

By the way, I am an atheist. You will note I didn't need the existence of God in order to construct my proof. God has nothing to do with objective morality.


pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3517453 -

"On what basis do you assert it is immoral? Aztec priests didn't believe it was immoral. Why do you?"

i believe it is immoral because it contradicts my own and many other peoples systems of morality,

however i never doubt that my system of morality is nothing other than a subjective and essentially hollow system of social etiquette.

" If there is no objective morality, there is no morality whatsoever. "

wrong. there is no objective morality, but there is subjective morality.

"You cannot simultaneously say there is no objective basis for a moral code and then in the next sentence say that torturing three year old girls to death is immoral."

yes i can. there is no objective basis for morality, but an action that violates such SUBJECTIVE morality can still be said to be immoral according to that subjective set of values.


"you contradict yourself by doing so"

no, i dont.

"By the way, I am an atheist. You will note I didn't need the existence of God in order to construct my proof."

thats fine my comments on god were a general address to the millions who do base morality on religion.

what is your proof? i dont deny that some subjective moralities can have objective benefits for a society and how it is run, but i defy you to show that there is any basis for 'right' and 'wrong' that is objective in the same sense as the force of gravity or the rising and falling of the sun is objective.

One is a fact of physical existance, the other is nothing more than a mental construct of certain humans that fades and changes with time.

God has nothing to do with objective morality.


--------------------


Everything I post is fiction.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Moonshoe]
    #3518701 -

Moonshoe writes:

i believe it is immoral because it contradicts my own and many other peoples systems of morality,

however i never doubt that my system of morality is nothing other than a subjective and essentially hollow system of social etiquette.

Then by your own admission there is no morality. If there is no such thing as an objective morality, there is no morality at all. When you say that torturing babies is immoral, all you are saying in essence is that you happen to disapprove of those who torture babies. It has no more weight than saying you disapprove of women who appear in public with their face uncovered.

what is your proof? i dont deny that some subjective moralities can have objective benefits for a society and how it is run, but i defy you to show that there is any basis for 'right' and 'wrong' that is objective in the same sense as the force of gravity or the rising and falling of the sun is objective.

Read the thread from the start.


pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3518808 -

pinksharkmark said:
I've done it in this forum more than once. Too lazy to look up the threads, though, and not inclined to retype it from scratch.

There is an objective morality applicable to Homo sapiens sapiens, and it is as you describe -- the initiation (or credible threat to initiate) physical force (and by extension fraud) against others is demonstrably objectively immoral.

A very brief outline of the steps required to reach that conclusion would run:

- reality exists (the universe)
- entities exist within the universe
- some of those entities are alive
- living entities must initiate purposeful action in order to continue to remain alive
- some of those living entities choose their actions consciously -- humans, for example
- if the actions chosen by a human to continue his/her life are thwarted, that human can no longer survive and will cease to exist as a living entity

So far, every one of these steps is objectively verifiable through simple observation. To reach the final conclusion -- that it is immoral to initiate force against another-- a premise must be injected into the chain of reasoning. That premise is that a human, once born, has the right to attempt to continue living. If one rejects that premise, then of course anything goes and there is no point taking the discussion any further. However, despite the extreme positions taken by so many of the regular Left-leaning posters here, I doubt if any of them truly reject the premise.

pinky


say there is nothing else left to eat on earth but your fellow humans.
your premise is false if the human dies and does not kill and eat another human, if the human does kill and eat the other human then your conclusion is false. ... and you cant wait for the other people to die since once they die they are immediately eaten by parasites which carry disease and are of no nutritional value to humans.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3518834 -

Quote:
Then by your own admission there is no morality. If there is no such thing as an objective morality, there is no morality at all. When you say that torturing babies is immoral, all you are saying in essence is that you happen to disapprove of those who torture babies. It has no more weight than saying you disapprove of women who appear in public with their face uncovered.


There is no objective morality at all- good observation. It is all just what we think is wrong or immoral. No matter how strong the emotion it stirs up inside of us, how we think "How sick! How evil! How immoral!" the fact that it is being done at all shows the subjectivity of that viewpoint. If a human can kill a baby, without feeling immoral, then the immoral viewpoint lies within you

That said, just because morality is subjective, it doesn't mean there is necessarily no difference between baby-killing and women not covering up their face. The human race in general, from which our view of morality is formed, sees baby-killing as much more "sick and evil," so to the subjective human morality as a whole baby-killing is much more wrong than a woman not covering her face. Subjectivity of something like morality does not make it nonexistent, it just makes it have levels of subjectivity


--------------------
So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Ravus]
    #3518877 -

mo?ral?i?ty

1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

you cant be in accord with a system of ideas, good or evil, that differs from person to person. if morality is subjective then there is no morality. there are morals but no morality. since morals are judgements not standards.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: fresh313]
    #3518885 -

fresh313 writes:

say there is nothing else left to eat on earth but your fellow humans.

If that ever becomes the case (and clearly it never will) then a different fundamental principle be required as the base of objective morality. Objective morality is based on observable reality. In observable reality, there is more on earth for humans to eat than other humans.




pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Coexistant reality and proving existance Void0Nothing 711 2 02/10/03 10:19 AM
by SafeHaven
* Are morals subjective?
( 1 2 all )		 Anonymous 6,175 35 04/24/03 05:58 AM
by MarkostheGnostic
* Question for moral objectivists
( 1 2 all )		 silversoul7 4,080 31 06/14/03 10:42 AM
by NewToTrippin
* *cough* EXISTENCE *hack*
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )		 buttonion 21,892 173 03/19/04 12:03 AM
by Frog
* Objective reality challange gribochek 1,914 8 01/31/02 09:20 PM
by Swank
* Morals & religion (christian accountabilty cont.) joeshitragpicker 904 5 01/30/04 10:40 AM
by jpod
* Do Basic Human Morals Exist
( 1 2 all )		 mrfreedom 5,407 24 05/28/02 07:55 AM
by Sclorch
* basis for morality? contam 2,005 11 11/07/03 12:32 PM
by Ped

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
22,351 topic views. 0 members, 4 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.031 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 15 queries.