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

PlanetSpores.ca
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: Mushroom-Hut Mono Tub Substrate   Myyco.com APE Liquid Culture For Sale   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8  [ show all ]
can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality?
    #3079426 -

to tell you all the truth, at this time, i am not convinced that you can. the existance of a core, absolute moral code which humans may not legitimately breach (the non-initiation of force, in this case) is the foundation of the libertarianism that many of the frequent posters here espouse.

while i feel that the non-initiation of force principle is the most fair, egalitarian, and humanitarian foundation for a political system, i haven't seen anything yet to prove that this foundation itself is actually a fact.

there is plenty of debate on this board between the libertarians, the socialists, and everyone in between, but rarely does it ever address this foundation, which is surprising, because when it does is usually the only time the socialists really have the libertarians running... in all my time here, i can't honestly say that i've witnessed anyone, including myself, adequately defend the foundation upon which libertarianism is built.

now... there are those of us who share in the assumption that the non-initiation of force principle should be the ethical guiding force in human interaction. some are libertarians, and others are not. debate here is worthwhile because of the shared foundation... if one believes in the objective, universal, absolute human right to be free of violence, the logical conclusion of this principle is libertarianism.

however, when this is not the foundation, what then?

so let's have it out here... once and for all, and considering the ramifications... can anyone actually prove the objective worth of the non-initiation of force principle?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: ]
    #3079459 -

Morality is defined in the Holy Qur'an.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: ]
    #3079460 -

No-one can prove the existence of an objective morality.

As for the non-initiation of force principle, it's good, but I prefer utilitarianism - what is best for the greatest number of people is whats best.

Of course, neither are easily translated into real-world situations.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: deafpanda]
    #3079475 -

Yeah, but utilitarianism only works if you're 100% sure of a given outcome. Like, say you want to start an war (bad) to prevent someone from unleashing weapons of mass destruction (worse).... But then it turns out that there were no weapons of mass destruction.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective moral [Re: deafpanda]
    #3079478 -

utilitarianism - what is best for the greatest number of people is whats best.

it also includes as a consideration the magnitude of how much good and bad are being done, but even then, it is not a good ethical principle, in my humble opinion, to apply to human beings. the attitude there is that each human being is a sheep, a sacrificial animal, there to be used by whatever power for the supposed happiness of other people.... utilitarianism holds that it is just to violate innocent people as long as the net utility of all people is increased by the act.  :thumbdown:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Gijith]
    #3079483 -

Yeah, that's what I meant.

But I think it is the best principle for moral judgement. All such principles are extremely hard to use in real life.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective moral [Re: ]
    #3079500 -

Ah-ha, but it might not :smile:

It is hard to interpret utilitarianism, but it can easily be argued that it is for the greatest good for people not to be violated, ever.  You can't measure utility and I suppose you can really justify most things with utilitarianism, but on paper, it still looks sexy.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective moral [Re: deafpanda]
    #3079540 -

utilitarianism views humans as means to the ends of other humans. there is no worth to a human life in utilitarianism aside from the utility that sacrificing it might provide to everyone else. i find utilitarianism repulsive.

i believe that each human being, given its nature, has a right to be free from violence. this is certainly a principle that i, as well as most people, observe in their personal lives. when we talk about the absurdness of "victimless crimes", we are really confirming the non-initiation of force principle and libertarian values (is not tax evasion a victimless crime?).

can it be proven though?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective moral [Re: ]
    #3079568 -

Absolutely not.
And I will tear apart and theory that tries to.
Cause I want to be able to sleep at night.

Edited by Gijith (09/01/04 08:36 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective moral [Re: ]
    #3079585 -

As I said before, that is a very simplistic reading of utilitarianism.

For example, say if you could kill a man to save ten, there is nothing to say that utilitarianism would support this. The knowledge that you live in a society in which innocent people are killed to save others would scare people and detract from their happiness. Therefore it would be better not to.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: ]
    #3079598 -

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 other humans 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


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3079616 -

This thread should be moved to S&P.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3079630 -

Any human, once born, has the right to attempt to continue living?

I don't see how that could work. You're obviously not arguing for an absolute lack of initiation of force, or wars could never happen, and those who initiate force couldn't be dealt with.

I think you should qualify it with something.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3079643 -

Also, you have not demonstrated any objective morality. You have made an unsubstantiated claim which didn't lead on from your bullet points in any perceptible (to me) way.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3079832 -

Yeah, I don't think the bullet points really lead into any premise. Or are they not supposed to? I mean maybe you could kinda go out on a limb and say that any being born has a purpose in staying alive and therefore has a right to life... Like maybe something could be built off that... But are you trying to build in some sort of prerequisite of being a conscious?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: ]
    #3080128 -


can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality?

No.

Anything that Man has thought up has no validity when it comes to
trying to determine what absolute morality is. The reason this is
is because Men are imperfect. They are incapable of reasoning the
same at all times and have vastly different ideas on what behavior is
acceptable. This lack of coherency, consistency, and a standard
immediately calls any attempt by Man to claim invention of absolute
morality into question. Man could not have invented absolute
morality.

If absolute morality does exist, it has to have been instituted
by something other than Man. The only way that I can comprehend that
an absolute and unquestioned morality has been instituted is if a
superior intelligence has made it so(for example ...God).

Unfortunately, if this absolute morality has been instituted, Man
has no way of verifying what it is. This superior being has not
made it apparent.

And, even if absolute morality was proven and known to us, Man does
not have the ability to follow it consistently. He is too weak and
prone to satisfying his base impulses. Even when faced with
incontrovertible evidence of absolute morality, he would pervert it.

If there is no absolute indisputable morality, that means that
anything is permissible. There are no punishments or rewards for
behavior. Any action is permitted and nothing is Right or Wrong.
The thought of a meaningless and futile existence fills me with
horror. It is something that I recognize as a possibility, but I pray
it is not true.

What a hopeless quandry God has put us in...He has not given us
proof of what absolute morality is, he has not given us the
intelligence to understand it, and he has not given us the will
to follow it. How could a loving God have made the truths of
existence so uncertain?


I wrote this about God a while back:

His will cannot be accurately understood, expressed, or enacted by
people because we are imperfect beings. Because of this, I do not
trust any religion. In summary, nothing that originated
from Man is worth believing in and God is impossible to comprehend,
therefore it is pointless to waste my time trying to pursue what I
think He wants me to do. Absolute Truth has never been and never
will be known to Man.


Because of the uncertainty of what path is the proper one to pursue,
I am mired in nihilism(the disbelief of the validity of everything).
This is the most important question that can be considered...what
is the foundation of human existence? I wish I knew.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: deafpanda]
    #3080268 -

deafpanda writes:

You're obviously not arguing for an absolute lack of initiation of force, or wars could never happen, and those who initiate force couldn't be dealt with.

Do you not grasp the difference between initiating physical force and responding to the initiation of physical force?

You leap on my back in a dark alley and attempt to strangle me. That's the initiation of physical force. I manage to cry out for help before all my air is cut off, and a cop on the beat hears me and charges around the corner into the alley and whacks the shit out of you with his nightstick. That's responding to the initiation of physical force.

Your action was an immoral one. The cop's action was not.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: deafpanda]
    #3080297 -

deafpanda writes:

You have made an unsubstantiated claim which didn't lead on from your bullet points in any perceptible (to me) way.

Which of the bullet points do you believe are untrue? Is it not correct that if you are forcibly prevented by other humans from acting as you have chosen to, you will die? If every time you decided it was necessary for you to perform the action of drinking a glass of water you were forcibly prevented from doing so, how long would you survive?

You will note that I stated that apart from the verifiably observable facts listed in the bullet points, it is also necessary to accept a premise. If you don't accept the premise, then of course the facts listed in the bullet points are irrelevant.

Do you accept the premise or don't you?

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3081453 -

Quote:
Do you not grasp the difference between initiating physical force and responding to the initiation of physical force?



But that's exactly my point, your definition didn't allow for that. It said that you can't initiate force period, which would include responding with force.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3081455 -

The bullet points are all true, but they have nothing to do with the premise, that was what I meant. They add nothing to the argument.

And as I said before, I think your premise needs to be refined to accept responses to initiation of force.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: ]
    #3081463 -

This is stupid when alot of you don't believe the possibility of proving the existence of a spiritual god - just because of the fact that you can't say to them look, "something good happened in that person's life, since god is good was it not him that made this happen?" without them thinking you are an idiot


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: deafpanda]
    #3081473 -

Again, I am at a complete loss as to how to make you grasp this point. In all my years of debating on this forum, you're the first I've seen take this position. If you want, I could add the phrase "a forceful response to the initiation of physical force is NOT immoral," but that unnecessarily lengthens the definition while adding no new information. The definition is not about what is permitted, but about what is forbidden.

If someone shoots at you and you shoot back, do you honestly believe that by doing so you are the initiator in the interaction? Would you have shot at the other guy if he hadn't shot at you? Nope.

Think of it in biological terminology if it makes it any clearer -- stimulus and response.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3081481 -

Sorry, I may have been being too stubborn...I accept that it is moral to respond to initiation of force, I have done throughout, it is merely that your definition didn't account for responding.

Quote:
I could add the phrase "a forceful response to the initiation of physical force is NOT immoral," but that unnecessarily lengthens the definition while adding no new information



It would add new information. Your previous definition didn't allow for anyone to respond to an initiation of force. This one does. That's all I was saying.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective moral [Re: ]
    #3081491 -

Quote:
utilitarianism holds that it is just to violate innocent people as long as the net utility of all people is increased by the act.



So you would prefer a situation where a minority or even one person gets his way to the detriment of many???


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: deafpanda]
    #3081495 -

The bullet points are all true, but they have nothing to do with the premise, that was what I meant. They add nothing to the argument.

They are the necessary foundation leading to the conclusion. If there is no reality -- if all there is is your waking dream (solipsism), then there is no such thing as morality. If there are no entities, then again there is no such thing as morality. Further, if there are entities, but no living entities, there is no such thing as morality. If there are living entities, but those entities can continue to exist qua living entities regardless of what actions they perform, there is no such thing as morality.

The bullet points lay the groundwork for showing the viability of "morality" as a valid concept. If any one of the points is untrue, then there is no such thing as morality and there is no point proceeding further. The foundation does nothing to describe which actions are moral and which are not -- it merely shows that there is a point in trying to ascertain which actions are moral and which are not.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective moral [Re: ]
    #3081497 -

Quote:
is not tax evasion a victimless crime?



No. Not if it forces a rise in the amount of tax others pay.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3081506 -

Quote:
There is an objective morality applicable to Homo sapiens sapiens



But Pinky surely you contradict yourself when you say.

Quote:
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.




So there is an objective morality as long as you subjectively decide to insert a certain premise into your reasoning? The set of fairly objective statements you were making could have been continued without the need of this premise.

Objective morality? I dont think so.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: GazzBut]
    #3081523 -

Since the morality we are discussing is the ethical code by which humans should exist, there is perforce a certain amount of subjectivity involved in it; but only to the extent that it is a prescribed code of behavior for humans rather than honeybees. When we speak of objective here I am assuming we are speaking of objectivity in the context of humans.

The moral is that which is right. The immoral is that which is not right. That is why at some point it is necessary to ask the question "Is it right for a human to attempt to continue his/her existence as a living entity?" If the answer is no, then the whole concept of morality is a null concept and there is no need to continue the discussion. However, if the answer is "yes", then the chain of reasoning in the bullet points shows us which actions taken by humans are right and which are not. For those uncomfortable with the term "right", feel free to substitute "good", "correct", "moral", or "ethical" -- it doesn't alter the principle being discussed.

If you ask yourself the question "Is it right for me to attempt to continue to live," and can honestly answer "no", then of course no amount of discussion will persuade you that there is such a thing as right and wrong. No one who can answer honestly that question with a "no" will ever be persuaded of the objectivity of morality -- any morality -- no matter how it is defined.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3081546 -

Awesome posts pinksharkmark!

Of course you can prove an objective morality. I'm surprised that you guys are even arguing it.


-FF

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3081551 -

Quote:
That is why at some point it is necessary to ask the question "Is it right for a human to attempt to continue his/her existence as a living entity?"



You would answer yes, I would answer yes, many people may answer no - The answer to this question is subjective and does nothing to show convince me of an objective morality.

It seems really you are saying "my morality is right and therefore it is objective."

From good ole' dictionary.com: Of or having to do with a material object, Having actual existence or reality, Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices, Based on observable phenomena; presented factually.

Now unless we are talking about a very different definition I dont see how you can support your claim for objective morality. Im not even sure there is an objective reality let alone objective morality!!!


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: fastfred]
    #3081552 -

You guys aren't going to start arguing if there is an objective reality now are you?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: fastfred]
    #3081570 -

No I will leave that to the advanced quantum physicists. I doubt whether any of us have much to add to their debate. Lets face it the extent of your ability to proof an objective reality is simply to say, "we all see the same things so there is an objective reality"

Hey I think what we need is a new term "Collective-subjectivity" or "multi-subjective" perhaps? How about that for a compromise guys?!  :grin:


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective moral [Re: ]
    #3081576 -

Morals are based on concepts of good and evil, based on concepts of desirable and undesirable.

I don't feel like writing much, so I will be curt.

Morals wouldn't exsist without beings to believe in them, we give them powers as objective things. You will never find morals outside of living creatures. Even animals have morals, a group of dogs or lions have ranks and beliefs based on thier rankings and thus morals to follow who directs who. Morality is a common concept in nature because it works for the better of most of the whole species (most of the time).

Even animals that live alone usually live by some rules.

I'm done and going home now.


--------------------
Agent 727
7

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: GazzBut]
    #3081591 -

GazzBut writes:

You would answer yes, I would answer yes, many people may answer no - The answer to this question is subjective and does nothing to show convince me of an objective morality.

The people who answer "no" to that question are entirely irrelevant to the process of determining what constitutes objective morality, since they reject the very validity of their own existence. The fact that some people are too dense to grasp the concept doesn't invalidate the concept.

Your argument in essence is that since some people honestly believe even to this day that no men from the United States have ever walked on the moon, it is not an objective fact that men from the United States walked on the moon.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3081602 -

I see what your saying but the arguement as to whether the US ever walked on the moon can be settled in a fairly objective manner.

i.e I could be taken to the moon and be shown Neil Armstrong's footprints, be shown whatever other traces the moonlanding left etc.

Thst would settle most peoples need for objective proof.

Now show me some objective proof for objective morality that doesnt rely on my acceptance of subjective premises.

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

From good ole' dictionary.com: Of or having to do with a material object, Having actual existence or reality, Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices, Based on observable phenomena; presented factually.

Now unless we are talking about a very different definition I dont see how you can support your claim for objective morality.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: GazzBut]
    #3081652 -

I think you guys are confused. You are thinking that the question is: Is there a physical morality? As if morality were a law of physics or something.

The answer to that is, of course, no. But that doesn't prevent that fact that there is an objective reality and hence an objective morality.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3081762 -


The moral is that which is right. The immoral is that which is not
right. That is why at some point it is necessary to ask the
question "Is it right for a human to attempt to continue his/her
existence as a living entity?" If the answer is no, then the whole
concept of morality is a null concept and there is no need to
continue the discussion. However, if the answer is "yes", then the
chain of reasoning in the bullet points shows us which actions taken
by humans are right and which are not.

But, life has circumstances in it that are much more varied than
life or death situations where a person has to make a decision
to keep living. What about the situations where people's actions
are not about life and death? What if someone attempts to better
their situation and it ends up affecting somebody else negatively?
The various things that can happen in life are so varied, nuanced,
complicated, overlapping, and confusing, that one rule cannot
possibly be applied to every action or idea that is undertaken by Man.

Also, I am still of the opinion that if an order and an indisputable
morality has not been instituted by an intelligence, that no
morality at all exists. Which means all of Man's theories and
notions(including the right to exist) mean nothing, because there
is no standard to measure them against, and all morality would be
subjective.

Edited by RandalFlagg (09/02/04 08:13 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: fastfred]
    #3081763 -

Fastfred nails it.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: fastfred]
    #3081808 -


I think you guys are confused. You are thinking that the question is:
Is there a physical morality? As if morality were a law of physics or
something.

Of course absolute morality is not physical. But, if it does
exist, it is indisputable and Right.


The answer to that is, of course, no. But that doesn't prevent that
fact that there is an objective reality and hence an objective
morality.

I don't agree. I think it is possible that reality can exist without
an objective morality. For example, if human beings came into
being purely by accident(molecules colliding or something), and
there was no intelligence involved in our creation or development,
and no order is intrinsic in the universe, then it is possible that
absolute morality doesn't exist.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #3081811 -

RandalFlagg writes:

What about the situations where people's actions
are not about life and death? What if someone attempts to better
their situation and it ends up affecting somebody else negatively?

Could you give us a concrete and specific example of such a situation?

The various things that can happen in life are so varied, nuanced,
complicated, and confusing, that one rule cannot possibly be applied
to every action or idea that is undertaken by Man.

If you are talking of "rules", then perhaps you could make a cogent argument supporting your contention. But we are not talking about a long list of specific rules here (i.e. a legal code), we are talking about a moral principle -- the foundation upon which a code of law is constructed.

In a civilized society, actions which are not immoral (as tested against the fundamental principle we have been discussing in this thread) are permitted. How could they not be? A legal code doesn't tell you what is legal, it tells you what is illegal. Among those various non-immoral actions are actions which do not necessarily relate to minute-to-minute subsistence survival, but to increasing the likelihood of longterm survival, or to increasing the efficiency of energy expenditure in securing longterm survival, and yes -- even to the enjoyment of your longterm survival.

If no one's rights are being violated by you watching reruns of Seinfeld, why does there need to be any rule allowing you to watch Seinfeld reruns? How does your watching Seinfeld reruns violate the fundamental principle being discussed here? Answer -- it doesn't.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #3081836 -

RandalFlagg writes:

I think it is possible that reality can exist without
an objective morality.

Of course it can. If all humans were to die tomorrow, reality would continue to exist. Morality, however, would be a null concept. The concept of morality would vanish when the last human died.

For example, if human beings came into
being purely by accident(molecules colliding or something), and
there was no intelligence involved in our creation or development,
and no order is intrinsic in the universe, then it is possible that
absolute morality doesn't exist.

Incorrect. The process by which humans came into existence has no bearing whatsoever on the process by which existing humans continue to exist. They continue to exist by exerting purposeful, continuous, and productive effort. This is why it is necessary to ask and answer the question, "Does a human have the right to attempt to continue to live?" If we were immortal and required no effort in order to continue to exist as living entities, morality would be a null concept.

...then it is possible that
absolute morality doesn't exist.

Define your terms. I am using "moral" as a synonym for "right" and "immoral" as a synonym for "wrong". When asked if it is right that I take the necessary actions to continue my existence, I answer, "Yes". Do you answer differently?

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3081857 -

Many, many philosophers have written many books on ethics. Their definitions of morality are very different. Yours is not objective at all.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3081892 -


What about the situations where people's actions
are not about life and death? What if someone attempts to better
their situation and it ends up affecting somebody else negatively?


Could you give us a concrete and specific example of such a situation?

I'm surprised you would ask for such an example, as a situation
like that is easy to imagine. Here is a lame one:

Let's say I run a farm to make money. I keep myself alive
by running this farm, but it is possible for me to do something
else to sustain my body. My farm produces a smell which bothers
my neighbor so much that he cannot sleep very well. His life
is not threatened, but he is annoyed. Notice that the premise
you put forth made no mention of initiation of force. It focused
purely on life and death. This situation does not involve life
and death, but annoyance.

Your main contention in determining if there is an absolute
morality or not is based upon living entities right to continue
existing, and the validity of everything else is based upon that.
How do you explain the normal processes of nature then, where
animals continually eat each other? To ensure the existence of
themselves, they end the existences of others.


The various things that can happen in life are so varied, nuanced,
complicated, and confusing, that one rule cannot possibly be applied
to every action or idea that is undertaken by Man.


If you are talking of "rules", then perhaps you could make a cogent
argument supporting your contention. But we are not talking about a
long list of specific rules here (i.e. a legal code), we are talking
about a moral principle -- the foundation upon which a code of law is
constructed.

True. But I don't think that the foundation upon which you seem to
think that the answer to absolute morality is based on, applies to
everything Man does. It does not cover all of Man's actions.


In a civilized society, actions which are not immoral (as tested
against the fundamental principle we have been discussing in this
thread) are permitted. How could they not be? A legal code doesn't
tell you what is legal, it tells you what is illegal.


Ah...this is where we are really disagreeing...

You seem to think that absolute morality is a thing which will
inspire legal codes that merely deny what a person is allowed to do.
I think that absolute morality has a bigger role. I think it is
meant to guide what we strive for intellectually, spiritually, and
socially.

Without a guiding principle or principles to know what Man is meant
to be, to pursue, and to accomplish, there is no purpose
for existence. Reality would be empty without purpose. Just
existing and being allowed to exist in peace is not enough in my
opinion.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: fastfred]
    #3081900 -

Quote:
I think you guys are confused. You are thinking that the question is: Is there a physical morality? As if morality were a law of physics or something.




No Fred. I can assure you im not looking for a physical morality which would be even more absurd than an objective morality!!


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective moral [Re: Phred]
    #3081903 -

the problem steps in here:
"living entities must initiate purposeful action in order to continue to remain alive "

Many actions are automatic and require no thought. It is no different with humans. Let's say I'm rushing and accidently push someone out of the way.. someone who then falls down some stairs and dies. Well, that wasn't purposeful action though it was action.

The fact that you apply matters to humans differently requires some explanation. How would you organize bees? Well, they're already organized. Well ok, how are apes organized? Into little communes... Humans? oh shit, they're not uniformly organized at all! A poltical system should account for such human flaws.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective moral [Re: vampirism]
    #3081904 -

*one of the problems

and how is the purpose at all moral

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective moral [Re: GazzBut]
    #3081920 -

So you would prefer a situation where a minority or even one person gets his way to the detriment of many???

if getting his way meant being free from violence, then yes. there are times when it would be to the benefit of many to initiate force against a person or group. there are even times when doing so increases the net "utility" of all people... even then, such an act is unethical.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective moral [Re: ]
    #3081924 -

Always? Killing someone with a terminal, highly contagious disease that could wipe out the northern hemisphere would be wrong?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective moral [Re: GazzBut]
    #3081925 -

Not if it forces a rise in the amount of tax others pay.

depending on how much money you're making, quitting your job (or killing yourself) would do the same thing, would it not?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: deafpanda]
    #3081926 -

deafpanda writes:

Many, many philosophers have written many books on ethics.

True. So what?

Their definitions of morality are very different.

Not only do most differ from mine, they also differ from each other. Clearly, then, at least most of them are not objectively verifiable -- the very fact that they contradict each other proves that most are subjective; that they are opinions rather than actual verifiable fact. You will note that the majority (over all of recorded time) invoke not reality to validate their theories, but instead point to divine revelation, public opinion, or arbitrary and unprovable postulates (see in particular Kant and Hegel for this last).

Yours is not objective at all.

Incorrect. The fundamental principle I describe is in fact objectively verifiable. Saying "One should not steal because God says it is wrong" is not objectively verifiable. Saying "One should not steal because it upsets the flow of Chi through the Noumenal world" is not objectively verifiable. Saying "One should not steal because it makes it impossible for another human to continue his existence" is objectively verifiable.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective moral [Re: vampirism]
    #3081944 -

You can go on and on about tiny problems and ethical dilemas, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a deeper more fundamental morality.

Generating a smell by farming may be slightly annoying, but it's hardly immoral! That's just plain foolishness. You chose a very poor example RandalFlagg. It makes my point though.

Objective reality exists, it's shown by the fact everyone who is normal experiences the same reality.

Objective morality is the same way. If you show 1000 people a card showing one person killing another, 1000 people are going to choose immoral rather than moral. It trancends all races and religons and is universaly accepted amongst all sentient beings that we know of. If mankind died today objective reality would still persist amongst other forms of sentient life. Anything that is rational sees the inherent and rational nature of objective morality.

That is a pretty objective morality, everyone knows what it is except the mentally ill, or those without a good sense of objective reality.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3081948 -

But it's really not objectively verifiable. No "should" statements are. They are abstract by their nature, you can't see them, hear them, validate them in any way other than using reason, and you haven't used reason.

"A human has the right to attempt to continue living"

How can you verify this? You haven't yet, you've just claimed that it is a self-supporting truth, and I, along with many others, beg to differ.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective moral [Re: ]
    #3081952 -

mushmaster said:
even then, such an act is unethical.


Correct, if you are using an ethics system outside of Utilitarianism. It's perfectly fine otherwise. In this system, killing innocents is detrimental, as it really, really pisses off everyone.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective moral [Re: fastfred]
    #3081953 -

Is war always wrong?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective moral [Re: Phred]
    #3081960 -

It is not objectively verifiable. Try stealing from someone so much that they die, I double dare ya. Besides which, what about stealing from those that it would not hurt at all to steal from?

Let's say you have a corporation which uses individuals to do its dirtywork. The individuals are punished, not the corporation.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #3081965 -

RandalFlagg writes:

Let's say I run a farm to make money. I keep myself alive
by running this farm, but it is possible for me to do something
else to sustain my body. My farm produces a smell which bothers
my neighbor so much that he cannot sleep very well. His life
is not threatened, but he is annoyed. Notice that the premise
you put forth made no mention of initiation of force. It focused
purely on life and death. This situation does not involve life
and death, but annoyance.

Who was there first? The farmer or his neighbor? I agree it can be unpleasant to live downwind of a pig farm. There are more than a few pig farms here in the Dominican Republic. It is therefore not a wise action to choose to live downwind of one.

This is why it is not enough to rely solely on fundamental principles -- one must construct a body of law upon those principles. In your example, the situation you describe is the reason that there is such a thing as "zoning" in areas where there are many humans.

However, the fact that fundamental principles generate corollaries does not invalidate the fundamental principle.

How do you explain the normal processes of nature then, where
animals continually eat each other? To ensure the existence of
themselves, they end the existences of others.

As do we. In order to continue our existence, we end the existence of other living entities. What's your point? I am not talking about objective morality for honeybees or sea anemones, I am talking about objective morality for Homo sapiens sapiens. How about we settle that before we move on to other species?

But I don't think that the foundation upon which you seem to
think that the answer to absolute morality is based on, applies to
everything Man does. It does not cover all of Man's actions.

It doesn't have to. I was asked to demonstrate an objective morality, I did so. Not all of man's actions are moral or immoral. Some are neutral.

To get back to your pig farm example, it can be argued both ways (i.e. it is subjective) whether the farmer's right to raise and eat pigs trumps his neighbor's annoyance over smelling pig shit. It cannot be argued both ways that I have the right to steal your freezer full of pork chops.

I think that absolute morality has a bigger role. I think it is
meant to guide what we strive for intellectually, spiritually, and
socially.

Then we are not talking about the same thing and there is no point continuing the discussion.

Just existing and being allowed to exist in peace is not enough in my
opinion.

It's good enough for me.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective moral [Re: fastfred]
    #3081966 -

incorrect. Killing INNOCENTS is a different matter. A photograph plays on emotion.

And let me ask you something - what if subjective reality influences objective reality? Let's say you convince the 1000 people to say it wasn't immoral. Does that really change anything? According to your methods, it does.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective moral [Re: fastfred]
    #3081974 -


Generating a smell by farming may be slightly annoying, but it's
hardly immoral! That's just plain foolishness. You chose a very poor
example RandalFlagg. It makes my point though.

Yeah, that was a really bad example. For some reason my brain just
could not come up with a good one. I think that my premise was
coherent though...I stated that not all situations in existence
involve life and death situations, which calls into question basing
absolute morality purely upon the right to exist.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3081982 -

Check out this link on naturalistic fallacies:

You can't turn an "is" into an "ought". Hence it is impossible to prove an objective morality. You have made some comments about what is, and then tried to turn them into a statement about what we should do.

Naturalistic fallacy

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective moral [Re: fastfred]
    #3081992 -


Objective morality is the same way. If you show 1000 people a card
showing one person killing another, 1000 people are going to choose
immoral rather than moral. It trancends all races and religons and is
universaly accepted amongst all sentient beings that we know of. If
mankind died today objective reality would still persist amongst
other forms of sentient life. Anything that is rational sees the
inherent and rational nature of objective morality.

How do you explain religious extremists who think they are absolutely
right when they murder innocent civilians? How do you explain
the regular citizens who support such behavior? If you were born
in a different environment, you would think different things, which
makes objective morality a hard thing to nail down. For example,
in some "head hunter" cultures it is permissible and even encouraged
to murder members of other tribes.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective moral [Re: vampirism]
    #3081994 -

Morrowind writes:

Many actions are automatic and require no thought.

Correct.

It is no different with humans.

Incorrect. Humans not only must perform automatic actions (i.e. breathing) in order to remain alive, they also must perform actions which require rational thought and consciously directed choice (i.e. locating, identifying, and distinguishing between a nutritious mushroom and a deadly poisonous mushroom).

Let's say I'm rushing and accidently push someone out of the way.. someone who then falls down some stairs and dies. Well, that wasn't purposeful action though it was action.

And you would (correctly) be charged with manslaughter or reckless endangerment or some other violation of the law. Your right to get where you are going does not trump someone else's right to get where they were going.

The fact that you apply matters to humans differently requires some explanation. How would you organize bees?

How many times must I repeat that this thread is not about insect morality, but human morality? Bees continue their existence through different actions than humans do.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: deafpanda]
    #3082022 -

deafpanda writes:

But it's really not objectively verifiable. No "should" statements are. They are abstract by their nature, you can't see them, hear them, validate them in any way other than using reason, and you haven't used reason.

Incorrect. I have used nothing but reason. No appeals to emotion, no invoking of divine revelation, no public opinion polls. It is indisputable that if a human is to survive, he must be left free of interference from other humans in order to do so. That's not an arbitrary statement, that is a testable fact.

"A human has the right to attempt to continue living"

How can you verify this? You haven't yet, you've just claimed that it is a self-supporting truth, and I, along with many others, beg to differ.

You are not grasping what is being said here. I have no way of making it any clearer than to repeat what I have said here already -- if it is a true statement that a human once born has the right to attempt to continue living, then it necessarily follows that he be left free from the interference of others.

If you honestly believe that it is not right for a human to attempt to continue to survive, then of course you will disagree that there is such a thing as morality. No amount of observation, reason, ostensive demonstration or analysis of modes of survival will sway you because you deny your own right to exist. Since you have no right to exist, you have no need of morality. Further, since by your own admission you have no right to even exist, you certainly have no right to dispute my (or anyone's) observation of the laws of nature and their relation to morality. You (by denying your own right to exist) have become a null concept to me unless and until you attempt to forcibly interfere with my rights, at which time I can kill you with no objection on your part and continue my discussion with those who haven't renounced their right to exist.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective moral [Re: vampirism]
    #3082035 -

Morrowind writes:

It is not objectively verifiable. Try stealing from someone so much that they die, I double dare ya.

What's your point? It happens to people somewhere in this world on an ongoing basis. I steal all your stuff, including your clothing, toss you in a cell and walk away. I come back in a month and toss your corpse into a pit.

Besides which, what about stealing from those that it would not hurt at all to steal from?

The rationale behind Marxism -- theft is okay as long as you have enough left to survive at a subsistence level.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3082039 -

Quote:
if it is a true statement that a human once born has the right to attempt to continue living, then it necessarily follows that he be left free from the interference of others.



But you can't show me that it is a true statement that a human once born has the right to attempt to continue living. Any attempt to do so will be a naturalistic fallacy (check out my loink in my previous post).

Even if you did accept your premise (which I don't), then it doesn't necessarily follow that he should be left free from the interference of others to survive. What type of interference?

Quote:
since by your own admission you have no right to even exist, you certainly have no right to dispute my (or anyone's) observation of the laws of nature and their relation to morality



Another illogical statement. Just because I don't claim I have a natural, objective right to live doesn't mean I don't exist.

Quote:
You (by denying your own right to exist) have become a null concept to me unless and until you attempt to forcibly interfere with my rights, at which time I can kill you with no objection on your part



Of course not. I am not claiming at all that rights don't exist, I am claiming that it is stupid to claim that they can be objectively proved. Please, read my link. You are committing a naturalistic fallacy.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: deafpanda]
    #3082057 -

Have you actually read what is said in the link you provided? It in no way shape or form even comes close to addressing what is being discussed here. It condemns (correctly) context-dropping and context-swapping, neither of which I have indulged in. My position from the very beginning has been that man must act in specific ways in order to continue to exist, and that if other men prevent him from acting in those ways he will not continue to exist as a living entity. So far, no one has refuted this.

The only way that one can show my demonstration of a factual objective morality is arbitrary is to claim that it is not right for a man to attempt to continue to survive. Rather than repeat myself, refer to my earlier comments on the objective worth of those who make that claim.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3082077 -

Okay, here we go.

You say that you draw your conclusion from observation of survival, etc, real-life facts about what people require to live. This is true, yes?

From this you say that it is a requirement of survival that one is not interfered with. This is true, yes?

So far you have stated facts (although the second one is highly questionable).

Next, you say that because of this, we *OUGHT* not to initiate force against one another. And there, plainly and simply, is your naturalistic fallacy. You can NEVER, under any circumstances, prove an ought from an is. Ask any philosopher.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: deafpanda]
    #3082091 -

deafpanda writes:

But you can't show me that it is a true statement that a human once born has the right to attempt to continue living.

Of course I cannot. As a matter of fact I cannot show you that anything exists other than your own consciousness. What I can show you (through killing you) is that your consciousness will cease to exist if moral codes of behavior are not enforced.

Even if you did accept your premise (which I don't)...

You're lying. You don't honestly believe that you have no right to attempt to continue to exist. If you're not lying, you could have no possible objection to my stealing all your stuff and killing you as an afterthought.

... then it doesn't necessarily follow that he should be left free from the interference of others to survive. What type of interference?

What part of "the initiation (or credible threat of initiation) of physical force (and through extension, fraud)" is unclear to you?

Another illogical statement. Just because I don't claim I have a natural, objective right to live doesn't mean I don't exist.

Incorrect. It is perfectly logical. I don't claim that you don't exist. I claim that since you believe you don't have the right to even exist at all, you certainly have no right to dispute my comments. In actual fact, by your own admission you have no rights at all.

This is precisely why I said earlier that there is no point continuing discussions about right or wrong or morality or ethics with anyone who truly and sincerely believes they have no right to exist. If you reject the premise that you have the right to exist, you perforce reject any discussions showing how it can be accomplished. To you, "human existence" is irrelevant -- a null concept.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3082099 -

Quote:
Of course I cannot. As a matter of fact I cannot show you that anything exists other than your own consciousness. What I can show you (through killing you) is that your consciousness will cease to exist if moral codes of behavior are not enforced.



This statement alone proves that your definition is not objective.

As does the natural fallacy I pointed out in my previous post.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: deafpanda]
    #3082142 -

You still don't get it. There is no "ought" involved. Either one has the right to attempt to continue to exist or one does not. If the conclusion is that one does not, the discussion ends.

If, however, one accepts the premise that one has the right to exist, then -- and only then -- is it logical to decide which actions are permissable and which are not.

When you try to invoke the hoary old "ought" non-argument, you (and others who trot it out so gleefully as a supposed show-stopper when backed into a corner) always ignore the implicit tag line to all your opponent's arguments --

"Humans ought to be left free of forcible interference from other humans (and now the tagline) if it is right for humans to attempt to continue to exist".

This is why from my very first post in the thread I made it as plain as I possibly could that the validation of objective morality requires the acceptance of a premise, and then described that premise. Note that this is true not just of discussions of morality, but of discussions about any philosophical topic, including the existence of reality itself, the most basic of all philosophical premises. For example, I cannot demonstrate the existence of water (an aspect of reality) to you even by pouring a bucket of water over your head -- unless you accept the premise that what your senses relay to your consciousness is valid information and not just some wrinkle in your waking dream (solipsism).

The whole "is-ought" straw man argument ultimately reduces to solipsism.

However, it is abundantly clear that no amount of rational discussion or ostensive demonstration will sway you from your obstinacy, because apparently you have managed to convince yourself that you have no right to attempt to continue to exist. Why not leave the rest of the discussion to those who do have the right to attempt to continue to exist?

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: deafpanda]
    #3082164 -

deafpanda writes:

This statement alone proves that your definition is not objective.

It most certainly does nothing of the kind. The fact that I cannot prove to your satisfaction that things other than your own consciousness exist does nothing whatsoever to invalidate my point. It merely demonstrates that you are a solipsist. As any philosopher worthy of being described as such can tell you, solipsism is an invalid philosophy, and anyone who truly believes it is cannot be swayed by any demonstration or any argument, because their ultimate answer is (in essence) that the person they are arguing with doesn't really exist.

This is why I was so careful to lay down the foundation of my argument in a hierarchical manner, starting with "reality exists", because I knew sooner or later, someone in the thread would trot out the solipsistic viewpoint.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: ]
    #3082169 -

While the idea of natural rights makes some sense to me, I've come to believe that even without them, libertarianism is still a good idea. I believe in letting people be in control of their own lives, and that's essentially what libertarianism is saying. If you can't trust people to run their own lives, how can you trust them to run the lives of others?


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: ]
    #3082171 -

I see that this has engendered quite an extensive and current debate but I would like to inject what I think is a salient point and that is that morality is an invention and not a discovery. Thus I do not think "proof" is even a relevant issue. Given the fact that there are 6 billion people, none of whom has a direct knowledge of anything that goes on inside another's head, the concept of morality is clearly something that subsets of humans may chose to agree upon but the idea that there is a "floating out there" code of universal right and wrong, in the nature of 2+2=4, is absurd. We can only invent and argue subjective codes of acceptable behaviour and decide how we will react to violations of that based on our own biases. It is not inconceivable that there would be a society whereby a slave, someone whose whole life is solely dedicated to serving the wishes of another, who can buy and sell him, would be considered exalted. Slavery status could become an honor and only the finest would be chosen. Everyone else would have to settle for a life of personal responsibility and burdened with free choice.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3082184 -

Quote:
You still don't get it. There is no "ought" involved. Either one has the right to attempt to continue to exist or one does not. If the conclusion is that one does not, the discussion ends.




A right is not an "is", it is an "ought". It is saying that there are certain things that someone ought not to do to you. Do you accept this?

Quote:
"Humans ought to be left free of forcible interference from other humans (and now the tagline) if it is right for humans to attempt to continue to exist".



This is not what I have a problem with. You are going from an ought to an ought here, that's acceptable. But you havent proved the first ought:

Quote:
it is right for humans to attempt to continue to exist



This is the "ought" that you attempt to imply from an "is".

The naturalistic fallacy is well-recognised. It is valid. It in no way implies solipsism. there is no "ought" in whether the universe exists. That deals entirely with "is" statements. Although, by the way, you can't prove your way out of solipsism.

Ok, two questions:

1) Do you accept that the is/ought gap is a real one?

2) Do you accept that you tried to get from an "is" to an "ought"?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3082187 -

From good ole' dictionary.com: Of or having to do with a material object, Having actual existence or reality, Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices, Based on observable phenomena; presented factually.

Now unless we are talking about a very different definition I dont see how you can support your claim for objective morality.

Come on Pinky. Please explain why the dictionary has the wrong definition of objective or change the terms you are using!


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3082192 -

I am not espousing solipsism, and solipsism is not invalid. It is merely pointless.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective moral [Re: deafpanda]
    #3082196 -

deafpanda said:
Is war always wrong?


Not if it is in response to the initiation of force.


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: deafpanda]
    #3082210 -

deafpanda writes:

I am not espousing solipsism...

You were when you claimed that my inability to demonstrate to you anything other than the existence of your own consciousness somehow proved your point.

This is pointless. You appear to truly believe you have no right to continue to exist, therefore the whole concept of morality is irrelevant to you anyway. Not objective or subjective, but quite literally irrelevant. We all get it, we understand it. I ask again, why not leave further discussion to those to whom morality is relevant?

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3082213 -

No, no, no. I have never said that morality is irrelevant, merely that is is subjective. I have never said that rights don't exist, merely that they are social constructs and not objective facts.

Can you answer my two questions above please?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #3082234 -

Very well said Zappa. The idea that there is a single morality (that the libertarians just happen to have discovered!!) seems to me to be on the same level of thought as believing the christian god is the one true god and death to all unbelievers!!


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: GazzBut]
    #3082272 -

This is a historic moment.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #3082289 -

lol! It had to happen sooner or later  :grin:


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: GazzBut]
    #3082306 -

If you throw enough shit on the wall......


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #3082336 -

something like that!


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: deafpanda]
    #3082352 -

deafpanda writes:

No, no, no. I have never said that morality is irrelevant, merely that is is subjective.

Perhaps it's time that you defined your terms. What -- to you -- is "subjective"?

I have never said that rights don't exist, merely that they are social constructs and not objective facts.

Rights are not mere social constructs, except in the sense that in the absence of "society", the very concept of "rights" is a null concept. A human on his own (on some remote landmass somehwere, for example) has no need of rights. He may do whatever his abilities allow him to do. However, when in the company of other humans, there is a difference between "abilities" and "rights". Silversoul recently posted a pretty good overview of this in a different thread.

And rights are objective facts. You seem to glibly pass over the objective fact that if your rights are violated consistently, you will cease to exist -- which of course brings us back to the point in my very first post -- in order for anyone to prove that there is such a thing as objective rights (morality) for humans, a premise must be accepted. And to repeat myself yet again, the necessity of accepting a premise is true not just of objective rights, but of any other philosophical principle, including the objective existence or non-existence of reality itself. It hasn't escaped my attention that you completely ignored that truism the last time I brought it up.

Can you answer my two questions above please?

After you answer the question "Is it right for you to attempt to continue your existence as a living entity".

First you say that you don't accept the premise, now you say you do. Only John F Kerry can have things both ways.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective moral [Re: Phred]
    #3082373 -

yes i can see now that my arguments would ultimately be attacking the premise... although, i certainly would enjoy attacking parts of the premise, though this is not the thread for that.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3082376 -

For the fourth time:

From good ole' dictionary.com: Of or having to do with a material object, Having actual existence or reality, Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices, Based on observable phenomena; presented factually.

Now unless we are talking about a very different definition I dont see how you can support your claim for objective morality.

Come on Pinky. Please explain why the dictionary has the wrong definition of objective or change the terms you are using!

Why cant you respond to this point??


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3082385 -

Quote:
After you answer the question "Is it right for you to attempt to continue your existence as a living entity".



In my subjective view, yes. There is no objective proof of this, however.

Quote:
First you say that you don't accept the premise, now you say you do. You're not John F Kerry -- you can't have things both ways



I accept that it is a reasonable idea, but I don't accept your proof of it, now do I accept that it is objective.

Quote:
in order for anyone to prove that there is such a thing as objective rights (morality) for humans, a premise must be accepted



Yes, and your premise went from an "is" to an "ought". There is no simpler way of saying it. Naturalistic fallacy. Therefore you can't prove it.

Quote:
Rights are not mere social constructs, except in the sense that in the absence of "society", the very concept of "rights" is a null concept. A human on his own (on some remote landmass somehwere, for example) has no need of rights



Thus, they are not objective. THEY DONT EXIST WITHOUT SUBJECTS (ie humans).

Something that is objective is something that stands alone in its existence. It depends on no subject. It is real, tangible.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: GazzBut]
    #3082408 -

Anyway Pinky, at the very least you must be able to admit there is no absolute objective morality as any morality is extremely relative.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: GazzBut]
    #3082417 -

GazzBut, which of the following things are objectively provable according to that list of definitions?

hunger
pain
love

Prove to me that any of these things

a) has to do with a material object
b) has actual existence or reality
c) is uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices
d) is based on observable phenomena

I based my entire argument on observable phenomena -- the existence of living entities (observable), the fact that unless living entities act in certain ways they will cease to exist as living entities (observable), the fact that if they are forcibly prevented from acting as they must in order to continue their existence they will cease to exist (observable).

The reason I didn't respond earlier is that you appear incapable of correctly applying a definition.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3082425 -

And from these observable facts - WHOOPS! You try and find an "ought", and fall into the naturalistic fallacy trap.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: deafpanda]
    #3082441 -

Good lord, you are obstinate.

What part of the "tagline" concept are you having difficulty grasping?

If -- and only if -- it is right for you to attempt to continue your existence as a living entity, then it is objectively true that rights (and by extension morality) objectively exists.

Yes, and your premise went from an "is" to an "ought".

Not at all. The premise, if accepted, leads to certain undeniable conclusions. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "ought" and everything to do with "is".

Once again, I notice your evasion of the fact that nothing can be proven without the prior acceptance of some premise. Why do you choose to continue to ignore this indisputable fact?

Something that is objective is something that stands alone in its existence. It depends on no subject. It is real, tangible.

So you deny the objective existence of hunger, pain, love, mathematics?

Your counter argument is not even about morality, but about concepts. To claim that a concept [qua] concept is subjective is absurd on the face of it. You cannot exist without thinking conceptually.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3082459 -

Quote:
If -- and only if -- it is right for you to attempt to continue your existence as a living entity, then it is objectively true that rights (and by extension morality) objectively exists.



Tautology. And not what I have a problem with, as I've said many times. My problem is getting to this premise.

Quote:
Not at all. The premise, if accepted, leads to certain undeniable conclusions. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "ought" and everything to do with "is".



The premise is not accepted. You say you get to this premise from certain facts about human behaviour etc. You can't do that. The premise comprises of an "ought" - rights are "oughts" - they are statements that you *OUGHT NOT* to do certain things.

RIGHTS ARE UNDENIABLY OUGHTS.

Quote:
Once again, I notice your evasion of the fact that nothing can be proven without the prior acceptance of some premise. Why do you choose to continue to ignore this indisputable fact?



What?! I don't accept your premise. It is unfounded, due to the is-ought gap, which I have highlighted to you on innumerable occasions. I am fully aware that arguments depend on premises. Yours are flawed.

And technically, it's not a premise, as you say it comes from various facts about human survival, human behaviour etc.

Quote:
So you deny the objective existence of hunger, pain, love, mathematics?



If hunger, pain and love can be measured by medical science (which I think they can) then they are objective. Mathematics is clearly objective as it can be verified both empircally and rationally.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3082477 -

Hunger, pain and love are all subjective pinky!


Quote:
I based my entire argument on observable phenomena -- the existence of living entities (observable), the fact that unless living entities act in certain ways they will cease to exist as living entities (observable), the fact that if they are forcibly prevented from acting as they must in order to continue their existence they will cease to exist (observable).



Yes and as I said earlier thats fine...what was the next step in your proof?? Ahh..thats right the point where objectivity fails unless we agree to the premise "that a human, once born, has the right to attempt to continue living."

This is a hope, a desire. No more, no less. Who bestows this right anyway? Rights are normally granted by some agency arent they? Who does the granting here?

Quote:
The reason I didn't respond earlier is that you appear incapable of correctly applying a definition.




pot kettle?


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3082485 -

Quote:
So you deny the objective existence of hunger, pain, love, mathematics?




There are many occurances of hunger, love and pain but each case is experienced subjectively and that subjective experience obviously differs from person to person. Where is the objective prescence of love?


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: GazzBut]
    #3082491 -

Dopamine receptors. And there are various chemicals and signals that are given off during hunger. I'd argue they are objective, although they are definately experienced subjectively.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: deafpanda]
    #3082507 -

I was thinking along the same lines actually i.e serotonin releases would be the only objective trace of love...


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: GazzBut]
    #3082528 -

hunger, pain and love are NOT subjective at all. We are feeling machines and these are measurable feelings. They also have nothing to do with morality


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #3082539 -

Ive seen a ruler, they objectively measure length. And ive seen scales, they objectively measure weight but I aint never seen a loveometer or a hungerometer that objectively measure love and hunger.

Can you provide a link please?  :grin:


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective moral [Re: Phred]
    #3082557 -

That premise is that a human, once born, has the right to attempt to continue living.

that seems like an assumption to me. if one believes that a human being has a right to attempt to survive, then libertarianism logically follows from that. every other step is solid, but that foundation is an assumption.

if one rejects this assumption then the entire fields of ethics, justice, politics, etc. are moot. if one rejects this assumption, morality it not "subjective", rather, it simply does not exist. what other foundation can there be?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: GazzBut]
    #3082565 -

A link? No, but it is well known that these cause measurable brain activity in specific areas. We are machines and these things are machine activities. They have even found a biological basis for the so-called "seven-year-itch." Although I think my larger point is that these have nothing to do with morality. As for hunger specificly, I think the reference might be to the life threatening deprival of food aspect of hunger as opposed to the "I want a cheseburger" aspect of hunger, and that is easily measurable. You can probably measure the other kind through brain activity too. Pain is easy. How much morphine does it take to stop me from screaming from my kidney stone? Pretty good pain-o-meter, if you ask me. Further, just because we can't weigh something yet doesn't mean it doesn't have weight.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective moral [Re: ]
    #3082574 -

I would say its more of an ought i.e "I believe that every human ought to be able to attempt to continue living."


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective moral [Re: GazzBut]
    #3082584 -

What about suicide? "Ought" they be allowed to partake of the sweet sleep if they so wish? Is that immoral?


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective moral [Re: GazzBut]
    #3082665 -

GazzBut said:
Ive seen a ruler, they objectively measure length. And ive seen scales, they objectively measure weight but I aint never seen a loveometer or a hungerometer that objectively measure love and hunger.

Can you provide a link please?  :grin:


actually, they do not measure objectively. In case you didn't notice, measure is relative. They measure according to some arbitrary standard of units.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective moral [Re: vampirism]
    #3082678 -

quite right too, thanks for pointing that out. and as einstein has proven length and time are in fact relative, and not in anyway objective.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective moral [Re: zappaisgod]
    #3082686 -

Quote:
What about suicide? "Ought" they be allowed to partake of the sweet sleep if they so wish? Is that immoral?



As far as Im concerned they can do what they like. I dont get your point?


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective moral [Re: Phred]
    #3082691 -

From a philosophical standpoint, I don't accept the premise that every human has the right to continue living. Life and death have no real bearing on the universe, it is simply something that happens.

However, as a human, I have feelings of self preservation and empathy, and most other humans do as well. So, governed by my emotions, I feel that it is best to protect the life and well being of others. I understand that I'm doing this for entirely selfish reasons; it causes me to experience negative emotions when I learn that others are being harmed in some way, and I don't want to be harmed myself. However, this has no bearing on the universe as a whole.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective moral [Re: Phred]
    #3083024 -

Randalflagg was touching on this earlier and he was right on the money:

Pinky you say that " 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". and that this is an objective fact.

But on the contrary, this is simply not true in its current form. It is missing a key qualifier in that it should say either "if ALL actions chosen are thwarted..." or "if ALL ACTIONS CONCERNING AIR, WATER, AND/OR FOOD chosen are thwarted...". With these new qualifiers one can say it is thefore not necessarily immoral to initiate force upon other decisions of the person (or one could even initiate force on those actions but not so much that the person would be unable to survive--stealing some bread from the rich for instance, or taking a percentage of someone's income that would leave them with enough to survive with).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective moral [Re: Tao]
    #3088394 -

response pinky?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective moral [Re: Tao]
    #3088777 -

pinky may have another hurricane . I don't believe he runs away


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: ]
    #3090189 -

no you cant prove absolute morals, because they dont exist, everything in the temporal world is relative. Anything other than moral relativism rapidly becomes moral fanatacism. And this is a topic for S & P


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


Everything I post is fiction.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Moonshoe]
    #3090609 -

politics and philosophy are very much intertwined--such as 'political philosophy'. :smirk:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Tao]
    #3091096 -

there intertwined in as far as your morals effect your politics. Nevertheless this is a purely Moral question, although it will have a huge effect on politics. But its still an S & P question for sure


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


Everything I post is fiction.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Moonshoe]
    #3091123 -

It is equally valid in both forums. Especially as libertarian philosophy is based on the erroneous concept of objective morality.

and it has been fun disproving the concept in this thread. :grin:


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective moral [Re: GazzBut]
    #3091382 -

i have trouble believing that anyone could honestly reject the foundation of libertarianism (especially in favor of a political philosophy that isn't even internally consistent), but i suppose it can be done. for those who do... what other foundation can there be? if a human being does not have a right to attempt to survive, what rights can he really have? what is the foundation of your political beliefs (whatever they are)? can it be proven as an objective fact?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective moral [Re: ]
    #3091397 -

Of course no political beliefs can be proved at an objective level. That is why they are beliefs. When I argued against the idea that rights are objective, I wasn't saying that your principles are invalid, just that they can never be shown to be objective, and should never be treated as such.

Personally, my only hard and fast political principles are that the political system should make the world a better place for its inhabitants, and that people's human rights as defined by the UN (not the libertarian idea of rights) should be respected. Things should be judged on a case by case basis, not put against some moral ruler.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: GazzBut]
    #3091437 -

GazzBut said:
Especially as libertarian philosophy is based on the erroneous concept of objective morality.


You are mistaken, people arrive at a 'libertarian' political philosophy from various positions, experiences and reasonings - they are not all cut from the same cloth, as convenient as this might be for you to base your concepts on. Part of libertarian political thought is based on a concept of an objectively applied morality, where actors of the state and all others are held to the same standards. This is not the same as what you criticize. For instance, if it is wrong for an individual to engage in a behavior such as taking of another's property through force, fear of force or fraud, then if an objective standard is applied it must logically follow that individuals acting as agents of the state are acting immorally when they are engaging in the same behavior in an official capacity.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective moral [Re: deafpanda]
    #3091455 -

Personally, my only hard and fast political principles are that the political system should make the world a better place for its inhabitants

the problem with that is that it's not a "hard and fast" political principle. there are many people who would agree with that principle and just as many ideas about what "a better place" means. that's why we're in this mess we're in now.

and that people's human rights as defined by the UN (not the libertarian idea of rights) should be respected.

the UN declaration of human rights includes the notion of positive rights, a notion that isn't even internally consistent (read: verifiably false).

for me, it really comes down to this:

Libertarianism\Capitalism\Classical Liberalism:

1. based on a *nearly* universal theory of the basic human right to attempt to survive.
2. internally consistent.

Everything else:

1. requires the rejection of the above universal human right.
2. internally contradictory.

even if libertarianism is based on an unprovable assumption (aren't all philosophies in some way?), i think it's a pretty safe assumption to make (and a dangerous one not to), and at least it's internally consistent. i also feel that as far as practical considerations go, it leads to the most prosperous society. voluntary interaction between human beings benefits all and harms none.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective moral [Re: ]
    #3091477 -

Quote:
the problem with that is that it's not a "hard and fast" political principle. there are many people who would agree with that principle and just as many ideas about what "a better place" means. that's why we're in this mess we're in now.



This is what I think politicians should do, work out what the better place is and how we best attain it.

I totally agree that all political philosophies are based on unproved assumptions. If one could logically be proved, it would be implemented and never fruitfully questioned.

Quote:
i also feel that as far as practical considerations go, it leads to the most prosperous society



And this is what political debate should try to establish - what leads to the most prosperous (or maybe happiest, best standard of living, or a few different words that could replace "prosperous")society.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: ]
    #3498006 -

To save myself a lot of typing I'm bumping this thread. It is relevant to the discussion in the current thread titled "Objectivism?" which started life in the Politics, Activism & Law forum but has since been moved to the Spirituality and Philosophy forum -- http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/3485033/an/0/page/0

I will move this thread over to S&P as well in order to facilitate the continued discussion of a particular aspect of the philosophy of Objectivism: specifically whether it is possible to arrive at an objective moral code of behavior for humans (or ethics, if you prefer) based on observable reality as opposed to a moral code based on divine revelation or popular opinion of the moment or any other arbitrary procedure.

Those S&P regulars who choose to read this thread will note that the tone of the discussion which took place before this post is more prickly than is the norm in S&P. I ask that you not complain about this to the mods of S&P -- it is not their fault. Remember that this thread started life in a different forum with different rules and a different ambience.

To those PA&L regulars who wish to continue the discussion here, please remember that the rules are different in S&P and that things which the PA&L mods have often let pass may not be appreciated in this new venue. I have every confidence the PA&L denizens will respect this difference and comport themselves admirably.


pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3498143 -

Well spoken.

An objective morality can only be assembled based upon the most fundamental inclinations of those to whom the moral structure is relevant. Put another way, the ethics upheld by an objective moral code must fit two criteria: 1) relevance to all those to whom the moral code will apply, and 2) condusive only to those wishes which all observers of the code have in common.

Since human beings appear to be the only species with a historical fixation on ethical conduct and morality, I'm going to speak about an objective moral code with relevance to human beings, and to what all human beings have in common.

All human beings have the wish to avoid the experience suffering and disatisfaction, and to be happy and secure. If we are to construct an objective moral code, each facet of that code must be decided with this most fundamental human wish in mind. Furthermore, anyone who is to contribute to such a moral code must possess wisdom so vast that he or she is able to assemble a set of values which have relevance to every human being of every culture, of every age, of every conceivable human situation.

Is it possible to achieve such a task, to bring into existence an absolute, objective morality? I believe so. A few individuals have composed ethical structures with just such eloquence, and just such amazingly universal insight. Such individuals are celebrated by entire populations, and have become the figureheads of religious schools. Reading their teachings, I've found their insights to be movingly profound, their advice relevant even now, two thousand, three thousand, or even six thousand years later.


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


:poison: Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud :poison:
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
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
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3518920 -

morality cannot change as reality changes. objective morality cannot be based on what you see or what you think right now. morality can never change no matter what the circumstances, forseeable or not.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Ravus]
    #3518948 -

Ravus writes:

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.

Incorrect. What disgusts you is not necessarily immoral. Read the definition of moral (ethical) a few posts above this one. The one I proposed and deafpanda accepted. Do you also accept that definition?

The fact that some people choose to act immorally does not mean that those who recognize their acts as immoral are acting subjectively. All it means is they are capable of distinguishing right from wrong.

The human race in general, from which our view of morality is formed, sees baby-killing as much more "sick and evil..."

And why do you think that is the case? Because most humans are capable of grasping the fundamental difference between initiating force against another human and flouting the rules of fashion. One is a question of morality (ethics), the other is a question of personal taste.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: fresh313]
    #3519009 -

fresh313 writes:

objective morality cannot be based on what you see or what you think right now.

Of course it can. As a matter of fact, it cannot be otherwise. You cannot base an objective code of ethics on "what I wish were true" or on "how things might be in al alternate dimension", it must be based on observable reality. To do otherwise is to propose an arbitrary (as opposed to objective) set of rules by which humans should live their lives -- based on a reality different from the reality in which those trying to live their lives operate.

morality can never change no matter what the circumstances, forseeable or not.

Incorrect. For example, if humans evolve to the point where they become indestructible and therefore immortal, the current rules of morality would no longer be valid.


pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: fresh313]
    #3519042 -

"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." - pinksharkmark

why do we require a code of ethics to continue life? we are life just like anything else even bacteria, all life operates on the same principle which is to survive at any cost. do you honestly think any living thing will say oh no that is unethical so i will die instead of doing it. that is the ultimate decision.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3519077 -

Quote:
pinksharkmark said:
morality can never change no matter what the circumstances, forseeable or not.

Incorrect. For example, if humans evolve to the point where they become indestructible and therefore immortal, the current rules of morality would no longer be valid.

pinky



it would still be wrong to kill someone, as your conclusion states, you just cant do it anymore. morality can not change, the object it applies to can.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: fresh313]
    #3519210 -

fresh313 writes:

why do we require a code of ethics to continue life?

Read my earlier posts in the thread. Asked and answered.

we are life just like anything else even bacteria...

Incorrect. Bacteria operate automatically. Humans don't. The concept of ethics (morality) is invalid for living entities which need not acquire new knowledge in order to acquire the values they require for their continued survival. Humans do need to acquire such knowledge.


pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3519237 -

"If there are living entities, but those entities can continue to exist qua living entities regardless of what actions they perform, there is no such thing as morality."

by this the only thing that is immoral is the killing of one living entity by another living entity. is that all you beleive morality entails?

"The concept of ethics (morality) is invalid for living entities which need not acquire new knowledge in order to acquire the values they require for their continued survival. Humans do need to acquire such knowledge."

what makes you think we need knowledge and values to survive?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3519303 -

"Then by your own admission there is no morality."

again i repeat there is morality but only subjective morality.

"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. "

thats exactly what ive been trying to get across to you

"It has no more weight than saying you disapprove of women who appear in public with their face uncovered. "

ditto. you understand what im saying. except you dont seem to understand im saying it


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


Everything I post is fiction.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: fresh313]
    #3519369 -

pinky: "If there are living entities, but those entities can continue to exist qua living entities regardless of what actions they perform, there is no such thing as morality."

fresh313: "by this the only thing that is immoral is the killing of one living entity by another living entity. is that all you beleive morality entails?"

Re-read that line of mine again. Think it through some more. The line says neither that the only immoral action is the killing of one entity by another (and clearly it isn't -- carnivorous entities cannot continue their existence without killing other living entities) nor does it imply that this is all morality entails. The line in fact says nothing about what morality is at all, it merely points out that to an immortal entity -- one which will survive regardless of what actions it takes -- the concept of morality is inapplicable.

what makes you think we need knowledge and values to survive?

The fact that we do.

I suggest once again you read this entire thread. This has been asked and answered. A value is that which a living entity acts to gain and keep. Knowledge is required in order to ascertain which things (food, water, air etc.) are in fact of value to that particular entity. Some living entities -- i.e. bacteria -- need not acquire knowledge. Humans are not among that class of living entities. Humans must acquire the knowledge they need in order to continue to survive.


pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Moonshoe]
    #3519386 -

Moonshoe writes:

again i repeat there is morality but only subjective morality.

Again I repeat you are referring to something other than the concept of human ethics (morals) defined and agreed upon by myself and deafpanda.

thats exactly what ive been trying to get across to you.

Disapproval of an action or being offended or disgusted by another human's action is not equivalent to recognizing another human's action is immoral. Again, it is apparent you are not discussing the same thing deafpanda, mushmaster and I are.

In order for humans to attempt to continue their existence, they must both act in certain ways in order to continue their existence and refrain from acting in other ways. The act of covering one's face is neither required to continue existence nor does it prevent another human from continuing to exist. It is a morally neutral act. The act of torturing a young human to death both prevents another human from continuing to exist and reduces your own chance of continuing to exist. It is therefore not a morally neutral act. It is an objectively immoral act.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3519489 -

NO!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3519609 -

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.

incorrect. human beings do not require a code of ethics in order to continue their existence - this has been demonstrated in feral children, who, without any human interaction, have no concept of morality - they have no concept that other human lives exist, so they have no idea that it is immoral to kill. they have no concept of private property, so they have no idea that it is immoral to steal, and yet they SURVIVED, out in the wild. for these children, objective morality does not apply. how can this be? shouldn't objective morality apply to everyone?


You can argue that humans have no inherent right to exist, but by making that argument you invalidate the concept of ethics
...
If there is no such thing as an objective morality, there is no morality at all

these lines basically say the same thing - that if you believe morals are subjective, you CANNOT believe in morality at all. I honestly don't see how you come to such bizzare conclusions. can't you see how it's possible to believe in morality without believing in moral absolutes? can't you see how it's possible to recognize a person's right to exist without believing in inherent rights? things aren't as black and white as you would like to believe.

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.
...
You cannot base an objective code of ethics on "what I wish were true" or on "how things might be in al alternate dimension", it must be based on observable reality. To do otherwise is to propose an arbitrary (as opposed to objective) set of rules by which humans should live their lives -- based on a reality different from the reality in which those trying to live their lives operate.
...
if humans evolve to the point where they become indestructible and therefore immortal, the current rules of morality would no longer be valid.


observable reality is not necessarily objective reality. this is where your confusion lies. when you say that these "objective morals" can change when "observable reality" changes, you are essentially admitting that they are not objective at all. in those quotes you are in a sense describing the dynamic, subjective and interpretive nature of morality. you are also admitting, perhaps unintentionally, that humans can change objective morality.









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


lets say that instead of all humans evolving to become immortal, just a small group evolves to this state. as you said, the group's "objective" morality would change to fit "obervable reality". now we have two groups living on the same planet, living in the SAME OBJECTIVE REALITY, with two completely different sets of morals - and they would BOTH BE VALID. is this not a clear case of RELATIVE morality?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3519886 -

Quote:
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


Yes, but be careful:

Quote:
Yet the definition above -- which we both agree on, remember -- presupposes that humans are in fact attempting to continue to exist.


Yes, they are attempting to do so. This is obvious. What is not obvious, and in my opinion not provable, is that it is morally right for them to do so. Of course I believe that it is, but I can't know it.

Quote:
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.


Let me make an analogy...do you believe that things can be inherently, objectively beautiful - as in beautiful independent of any observer? Saying that beauty is subjective, that there is nothing beautiful in itself, does not mean I can't appreciate beauty. People make their own ideas about what's beautiful and what's ugly. By saying this I am certainly not invalidating the concept of aesthetics, just as by saying morality is subjective I am not invalidating the concept of ethics.

I still have moral beliefs, just as I have aesthetic beliefs, but I make no claim of moral knowledge, since I think it's impossible.

I still debate what's right and wrong. I just don't believe my reasons, or anyone else's, for forming a moral belief are, or can ever be, infallible. They can only be better or worse than the reasons for believing the opposite.

Quote:
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.


No, my argument is that morality is subjective. From this stance I can take any position on whether it is right or wrong for humans to attempt to continue to exist. I choose that it is right, or at least acceptable, but that this is unprovable (subjective).

Quote:
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.


Sure they do, but you can never show that it is morally right for them to do so. It is correct that they do, but from this you cannot infer that it is morally correct that they should.

You seem to be saying that because humans do attempt to continue living, they should attempt to continue living, but that does not logically follow. You can say something like "in order to survive, humans must attempt to continue living", but this is not a moral statement.

To chop off the "in order to survive" bit you must first define morally right as that which promotes survival. If you are to do that, you must give your reasons for that definition. These reasons will be subjective.

Could you explain your reasons for believing that "it is right for humans to attempt to continue to exist"?

Quote:
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.


Certainly, but this says nothing and implies nothing about the nature of morality.

Quote:
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.


We need no code of ethics to exist. A code of ethics is very helpful in a society, but to merely exist we don't need a code of ethics. We just need to know how to survive. We don't need to say that it is morally right to eat in order to eat.

To sum up this post, you cannot say that because x happens then x is morally right. Otherwise everything is morally right.

I would like your reasons for believing that "it is right for humans to attempt to continue living". I will try and show that they do not constitute logical proof.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: infidelGOD]
    #3519966 -

infidelGOD writes:

human beings do not require a code of ethics in order to continue their existence - this has been demonstrated in feral children, who, without any human interaction, have no concept of morality - they have no concept that other human lives exist, so they have no idea that it is immoral to kill. they have no concept of private property, so they have no idea that it is immoral to steal, and yet they SURVIVED, out in the wild. for these children, objective morality does not apply. how can this be? shouldn't objective morality apply to everyone?

As was mentioned earlier in the thread, for individual humans living in isolation, morality as defined in this thread is a null concept. By its very definition, morality (ethics) requires at least two humans interacting in order to be a valid concept.

from the first post in the thread:
Quote:
there are those of us who share in the assumption that the non-initiation of force principle should be the ethical guiding force in human interaction.



From post # 3079598:
Quote:
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 other humans is demonstrably objectively immoral.



From post #3081811
Quote:
In a civilized society, actions which are not immoral (as tested against the fundamental principle we have been discussing in this thread) are permitted.



From post:3082022:
Quote:
It is indisputable that if a human is to survive, he must be left free of interference from other humans in order to do so.



From post #3082057:
Quote:
My position from the very beginning has been that man must act in specific ways in order to continue to exist, and that if other men prevent him from acting in those ways he will not continue to exist as a living entity.



From post #3082352:
Quote:
Rights are not mere social constructs, except in the sense that in the absence of "society", the very concept of "rights" is a null concept. A human on his own (on some remote landmass somehwere, for example) has no need of rights. He may do whatever his abilities allow him to do. However, when in the company of other humans, there is a difference between "abilities" and "rights". Silversoul recently posted a pretty good overview of this in a different thread.



From post #3508570:
Quote:
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.



can't you see how it's possible to believe in morality without believing in moral absolutes?

I repeat, morality (ethics) as defined in this thread is more than just feelings of approval or disapproval. Someone may disapprove of a woman showing her buttcrack in public yet not see such a display as immoral.

can't you see how it's possible to recognize a person's right to exist without believing in inherent rights?

No, and neither does the person who actually recognizes another human's right to attempt to continue to exist as opposed to someone who might not choose to interfere with that right through apathy, weakness, fear of reprisal, etc. But for the sake of argument, let's assume for a moment that it is possible. This does nothing to show that an objective code of morality (ethics) doesn't exist -- at most it shows that some humans accept that same code out of personal inclination without ever bothering to prove to themselves that it is objective.

observable reality is not necessarily objective reality.

Actually, it is. Not only is it observable, it is testable. We observe (and can verify through experimentation) that if humans have the values they require in order to continue to exist forcibly seized from them by other humans, they cease to exist.

when you say that these "objective morals" can change when "observable reality" changes, you are essentially admitting that they are not objective at all.

Not true. I point out that if (not when) the parts of observable reality relevant to human existence were ever to change, then the objective morality applicable to human existence on Earth today may also change. For example, if humans evolve to a point where they become indestructible and will survive no matter what actions they take or do not take, then the code of ethics (morality) applicable to human interaction today will no longer necessarily hold. An immortal being has in fact no need of morality, but that's a different topic.

But as long as humans face the same fundamental alternative -- existence or non-existence -- then only by interacting with each other following a code of objective morality can Homo sapiens sapiens continue to exist qua Homo sapiens sapiens.


pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3520009 -

Quote:
As was mentioned earlier in the thread, for individual humans living in isolation, morality as defined in this thread is a null concept. By its very definition, morality (ethics) requires at least two humans interacting in order to be a valid concept.


Main Entry: 1ob?jec?tive
Pronunciation: &b-'jek-tiv, ?b-
Function: adjective
1 a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence -- used chiefly in medieval philosophy b : of, relating to, or being an object , phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality> <our reveries... are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world -- Marvin Reznikoff> -- compare SUBJECTIVE 3a c of a symptom of disease : perceptible to persons other than the affected individual -- compare SUBJECTIVE 4c d : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects , conditions, or phenomena <objective awareness> <objective data>

You have just said that morality doesn't exist without people for it to apply to. If it was objective, it would.

This part of the definition sums it up:

Quote:
independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers


If morality was objective then it would be there for us to discover, not to create.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3520337 -

"Disapproval of an action or being offended or disgusted by another human's action is not equivalent to recognizing another human's action is immoral."

ah right i didnt mean to say it was sorry, i was refering to an incidence when someone was disgusted or offended by someones actions BECAUSE it violated an established moral or ethical code.

what i was saying though is that although the reasons for the disgust may be different, in one case an ethical violation in another say, a fashion faux paux, it is objectively the same. All that is happening is that one individual is violating another individual (or group of individuals) system of preferances. There is no objective 'wrong' being done in either case.


"In order for humans to attempt to continue their existence, they must both act in certain ways in order to continue their existence and refrain from acting in other ways."

obviously. so are you saying that morality is defined as a system of actions conducive to survival? because that would be contradicted by common sense and the dictionary. It is not an ethical decision to feed yourself or to not stick your hand in a blender. For something to be considerd a moral or ethical choice it must be made out of a conception of right vs wrong or good vs bad, not out of a percieved benefit to survival chances.



" The act of covering one's face is neither required to continue existence nor does it prevent another human from continuing to exist. "

so again your definition of moral behaviour is behaviour that doesnt endanger your own life or the life of others. i think that is a faulty definition of morality. this is the real (dictionary) defintion of morality:

"The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct:"

your defintion of morality is : action that doesnt endanger your life or anothers life.

as you can see, your 'objective basis for morality' is in fact simply another subjective standard of right or good conduct, which has no validity outside your own personal beliefs and preferances. Your argument is essentially no more sound than saying morality is what god says is good, because it A priori assumes that your values, like valueing human life, are objective rather than subjective premises, while they are not.

"The act of torturing a young human to death both prevents another human from continuing to exist and reduces your own chance of continuing to exist. "

that makes it a destructive act, a dangerous act, a violent act, but not nescessarily an immoral act. refer again to the dictionary definition of morality. an immoral act is one that violates a standard of right or wrong, but that standard is nescessarily subjective, so this act is subjectively and not objectively immoral.

again your attempt to establish a 'objective' basis for morality is nothing more than another subjective system of right and wrong, and is no more objective or concrete than a belief in god. it is just your preferances oppinions and beliefs.


"it is therefore not a morally neutral act. It is an objectively immoral act. "

no, it is a subjectively immoral act, in that it violates yours and others subjective systems of right and wrong.


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


Everything I post is fiction.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3521058 -

morality (ethics) requires at least two humans interacting in order to be a valid concept.

that is exactly what I'm saying! - "...without any human interaction, have no concept of morality". OF COURSE morals can't apply to isolated individuals. but if it was OBJECTIVE, as you claim, it would still be a valid concept - for example, it is still "right" for that isolated individual to attempt to continue exist, is it not?


From post # 3079598:

From post #3081811

From post:3082022:

From post #3082057:

From post #3082352:

From post #3508570:

yeah I get it. morality is a property of collectives, not individuals.
but if morality was objective, why does it matter if it's an individual or a collective? if morality was truly objective, it certainly would NOT be a null concept to an isolated individual (it might not be applicable to them, but it would not be a null concept - an isolated individual could still 'discover' objective morality). as the definition above says: independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers (whether it's applicable to them or not).


"can't you see how it's possible to believe in morality without believing in moral absolutes?"

I repeat, morality (ethics) as defined in this thread is more than just feelings of approval or disapproval. Someone may disapprove of a woman showing her buttcrack in public yet not see such a display as immoral.

what does this have anything to do with what I asked? I never said morals are simply feelings of approval and disapproval. I do think that morals can be rationally based on nature, emotion, desire, etc. it's just that I don't delude myself into thinking that I've discovered "objective" morality.


"observable reality is not necessarily objective reality."

Actually, it is. Not only is it observable, it is testable.

reading comprehension alert. I never said that objective reality is not observable or testable. I said that what is observed by humans is not necessarily objective reality. seeing as how this is a website about magic mushrooms, I don't think anyone here would disagree.


We observe (and can verify through experimentation) that if humans have the values they require in order to continue to exist forcibly seized from them by other humans, they cease to exist.

how does the fact that human beings die without food lead to objective morals? take me through the specific chain of reasoning, and I'll show that a subjective judgement has to come in somewhere.


I point out that if (not when) the parts of observable reality relevant to human existence were ever to change, then the objective morality applicable to human existence on Earth today may also change. For example, if humans evolve to a point where they become indestructible and will survive no matter what actions they take or do not take, then the code of ethics (morality) applicable to human interaction today will no longer necessarily hold. An immortal being has in fact no need of morality, but that's a different topic.

now we're getting somewhere. you acknowledge that "objective" morality can change when observable reality changes - that it is subject to local conditions of that reality. for example - for feral children living in isolation, morality does not apply, for immortals, morality (as we know it today) is irrelevent, for soldiers in war, normal rules of morality don't apply, in emergency situations, some "objective morals" can be compromised etc. etc. there are many real and hypothetical locally observed realities and they all have their own sets of "objective" morals because objective morals are based on observable reality, correct?

so would you then agree that morality is dynamic? or adaptive?
would you agree that morality can apply to localized realities (and be "objective" within those realities), but that there is no overarching, absolute, unchanging set of morals that governs how human beings should live their lives?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? [Re: Phred]
    #3526790 -

Any response, pinky?

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

Shop: Mushroom-Hut Mono Tub Substrate   Myyco.com APE Liquid Culture For Sale   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

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 713 2 02/10/03 10:19 AM
by SafeHaven
* Are morals subjective?
( 1 2 all )		 Anonymous 6,177 35 04/24/03 05:58 AM
by MarkostheGnostic
* Question for moral objectivists
( 1 2 all )		 silversoul7 4,085 31 06/14/03 10:42 AM
by NewToTrippin
* *cough* EXISTENCE *hack*
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )		 buttonion 21,973 173 03/19/04 12:03 AM
by Frog
* Objective reality challange gribochek 1,916 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 5,422 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
22,390 topic views. 1 members, 1 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 0.088 seconds spending 0.012 seconds on 16 queries.