/lit/ - Literature

>If so where does it come from?
Religion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rm2wShHJ2iA

>>6293951

Short Answer Yes butt xD

We are all tenants of objective morality but the landlord is absent and the place is in disrepair.

>>6293951
>Is there objective morality?
Yes.
>If so where does it come from?
Practical Reason.
>What are its tenets?
Basically, consistency of your own intentions with everyone acting on the same intention, and treating people as ends in themselves.

>>6294028

Just Took Ethics 100: The Post

>>6294065
That is a very convincing argument you're making right there, might reconsider my position.

It doesn't matter where it comes from as long as it's there.

>>6294028
Hi Kant. Why should I care about being practically rational?

>>6294009

>"and the relevance of Jesus Christ, to all of life"

closed window there.

>>6294274

meant for >>6294001

>>6294265
Because that would be rational, and also is the only way to be autonomous, as opposed to being the puppet of your urges. I'll admit that radical evil puts me in serious trouble, but hey, it's radical evil, it's supposed to be doing that.

>>6294274
>>6294278
Yes, the debate is hosted by the dumbass Veritas forum. But they made the mistake of picking Kagan, an actual moral philosopher, to be in the debate, and he destroys their mouthpiece (William Lane Craig). In his opening he sketches a simple way of thinking about morality in an objective way without any need for an appeal to a god.

>>6294285
Why's it better to be a puppet of my rationality than to be a puppet of my urges?

>>6294322
Rationality does not make you a puppet, it makes you a human being.

>>6293951
>Is there objective morality?
No

>If so where does it come from?
It comes from social taboos decided by cognitive biases.

>What are its tenets?
It depends on the culture but largely things like the following are considered to be inviolable.
>individual self determination
>respect of other's rights to self determination

Most of the social mores considered absolute (even though they aren't) stem out of this basic concept. Different cultures include different things in "Self determination" for instance capitalist cultures and their precursors would extend things like property to the concept of the self. If you take someone's property you are infringing on their right to self determination because you are depriving them of something they "own" but not all value systems conceive of things this way.

PS: The idea of a god existing does not conflict with the idea that there is no objective morality. It means merely that what that god considers a moral imperative is not itself inherent in the greater plane of existence.

>>6293951
No.

>>6293951
>Is there objective morality?

I don't know. The question remains unsettled.

>If so where does it come from?

I don't know. I think it might come from the existential conditions of human existence, but that's a provisional answer.

>What are its tenets?

Even provided I was confident in the existence of an objective morality, I wouldn't be so arrogant as to believe I had a certain knowledge of its content.

>>6294001
At the end of the day, he makes his argument from a subjective standpoint.

>>6294341
Fine, then why is it better to be a human being than a puppet?

Yes it comes from God, and the realization that we are all connected and all part of a larger world. Immorality is the selfish negation of connectedness

Love one another

If we define our terms and agree on some axioms, we can build a moral framework up from these axioms the same way Euclid built a framework for geometry.

>>6293951
>tfw I'll never be able to seriously debate with realists because I can't understand why you'd want morality to be objective in the first place.

>>6294451
It's not a matter of wanting there to be moral facts or not--it's just realizing that they're there. Do you seriously doubt that it is, as a matter of fact, independent of what anyone believes, wrong to torture children?

>>6294451
Because the purpose of morality, as I take it, is (a) to be a guide as to how to act in uncertain situations and (b) to give you some kind of logical starting point when you need to tell someone else who's doing something awful and harmful that they're fucking awful and they shouldn't do that anymore. And morality being objective seems to me to make both of those tasks easier.

The purpose of an action that is moral is to further human flourishing, resulting in happiness. This can be achieved by emulating virtues, which contribute to the good. A person that is virtuos always acts in the way that represents his best behavior. This eliminates the common seeking of pleasure, freedom and aesthetic value as ultimate ends. While these are important, they are uktimately in service to a greater good, and cannot be taken on their own without great disorder.
Taking an example, engaging in casual sex is not virtuos since it implies using the other person as a mean to achieve one's own pleasure, instead of a mutual self-giving producing trust and security in a commited relationship which is fundamentally different. A virtuos person would take into account all the ways in which casual sex would not contribute to the good, and in fact would be harmful, rejecting the common mistaken view that consenting adults can do whatever they want.
Of course, a question arises what should one do when multiple virtuos are in conflict? This is where practical wisdom comes in, able to decide when to maximize one virtue at the expense of another. In a way, it takes an already virtuos person to be able to discern about moral matters, and this may sound discouraging, but it is realistic. I hold that role models are very important in this matter, as is education and upbringing. Where deontological and consequentialist ideas of ethics fail is dealing with misguided inclinations that prevent virtuos action. Virtue ethics is concerned with habit-forming as essential to a moral life.

>>6293951
>Is there objective morality?
Yes
>If so where does it come from?
The origin; the same thing everything else comes from.
>What are its tenets?
-There is no desire(beginning) and fulfillment(end), there is only purpose(direction) and action(movement).
-All purpose boils down to continuation of action(inevitability) or cessation of action(impossibility).
-The morality of an action depends on how inevitable its purpose is.

>>6293951
> Is there objective morality?

There is not truly objective morality, we can't for example hold an animal or a retard accountable for violating what we consider to be moral laws. But the development of empathy and "theory of mind" in individuals strongly, STRONGLY points toward a near-universal value in the idea of treating others as you would like to be treated yourself. This isn't objective in the sense that you're metaphysically out of order by violating it; but it does objectively exclude certain actions from being conceivable as the actions mature, self actualized, complete adults. And in such adults, when they do break the rules, their conscience punishes them for it.

> If so where does it come from?

As I said, it's not completely clear whether objective morality is really objective and universal and binding on literally everyone, but it's "objective" and binding on those who have the cognitive development necessary to empathize and see others as human.

> What are its tenets?

The golden rule and its obvious derivatives; don't murder, don't steal, help out those in need, etc.

>>6294357
>the following are considered to be inviolable.
>>individual self determination
>>respect of other's rights to self determination
Really? I would have thought at least some civilisations didn't respect these?

>>6294732
That's why you should look at the full statement which says
>It depends on the culture but largely things like the following are considered to be inviolable.

>>6294869
Well then you could have chosen much more universal example like not harming the neighbour.

Just seemed like an arbitrary choice to suit some ideological political undertones

>>6293951
>Tfw smoking a cigar and seeing sad Pepe smoking a cigar.

>>6294886
Self determination us the origin of "don't harm your neighbors"

I think when you searched self determination and read the political sense rather than what I meant which is the philosophical sense.

>>6294958
Just to clarify, you're saying that don't harm your neighbour originates from a theory which assumes free will?

>>6294293
This comment reads like a title of a debate for YT, like DAWKINS DESTROYS WLC
While WLC doesn't do a great job at defending his point, Veritas at least tries to educate people and create civilised discussions.

>>6294978
I'm saying that all those sort of "don't murder" "don't rape", "don't hurt" rules come from the idea of respecting that those other humans are their own individuals with will. The idea of reciprocity. It's all linked psychologically to the idea that we should be allowed to express our will and that we shouldn't try to limit others' because we wouldn't want ours limited.

>>6294001
Craig definitely won this debate.

>>6293951
>Is there objective morality?
Maybe. Depends on who you ask.
>If so where does it come from?
The objective morality would come from the world of ideas, be it platonistic ideas or the theist God. But morality as a social contract that arises in every culture comes from generations of succesful ways of survival (for example buttfucking is not healthy so after a while some banned it).
>What are its tenets?
Love thy neighbour as you love thyself. Love God with all your mind, heart and soul.

>>6295004
I disagree. And I'm a Christian. His arguments for the necessity of morality were iffy and the importance of our deeds were better argued by Kagan. Kagan was in his field, it's no wonder he had much better argumentation.

>>6294719

This is the best answer so far I think.

>>6293951
>is there objective morality
Yes
>if so where does it come from
Abrahamic God

>>6295020
>And I'm a Christian

*tips fedora*

>>6295058
You misuse that meme. No matter it has been taken out of context enough to be rendered meaningless.

>>6295102

>trust me, I'm a memexpert

Without the existence of a deity there can be no objective morality. Reason alone does not lead to a moral standard for everyone, maybe for the individual, but not for everyone. Without god everything is permitted.

>>6295110

>Without god everything is permitted.
>who are ISIS and are they somewhat into god

>>6295110
>Without the existence of a deity there can be no objective morality.

What is the argument for this?

>>6295121
The argument holds up. ISIS is getting their moral standard from their interpretation of god. Therefore, the only reason they kill, is because they believe the actions of those they kill are not permissible. It's a screwed up moral standard, but it is still a moral standard. The argument is not that if there was an absolute moral standard in existence that everyone would follow it or that there wouldn't be various interpretations of that standard, the argument is that if a moral standard exists it must come from god. I hope I didn't explain that poorly.

>>6295102
>You misuse that meme.

*tips fedora even more grandiose*

>>6295133

The argument from 'it's true because I say so'

>>6295137

In that case, I'd rather have a morality that is as subjective as possible

>>6295133
Now, I'm not the most eloquent philosopher, but as I see it, only a deity with foreknowledge of events and the intricacies of those events could understand what is always the best course of action. But if God didn't exist, then morality would vary depending on the situation, i.e what the ethical problem is, who's involved, what are the costs to various decisions. I think if you aren't religious, you would have to believe in moral relativism to some degree. Feel free to poke holes, that's how I learn.

>>6295147
Yes. Unless a deity exists that knows what the best course of action always is, and that they communicated that to you/mankind, then morality would have to be subjective.

>>6295151
Interesting, as many view foreknowledge as something of a problem for theists (doesn't it undermine our free will? if God already knows what I'm going to do, how can I choose to do otherwise?).

Anyways, as for argument itself, I think the main problem with it is this. Just because we can't know what would lead to the best outcome doesn't mean there's no objective morality. At the very most, it would establish that we cannot know which actions are immoral, not that none of them are (compare this to other questions we can't know the answers to but still think have objective answers, like 'is the number of grains of sand in the world even or odd?'). But I think the argument doesn't even give us that. For one thing, we often know which of our actions will lead to the better outcome, even if in certain situations we don't.

But more importantly, there are (objective) moral theories that ascribe rightness and wrongness based on what knowledge we do have. On one theory of this kind, it's important to distinguish actual outcomes from expected outcomes. What is moral (on some views) is what would have the highest expected value (the value of all the possible outcomes each multiplied by their likelihood of obtaining all added together). So maybe murdering a bunch of people will lead in some convoluted way to a better world than not murdering them, but the chances of this are very low, and the chances are high that the outcome this leads to will be much worse than the outcome not murdering will lead to. So it's wrong to murder a bunch of people (even if it turns out by coincidence to have good consequences). And similarly, if giving to a good charity has high expected value, then it's the right thing to do, even if by some fluke it in fact leads to some terrible outcome. Now, maybe in one sense, there is moral relativity here. What's right for an omniscient being might be different from what's right for a more limited one. But it will still be objective that what's right for the more limited being is right for them, and there's no reason to think that what the values are (that should go into the calculations of expected value) are relative or subjective. This type of relativity isn't really troubling, and doesn't undermine the objectivity of morality (example: person A has very good evidence that pressing the button will kill a hundred people--perhaps it's some elaborate prank that person B, who planted lots of misleading evidence to trick A, has played. B knows that pressing the button will actually execute a transfer of money to a charity. Should A press the button? No, that'd be wrong. Should B press the button? Yes, that would be right).

>>6295161
Here>>6294357
The PS

>>6294431
why is it not?

>>6295462
Because it means I'm not satisfying my urges. And I want to satisfy my urges.

>>6295554
Why is that?

>>6295579
No reason, in particular. But I'm not the one who thinks anyone who acts differently is irrational and (categorically) ought to behave differently.

>>6294028
>treating people as ends in themselves
well m8 what if I don't exactly want to do that

>>6295151
>should i pound nails through my scrotum?
>i think i shouldn't but if i do it i might go to the hospital and meet the girl of my dreams there hurr durr better ask jesus

yes

it comes from me, in the way if a god existed his commandments would give the grounds for objective morality, whatever I command as immoral is objectively immoral

I don't trust anyone else/god/whatever bullshit is said to be embedded in the structure of reality. You got a moral issue come to me, I give the grounds for what's objectively immoral or not.

This is something I truly believe btw. Why trust 'god's' judgment, when I've got my own? Especially when I have to trust my own judgment when it comes to accepting that god is the grounds for objective morality, I got to trust that my judgment is right that god is right, so I cut the middleman. My judgments are the grounds for objective morality.

>>6295739
>crushing divine command theory since 2015

It comes from science

>>6295021
>There's no objective morality but we can pretend
Luckily people are really good at pretending

>>6295295
I don't see how free will is ever not a problem for naturalists. Did the ability to violate cause and effect evolve? If not we have no free will, and are also incapable of independent logic. That people so easily believe otherwise while believing in nothing supernatural is so illogical it ironically seems like pretty strong proof that we are incapable of logic and there is nothing supernatural.

>>6294719
>There is not truly objective morality, we can't for example hold an animal or a retard accountable for violating what we consider to be moral laws.
that's because they're not moral agents. those who aren't capable of acting ethically aren't judged based upon ethics.

>>6296106
But anybody you can act ethically, will, and people who don't act ethically, can't.

There is literally zero evidence of objective morals. All you get is muh feelings.

>Morality is based on the feelings and opinions of actors
>I am an actor
>I think that morality is objective
>Another actor thinks that morality is subjective
>Two actors can't both be right and wrong at the same time
----

>Therefore Subjective morality isn't logically sound.

Checkmate subjectivists.

>>6296103
I'm a compatibilist (and think that's the best way for the theist to go as well, rather than denying full foreknowledge to God).

>is there objective morality?
there is common sense
>where does it come from?
us and spread through religion
>what are it's tenets
Love each other and condemn the non-believers, smh....

>>6295020
Kagan essentially just said that "obviously harming people (and animals as he later said) is wrong, and we have an obligation not to do it," but he never explains why exactly harming people is bad and there is a moral duty to do the opposite. Though I agree with most of what he said, I still do not think he posited or defended an objective moral stance.

>>6296030
kek

No. No and conformity

>>6296213
Should you stone people who committed adultery?

>>6297053
He gave at least two possible sources of the objectivity of the wrongness of harming (see starting about 9:40). One is that it's just a fundamental fact, without any further explanation (there have to be some of these facts, no matter what you think, so why not think this is one of them?), another possible source he mentioned is what other people can reasonably reject (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contractarianism/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contractualism/))

>>6293951
>Is there objective morality?
Yes

>If so where does it come from?
It doesn't "come" from anything, it just "is" (if that really makes sense to you). We only have the ability to recognize it and try to adhere to it and spread the best approach to it.

>What are its tenets?
Improving the human condition for all who live here, treating people "justly," etc.

The tenets are, of course, extremely vague, but it's our jobs to show how something is wrong or right and to specify them. Societal constructs are bullshit. Just because someone in the Congo thinks it's okay to chop off someone's hand because of a theft, and maybe everyone in the village agrees, doesn't make it morally permissible.

>>6294719
>There is not truly objective morality, we can't for example hold an animal or a retard accountable for violating what we consider to be moral laws
I agree with you for the most part, anon, but I think this is a non sequitur. Just because -- for very obvious reasons -- certain beings shouldn't be held accountable for violations of objective morality, does not negate the existence of objective morality but simply our human way of dealing with those who break them. I think that the fact that severely mentally ill people and animals are not held accountable in the same manner that regular moral agents are actually proves that objective morals do exist.

Objective morality only in the sense of biological ethics. Meaning a set of rules optimized by the evolutionary selection process. For instance, behavior which makes living in groups possible.

>>6297382
Why set the monopoly arbitrarily on biology?

Does biology not exist within the universe? Why not go back the full way to 'the sense of universal ethics', or in other words, the classical conception of ethics in the first place?

>>6293951
Read Kant, not this shit board if you want answers/

>>6297173
This guy gave you pretty good ressources, SEP is great

To the Teachers of Unselfishness. — The virtues of a man are called good, not in respect to the results they have for himself, but in respect to the results which we expect therefrom for ourselves and for society: — we have all along had very little unselfish- ness, very little " non-egoism " in our praise of the virtues ! For otherwise it could not but have been seen that the virtues (such as diligence, obedience, chastity, piety, justice) are mostly injurious to their possessors, as impulses which rule in them too vehemently and ardently, and do not want to be kept in co-ordination with the other im- pulses by the reason. If you have a virtue, an actual, perfect virtue (and not merely a kind of impulse towards virtue !)-you are its victim / But your neighbour praises your virtue precisely on that account ! One praises the diligent man though he injures his sight, or the originality and freshness of his spirit, by his diligence; the youth is honoured and regretted who has "worn himself out by work," because one passes the judgnient that "for society as a whole the loss of the best individual is only a small sacrifice! A pity that this sacrifice should be necessary ! A much greater pity it is true, if the individual should thmk differ- ently, and regard his preservation and development as more important than his work in the service of society'" And so one regrets this youth, not on his own account, but because a devoted instrument, regardless of self-a so-called "good man, has been lost to society by his death Perhaps one further considers the question, whether it would not have been more advantageous for the interests of society if he had laboured with less disregard of himself, and had preserved himself longer,-mdeed one readily admits an advantage therefrom but one esteems the other advantage, namely, that a sacrifice has been made, and that the disposition of the sacrificial animal has once more been obvtously endorsed-as higher and more enduring. It is accordingly, on the one part the instrumental character in the virtues which is praised when the virtues are praised, and on the other part the blind, ruling impulse in every virtue which refuses to let itself be kept within bounds by the general advantage to the individual; in short, what is praised is the unreason in the virtues, in consequencc of which the individual allows himself to be transformed into a function of the whole. The praise of the virtues is the praise of something which is privately injurious to the individual ; it is praise of impulses which deprive man of his noblest self-love, and the power to take the best care of himself.

1/?

>>6298686

To be sure, for the teaching and embody- ing of virtuous habits a series of effects of virtue are displayed, which make it appear that virtue and private advantage are closely related, — andthere is in fact such a relationship ! Blindly furious diligence, for example, the typical virtue of an instrument, is represented as the way to riches and honour, and as the most beneficial antidote to tedium and passion : but people are silent concern- ing its danger, its greatest dangerousness. Educa- tion proceeds in this manner throughout : it endeavours, by a series of enticements and advan- tages, to determine the individual to a certain mode of thinking and acting, which, when it has become habit, impulse and passion, rules in him and over him, in opposition to his ultimate advantage^ but " for the general good." How often do I see that blindly furious diligence does indeed create riches and honours, but at the same time deprives the organs of the refinement by virtue of which alone an enjoyment of riches and honours is possible ; so that really the main expedient for combating tedium and passion, simultaneously blunts the senses and makes the spirit refractory towards new stimuli ! (The busiest of all ages — our age — does not know how to make anything out of its great diligence and wealth, except always more and more wealth, and more and more diligence; there is even more genius needed for laying out wealth than for acquiring it!— Well, we shall have our "grandchildren"!) If the educa- tion succeeds, every virtue of the individual is a . public utility, and a private disadvantage in respect to the highest private end,— probably some psycho- aesthetic stunting, or even premature dissolution. One should consider successively from the same standpoint the virtues of obedience, chastity, piety, and justice. The praise of the unselfish, self- sacrificing, virtuous person— he, consequently, who does not expend his whole energy and reason for his own conservation, development, elevation, furtherance and augmentation of power, but lives as regards himself unassumingly and thoughtlessly, perhaps even indifferently or ironically,— this praise has in any case not originated out of the spirit of unselfishness ! The " neighbour " praises unselfish- ness because he profits by it! If the neighbour were "unselfishly" disposed himself, he would reject that destruction of power, that injury for his advantage, he would thwart such inclinations in their origin, and above all he would manifest his unselfishness just by not giving it a good name!


2/?

>>6298695

The fundamental contradiction in that morality which at present stands in high honour is here indicated : the motives to such a morality are in antithesis to its principle! That with which this morality wishes to prove itself, refutes it out of. its criterion of what is moral ! The maxim, " Thou Shalt renounce thyself and offer . thyself as a sacrifice," in order not to be inconsistent with its own morality, could only be decreed by a being who himself renounced his own advantage thereby, and who perhaps in the required self-sacrifice of individuals brought about his own dissolution. As soon, however, as the neighbour (or society) recommended altruism on account of its utility, the precisely antithetical proposition, " Thou shalt seek thy advantage even at the expense of everybody else," was brought into use: accordingly, "thou shalt," and " thou shalt not," are preached in one breath !

3/3

>>6295020
What? This Kagan guy sticks to his principles like a theist, and he posits a weak argument for objective morality. There has to be someone better.

>Is there objective morality
No.

Discussion over.

>>6301141
>Is there objective morality
Yes.

>FTFY