/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6899116
No.

>>6899116
Define "objective morality"

>>6899116
It depends on your system.

Like if you define a formal logic and then you define a real world (not as in "the" real world) then you can use that real world for your semantics and in that sense you have a world where objective stuff is real.

>>6899116
Argument: X is good.

Counterargument: X is bad

Conclusion: Objective morality does not exist.

Objective things are the only things, and people have a morality, so yeah

No, because morality is an entirely subjective concept.

There is no such thing as subjective. Words have to actually mean things or else you're saying nothing.

>>6899138
Words do mean things, but that meaning is dependent on the subject, otherwise known as subjectivity.

>>6899138
Morality is based on empathy, and empathy is the result of the subjective experience of consciousness.

>>6899141
They need to pick a meaning when they say it though or else it's poor communication.

>>6899142
I disagree.

>>6899143
So? That doesn't make it any less subjective. Everyone chooses a morality. Try letting go of it sometime.

>>6899116
A very minimum, Kantian should exist

>>6899147
Define good will.

>>6899116
Depends what you mean by "objective" and "morality".

If you mean, "are there grand universal morals laws?", then no.

If you mean, "are there some moral systems, that provide demonstrably preferred outcomes for societies and individuals, than other moral systems?", then yes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nv8jkJdu710

>>6899151
\thread

>>6899142
Morality is based on logic so we have something more reliable than empathy to guide us. Empathy is just a simple animal function and has nothing to do with consciousness(which is also not subjective).

>>6899146
Yes it does. There is no point in communicating anything without definition, and anything with definition is objective.

>>6899151
"Demonstrably preferred" is itself a subjective normative statement. "Preferred" simply means "better" which means "more good". And good requires an objective moral law to be "demonstrable".

>>6899116
>mfw these engineers think they're formulating good philosophical arguments
ahah

>>6899142
>Morality is based on empathy
>empathy is subjective

No, not really. Empathy is based on objective traits within our species (and like species). It is ultimately based on objective biology.

>>6899155
>Yes it does. There is no point in communicating anything without definition, and anything with definition is objective.
That doesn't make sense. Definition is subjective. It doesn't matter if you don't understand what I'm saying, but you can understand what I'm saying and disagree with the definition anyway. All of this is irrelevant. How can you objectively prove that your definition is correct? How can you objectively prove that your morality is correct? You can't. You can only appeal to how you feel these things SHOULD be. There are no objective imperatives.

>>6899161
And why is biology "good"?

>>6899158
>trying to play semantic word games

Your cute. It doesn't matter what is "demonstrably preferred". You could pick anything, and given any choice you could still find moral systems better than others. You can still construct a moral hierarchy and moral generalizations.

>>6899167
You can't communicate anything that isn't objective, so it makes perfect sense.

>>6899116
>Does objective morality exist?
No.
/thread

>>6899174
>You could pick anything, and given any choice you could still find moral systems better than others
Sure I could do that, but nothing would make my choices "objectively true" or "demonstrably true". They would just reflect my subjective concept of good, and plenty would probably disagree with no way to prove or disprove anything. Construction is not equivalent to objectivity. It's like saying there is an objective set of axioms in mathematics. Ridiculous.

>>6899176
Wrong, you are confusing understanding with objectivity. I don't even have to agree with your definitions to communicate with you, I could just be pandering. Objectivity would imply that you can prove your language true and others false.

>>6899168
>non-sequitur

And why is biology "cakedancing"?

I never implied biology was "good".

Yes. Same problematic as health, is there an objective "healthy"?

"morally good" things pertain to increases in the "well-being of conscious creatures"

Wellbeing is objective as reflected in the brainstate of any conscious being.

Moral questions have thus an objective answer

Now, getting to that answer is entirely a different story. It's as complicated as answering "what is healthy", and "is health subjective".

(this is a summary from memory of "The moral landscape" by Sam Harris)

>>6899183
>still not getting it

Within any set of axioms, objective truth exists. By definition, you can find "objectively true" and "demonstrably true" actions that maximize B in the framework of A. In fact, that is how we use "objectivity". We do this with literally everything; morals, science, law, every fucking thing, and we properly call it "objective".

However, you claim this "objectiveness" isn't really "objective"? At which case your argument boils down to hard solipsism or trying to make some ridiculous argument from first case. Your having a laughable philosophical circle jerk, completely divorced from reality. Have fun living in your shitty nonsensical paranoia.

>>6899116
if objective morality does not exist then morality itself doesn't exist

>>6899229
Looks like a good book

>>6899246
>implying subjective morality can't exist

>>6899245
these
>>6899151
>>6899229
>>6899245

\thread

>>6899116
No, but it usually helps to believe so. I mean, yes, of course it does.

morality is a human thing that don't exist outside of our society.

>>6899254

Not even the guy you're responding to but subjective morality is just another phrase for fake morality. If morality isn't intrinsic then it doesn't actually exist, it's just something that we like to pretend is real.

>>6899286
Those are awfully big claims and assertions. Too bad you cannot back them up. If you can prove that only "objective morality" can exist, knock yourself out. Win that noble prize. Until then you should probably just STFU

>fake morality

Nice no-true-Scotsman fallacy. With flawed reasoning like that, no wonder you speak such bullshit. Let me guess your argument is just to define morality so it must be objective. Silly Kid.

>>6899309
Not many will tell you this and will just outright ignore you instead, but:
your style of "discussion" is nowhere near constructive. You basicly just disqualified yourself from being taken seriously, no matter whether your core statements are true or not.
It's much more gratifying to actually let the arguments be veracious for you.

>>6899138
>There is no such thing as objective
FTFY

>>6899155
>Morality is based on logic
HAHAHAHA

>>6899283
I think you meant to say: different societies have different moralities

>>6899283
Apes punish other apes for stealing, or murder.
Pretty sure that already negates your statement.

But (again, from Sam Harris) on a planet only populated by rocks any concept of morally wrong or right is void.
That is propably not what you're talking about though.
One society's laws can still be objectively wrong and worse than onother society's laws.
Cutting the clits off of little girls can be a moral thing depending on society? or subjectively right? Fuck that.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_(author)
>neuroscientist
kek
discarded without any arguments

>>6899229
Nah, I disagree. Morally good things pertain to destroying conscious creatures. Prove me wrong.

Also, "wellbeing" just fails for the same reason as "good". The brainstate does not determine how a creature "should" be. "Is" does not inform "ought".

>>6899245
>Within any set of axioms, objective truth exists.
This is equivalent to stating that objective truth is subjective, you dumbfuck. An objective truth would have to be true regardless of the subjective axioms you choose. That's why it's called objective and not subjective.

>In fact, that is how we use "objectivity". We do this with literally everything; morals, science, law, every fucking thing, and we properly call it "objective".
Yes most people believe that their opinions are absolute truths. Unfortunately they are not. Once again thank you for stating my argument for me.

>However, you claim this "objectiveness" isn't really "objective"? At which case your argument boils down to hard solipsism or trying to make some ridiculous argument from first case. Your having a laughable philosophical circle jerk, completely divorced from reality. Have fun living in your shitty nonsensical paranoia.
No I'm simply using the term objective correctly. An objective morality would be one that could be proven true. All you have to do is prove some morality is objectively true. Now take your ball and go home.

>>6899379
>An objective truth would have to be true regardless of the subjective axioms you choose. That's why it's called objective and not subjective.
Am I misunderstanding something or is this statement total bullshit? What is a subjective axiom?

>>6899384
All axioms are subjective. They are postulates assumed to be true for the sake of analysis.

Ya'll niggas need Hume

>>6899400
Ya'll niggas need Hume

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

>>6899379
>prove something

You cannot prove anything without axioms dumbfuck. Any proof requires axioms. Axioms which you say are inherently subjective. Hence, according to your own shitty logic; truth or proof doesn't actually exist. Nice Hard solipsism idiot. Way to jerk the dick.

>>6899414
You might be surprised to hear this but science doesn't deal in axiomatic truths, it deals in empirical facts. Morality however cannot be proven with empiricism because of the is-ought problem.

>>6899379
>An objective truth would have to be true regardless of the subjective axioms you choose

For any supposed objective truth O, you can define a subjective truth S, such that S = not O. QED. Hence, you're fucking wrong, and fucking retarded. Objective truth doesn't exist in your fucked up worldview. Stop pretending it does. You are so fucking dumb that you can't even follow your own nonsensical arguments.

>>6899435
>implying you don't assume anything in science
>implying their are no axioms

>>6899435
>science doesn't deal with axiomatic truths

How much of a fucking pleb are you? Of course it does. Example: A=A, law of identity. No way in hell you are going to do science if you have no law of identity.

>>6899435
>You might be surprised to hear this but science doesn't deal in axiomatic truths

>>6899437
>For any supposed objective truth O, you can define a subjective truth S, such that S = not O. QED. Hence, you're fucking wrong, and fucking retarded.
Proving my point doesn't make me wrong, it make you wrong you fucking retard. Oh my god, does your argument seriously boil down to "I would be wrong if I was wrong, but I don't wish to be wrong therefore I'm not wrong" and posting memes?

>>6899439
>Implying you understand the difference between descriptive truths and axiomatic truth. This is pretty basic stuff. Empiricism, look it up.

>>6899447
>How much of a fucking pleb are you? Of course it does. Example: A=A, law of identity. No way in hell you are going to do science if you have no law of identity.
Jesus Christ, science doesn't prove the law of identity. Can you read or are you just being deliberately obtuse?

>>6899453
Stop spamming you utter faggot.

>>6899447
Actually, A=A implies there is no movement or change (see Parmenides on that)
We really disregard all a priori truths.

>>6899116
Not for kenny it doesn't

>>6899459
Proving your point? You construct your definitions such that "objective truth" cannot exist. All you are doing is stating a tautology and pretending you have reasoning behind it. It is bullshit.

When did I say science proves the law of identity? My point was that it didn't. Are you okay?

Don't pretending your are "reasoning' into anything. All you are doing is just asserting that objective truth cannot exist and then putting sugar on it. Nice self contradictory dogma kid.

>>6899459
>Jesus Christ, science doesn't prove the law of identity.
Do you know what an axiom is? Or that the whole point is that they aren't proven? What is this shit?
>Can you read or are you just being deliberately obtuse?
I refer you to yourself.

>>6899463
>A=A implies.....

Nope. You are throwing extra shit into the law of identity. Scientists (and just about everyone) use the law of identity as an axiom.

>>6899480
>You construct your definitions such that "objective truth" cannot exist.
I didn't construct anything, it was constructed for me. You constructed them as subjective.

>All you are doing is stating a tautology and pretending you have reasoning behind it. It is bullshit.
In other words, I'm correct and you don't like it.

>When did I say science proves the law of identity?
The law of identity is not a descriptive truth, and science doesn't even rely on it.

>Don't pretending your are "reasoning' into anything. All you are doing is just asserting that objective truth cannot exist and then putting sugar on it. Nice self contradictory dogma kid.
You just failed to read what I said. There is no bridge from descriptive truth to imperatives. Construct it for me if it exists.

>>6899480
There really is no objective, immutable, eternal truth. You just keep falsifying your theories and improving them. Nothing should be considered objective truth in science, for the sake of the improvement of science
Not the guy you are talking too, btw

Doth one into the categorical imperative?

>>6899489
>you are adding extra shit
No I'm not. Just think. How change is possible if we assume A=A? At some point something must become different than itself in order fot change to work.
I don't need to assume anything a priori, my senses tell me all I need. This is empiricism
If you want to include needless axioms and derive truths from that, go for the rationalists or the escolastics, but you won't be doing science.

>>6899490

>objective truth definition
No, I use the definitions like everyone in the fucking world does, except you apparently.

>I'm correct and your wrong, because I defined myself as correct

Are you listening to yourself? You are the reason people hate philosophers and they all end up working at Starbucks.

At this point you are just negating your own argument. You make the objective claim that objectivity doesn't exist! Fucking retarded dude. Sheer retarded. I really hope your trolling. Your hard solipsism just makes you look foolish.

>>6899513
>I don't need to assume anything a priori, my senses tell me all I need.

You are assuming your senses a priori

>>6899524
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28philosophy%29
>Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism
>Moral realism (also ethical realism) is the position that ethical sentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world (that is, features independent of subjective opinion), some of which propositions may be true to the extent that they report those features accurately.

>Hurr muh subjective objective truths

>You make the objective claim that objectivity doesn't exist!
Never claimed to be objective you fucking illiterate faggot.

>Your hard solipsism just makes you look foolish.
Oh no! A fool thinks I look foolish! Oh, my heart has been struck!

>>6899513
>still adding the extra stuff

Yes, you are correct, in that sometimes we don't use the law of identity, as we are dealing with dynamics. However, those cases are very few and in-between, compared to the static.

Identity at it foundation is much simpler than what you are making it. Anytime you have a static concept, parameter, idea, space, etc, you are using the law of identity. Even as you type on your keyboard, you assume you keys will not change, that is you assuming the law of identity! If you take a measurement M, and then refer to it, you are using the law of identity! Assuming that M = M! The law of identity is everywhere. And it is axiomatically assumed.

>>6899533
You are making a subjective claim that the objective doesn't exist? As if that makes more sense?

If the objective didn't exist, that would be an objective truth, right? So the objective has to exist, right?

You are trying to use method A to prove method A doesn't exist?!? Are you okay? Your brain seem to be all fucked up? Trolling?

>>6899559
>what is post-structuralism

>>6899559
>You are making a subjective claim that the objective doesn't exist? As if that makes more sense?
What exactly about it doesn't make sense to you? You seem to really have a hard time with consistent logic.

>If the objective didn't exist, that would be an objective truth, right?
Nope.

>>6899588
So it would be a subjective truth that objective truth didn't exist?

In which case, who fucking cares?

>>6899116

>this thread

HEY GUYZZ.....
I hAve SUBjective prOOF thAT objective proof doESN'T exist!! LISTEN TO ME!!! I SMART! I MAKE MOST SENSE!

>>6899587
>what is post-structuralism

Some nonsensical bullshit made up by Starbucks employees? Does it come with a latte?

Assuming a brain, it is. Morale isn't defined the same way across different brain, so that's a no for humanity.

>>6899116
Probably not. However, we don't need objective morality to have morality.

“The rules of morality are ultimately human constructs. But they’re not arbitrary constructs: we invent them to serve certain purposes. People are not blank slates; they have desires, preferences, aspirations. We mostly want to be nice to each other, be happy, live fairly, and other aspects of folk morality. The rules of morality we invent are attempts to systematize and extend these simple goals into a rigorous framework that can cover as many circumstances as possible in an unambiguous way.”

http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2012/08/29/subjective-morality-not-what-it-seems/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq2C7fyVTA4

>>6899116
No. It doesn't really matter though. Generalized subjective morality (what we have) is better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejLD8l-ZXH8&index=2&list=PL_FWOCPqTWWD6LYaYOrr3vz364jHmvZRM

>>6899559
>>6899587
>>6899588
>>6899589

>>6899750
None of those posters seem "butt-hurt". Go back to bed.

>>6899756

>>6899760

>>6899762

>>6899116
Nope. We have subjective morality.
Subjective morality is better than objective morality.
Subjective doesn't imply "arbitrary".
Subjective morality doesn't it imply that all moralities are equal.
Subjective morality (like science) means we can learn from our mistakes.
Subjective morality means we can use our brains and judge things for ourselves.

Objective morality means that morality is dogmatic.
Objective morality means we should be slaves and not ask questions.
Objective morality is shit.

Why not a special case of a Platonic ideal? We know it's there, but cannot know if we encompass it completely. It will always appear to be subjective without actually being so.

>>6899765
Milhouse reporting in for the Hurt. Milhouse knows objective morality is a crock of shit. All hail subjective morality.

this thread proves that atheism really is the easiest religion to troll, just chill out you heathens^^ nobody is attacking you

God wants more entropy.

Be responsible for the most entropy, even if that means temporarily creating order. Seriously, if you think about it, it does converge with conventional morality spookily often.


However I'm amoral I guess. Good/bad are relative to your point of view and whatever makes you happy.

>>6899784

Moral questions have an objective right answer in the context of our physical universe.

The wellbeing of creatures must be a measurable attribute of the physical state of the brain and body. So it is an objectively measurable attribute.

Consider health. Health indicators are difficult to define and not equally applicable to everyone. Old people or babies can't run marathons but can still be perfectly healthy.
That does not make "health" a subjective attribute without an objective truth behind it. That baby will be in the same state of health no matter who looks at it.
Though it can be very difficult and complicated to define clearly, and it may even be impossible to define in some cases, health is still objective. It describes the physical attributes of a creature.
Same with wellbeing, and positive and negative influences on it.

Brains and bodies are governed by physical law as part of our material universe. Actions have physical effects on the universe around you, and thereby on the bodies and brains of other concious creatures.
These consequences can be weighted against each other, giving them ultimately an objective moral value.

Humanity is just discovering that "good" and "evil" are not simple binary concepts. Its complicated as shit, and often not what our intuition tells us. But that does not mean its a meaningless concept, or that it is subjective, aka "anyone can make it up for themselves". You can make up new definitions of healthy ("everyone is healthier without vaccines!"), and be completely and objectively wrong.

what's funny is a creationist argued with me that mass consensus is not synonymous with proven fact. and while im inclined to agree with that in regard to certain things, morality (and evolution) isnt one of them.

>>6899116
>morality
>science
>>>/out/