[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 17 KB, 640x480, 9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3103246 No.3103246 [Reply] [Original]

do you believe in objective morality /sci/?

>> No.3103255

Yes

>> No.3103256

>>3103255
Elaborate, "why?", "what makes you believe so?"

>> No.3103263

Nope.

>> No.3103264

>>3103256

Subjective goals, objective means to reach those goals. That's all you need to know

>> No.3103265

What do you mean by objective morality?

>> No.3103268

I did. I don't anymore.

I used to think there was some sort of order or purpose in the universe, I believed in karma and diving justice. Now i just lay awake at night, thinking about child porn and serial killers, and how there is no shortage of either, and dream about what it will be like when they finally drop the bomb.

>> No.3103271

Morality questions, really?

You've lost your spark.

>> No.3103274

Suffering should not exist.

>> No.3103279

>>3103274
but it does.

>> No.3103281

In my opinion, things are objective.

>> No.3103285

>>3103281
if they are objective, then what is your frame of reference? What is the standard by which all things are judged?

>> No.3103286

I don't even believe in morality, let alone an objective form of it.

>> No.3103288

>>3103274
Why not?
Inb4 thruthiness

>> No.3103289

>>3103288

Because i say i shouldn't

>> No.3103291

>>3103279
This isn't even a retort.

>> No.3103293

>>3103289
>thruthiness
:3
You seem pretty dumb,but I will still try to take your opinion serious to avoid ad hominems.

>> No.3103297

>>3103293

>unable to reject my assertion

>> No.3103306

>>3103286
psychologist would deem you sociopathic
>>3103291
how is it you feel you deserve some sort of retort? Does the universe owe you an explanation?

>> No.3103308

>>3103293
To late for that obviously.

>> No.3103314

>>3103306
>psychologist would deem you sociopathic
So?

>> No.3103320
File: 43 KB, 474x500, morality..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3103320

>>3103246

>> No.3103325

>>3103306
No they wouldn't. They would deem me someone who is concerned with rigour in their use of language.

>> No.3103327

so how do you expect to form any sort of meaningful relationships with other people when you are incapable of reciprocating their emotions?

I'm assuming you have some empathy or you wouldn't be here, but when you are sociopathic you life is ruled by base passions. Sociopaths spend their life in search of stronger and stronger stimulation, until they are consumed by their own selfish desires.

>> No.3103330

>>3103314
This isn't the guy who said he doesn't believe in morality, this is an idiot.

>> No.3103332

>>3103325
oh, thats right. all words mean what you say they mean because your the one saying them. how silly of me.

>> No.3103333

I believe only religious nuts could possibly believe so. If you are an atheist however, you really have no way of rationalizing such a thing. By definition, it is a supernatural concept and is scientifically untestable. It requires the same blind faith as any religion in the world today.

>> No.3103341

>>3103327

None of that has anything to do with objective morality.

>> No.3103345

>>3103332
Just like how you defined a sociopath on your own without ever having opened the old DSM?

>> No.3103348

do you want to know why i don't believe in morality? Because its a farie tale. People who do "bad" things are rewarded, and people who do "good" things are punished. People who are selfish and violent are happy and people who a generous and kind are unhappy. This is the way of the world. Just be thankful someone told you now, instead of finding out halfway through your life that that is the way it works.

>> No.3103355

>>3103274
you're being ignorant.

>> No.3103365
File: 63 KB, 1350x633, wmapd.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3103365

Yes.

Golden rule is logical if you aren't a retard, so naturally you would acknowledge other people's different subjective tastes but not being tolerant to the point you are afraid to call out bullshit.

I'm sapient, everyone else appears to have the same material form as me therefore you are highly likely to also be sapient and I must assume so, sapience is linked with the ability to think and I dislike suffering and enjoy happiness, therefore what is best is for all to avoid suffering, obtain happiness and develop ourselves as sapient beings through philosophical introspection, liberty, art and sitting with our chins on our fists pondering our own existence and so forth.

>> No.3103377

>>3103348
The lack of rigour in your argument makes you unfit for a philosophy degree.... and that's saying a lot on /sci/.

>> No.3103381

What you believe in is unimportant
What matters is, what you can and what you can't do.
Do you have the power or not.
Morality comes from the will of the powerfull.
There is nothing objective about it.

>> No.3103388

don't believe in anything ever, don't have faith.
rely on facts, base decisions on those and when you can't look at the probable truths and use them.

>> No.3103391

it is objectively true that suffering only exists because evolution created beings capable of suffering. it is objectively true that, as evolved beings, we strive to increase pleasure and reduce suffering. it is objectively true that morals are a direct result of our brains contemplation on how to reduce suffering. it is objectively true that most of the morals are subjectively true to only a subset of all sentient beings. it is objectively true that some of the morals are subjectively true to all sentient beings. i postulate that when a moral is subjectively true among all beings capable of suffering, then the moral is objectively true. there are therefor objectively true morals. (1) do not create beings capable of suffering (2) keep addictions to a stable minimum (3) be well-informed of what causes subjective suffering in yourself and others (the "conscience") (4) et cetera...

<span class="math">and~by~the~way,~\bf{you're~welcome}[/spoiler]

>> No.3103403

No, and anyone who does just feels the need to be part of something bigger to make up for their own shortcomings.
Also, sage for aether

>> No.3103405

Learn how to use words please.

>> No.3103418

the only objective morality is ethics.

>> No.3103446

>>3103274
Suffering will always exist - when you say "Suffering should not exist," I assume you're talking about the health of human individuals, that's ignoring the past and future, and focusing entirely on the present; that's on terms of 'suffering'. Sure, teach me blind, show me a world that's not the world, pull the wool over my eyes and let me feel the bliss of ignorance. Then I don't suffer anymore to that extent - but my future and dreams, things of which I wished for, the reality that I wanted that wasn't the reality I got - the unreal and seemingly amazing life that I see in the movies, that suffers; and the dreams of all those before me, suffer, continuously. "Curing present suffering" is ignorant of future and past suffering. The only plausible fair way is balance, but we cannot achieve that, unless everyone focuses on the same objective.

>> No.3103466

>>3103377
Not to say the guy you quoted isn't an idiot, but once again, here we observe the pretentious attitude of a typical /sci/ poster. The "my degree is such much more difficult than your degree" mentality. I'd argue that the merits of the individual in a particular field should always be held to higher regard than the field itself. Our world has seen many great philosophers over the millenia. Even Aristotelian ideas were used unequivocally throughout Academia well through the 15th century. Yes, they ended up being wrong, but that just tells you the magnitude of his influence, even thousands of years after his death. And guess what? He was known primarily for his philosophies. So feel free to take your superiority complex and troll-like behavior back to /b/. I'd rather one of the few relatively intelligent boards on 4chan not turn into /new/ over the summer.

>> No.3103482
File: 20 KB, 140x140, 1302556269324.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3103482

>>3103391
>a rational argument for objective morality on /sci/
mfw

>> No.3103483

Impossible to answer, perhaps in a very literal sense for all I know.

Depends what is needed for something be considered "objective", I'd say we are too stuck in our own thought processes and current level of intelligence to understand quite what the question is even getting at.

>> No.3103492

>>3103482
clearly your the op samefagging fag. the majority of this thread is you samefagging fag.

>> No.3103521

>>3103391
This seems pretty sound, actually. The only issues:

We would not necessarily know which moral rules were true for all beings, since we don't have any way of defining what counts as a being nor how extreme the differences could be. For all we know, evolution could be a subset of a range of processes which could potentially occur, not only on planets. Who even knows. Thus, it could follow that no morals are actually true for all beings, or that morality based on suffering is even applicable to some.

Also, even if some morals applied to all possible beings, there is a semantic issue at hand: It IS true that the morals apply from all points of view, but whether you can then say the morals themselves are objective is a very interesting question.

>> No.3103522

>>3103492
HAHAHAHA OP HERE DISREGARD THAT I SUCK COCKS

>> No.3103533

>>3103446
Suffering will not necessarily always exist, assuming we reach a point where brains can be transfered to some descendant of computers.

>> No.3103538

there is no "morality". Morality is what the powerful use to justify their actions and to condemn the actions of those they torture and abuse.

The only thing i have to say about morality is this: there comes a time in every mans life, when all he wants is meat. Should he receive enough meat, he will grow bored with the taste, and lose his lust for life, so that he may rediscover his passion once more.

>> No.3103544

>>3103533
you're retarded.

>> No.3103549

>>3103544
I'm a professional. Not until you explain what is wrong with what I just said.

>> No.3103550

>>3103544
What he said seems sound to me. Explain.

>> No.3103554
File: 10 KB, 429x410, 1305080809988.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3103554

>>3103538
what really blew my mind about that was the fact that you wasted your time typing it and i wasted my time reading and then responding to it

>> No.3103555

>>3103533
Suffering doesn't exist for the first 3 weeks of an IV heroin habit.

>> No.3103560

>>3103549
You're a neo-capitalist hipster who believes in 'uploading thy brain to computers is the way forward'. Thus, faggot, plus retarded.

>> No.3103562

>>3103544
Nope, you are unless you say why.

>> No.3103568
File: 44 KB, 256x256, 1287714709611.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3103568

>objective morality

>> No.3103569

>>3103560
Nice ad hominem.

So, after ignoring what I posted and attacking my character, do you have anything logically wrong with what I posted?

>> No.3103573

>>3103560
> attacks person and not the idea

> is a lot more like what he described than the other guy

>> No.3103583

First time I've visited this board. The intelligent posts get ignored and the idiots take over. Heh. There are some genuinely intelligent people hiding around though, from what I can read.

>> No.3103584

>>3103560
impostor

>> No.3103589
File: 267 KB, 800x600, 5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3103589

>>3103569
>" where brains can be transfered to some descendant of computers."

What kind of idea is that? That's stupid, that's life destruction. It's like saying "Fuck it, kill all humans and put each of them in a inanimate and emotionless box. Then, and only then, will the suffering end." You're both retarded for getting angry about a obviously fair and sound comment.

>> No.3103594

>>3103589
Fuck you and your shit

>> No.3103607

>>3103589
Disclaimer: I am fully aware I am feeding a troll, and I consent to this.

> That's stupid, that's life destruction.

Er, if they're conscious, I do not see how the term "life destruction" even applies. They're brains exactly like yours. Your brain is a physical object.

> "Fuck it, kill all humans and put each of them in a inanimate and emotionless box. Then, and only then, will the suffering end."

Where did I imply inanimate and emotionless? Acknowledging that every aspect of a person is a physical, neurological event only renders them insignificant if you let it.

>> No.3103611

You morons need to read "The Moral Landscape"by Harris

>> No.3103627

>>3103611
Despite all the accusations of moron-hood bandied about, this place has given me a lot of interesting shit to read in the past.

>> No.3103629

>>3103246

Define morality?

If you are defining morality as appeasing some fantastical deity, then no. BUT if you define morality in regards to human well being, then yes it can be examined objectively.

>> No.3103634

>>3103607
Does a robot have emotions? Can a computer learn to have emotions? I don't think so... You'd need some sort of magical spark that makes it so.

>> No.3103648

>>3103483
>>3103521
I support these posts. I also think morality should be exercised with any form of being which is capable of suffering, limiting it to humanity in my eyes would be extremely barbaric.

>> No.3103650

>>3103634
wait until the singularity

>> No.3103661

>>3103634
Why could it not? Brains and computers (assuming the distinction is or will always be clear cut) are both physical objects. We have no idea what processes emotions even correspond to physically speaking, who knows what systems they could arise in.

>> No.3103669

>>3103650
you and your dream will be the end of us all.

>> No.3103675

Nope.
Nor morality of any kind.

>> No.3103678

>>3103669
This trolling is making me grin now. I admit I walked into this shit.

>> No.3103703

>>3103466
I miss /new/ ...
>>3103391
>i postulate that when a moral is subjectively true among all beings capable of suffering, then the moral is objectively true.
But is there any such moral which would be true for all living things?

>> No.3103717

>Sci's biggest and well known troll returns
>nobody recognizes him

Fucking summer /sci/

>> No.3103720

>>3103264
That does not make the goals themselves objective. Your explanation is descriptive, not prescriptive.

>> No.3103733

Not really, but Steven Pinker's book The Blank Slate helped convinced me that, pragmatically, this doesn't make it a useless concept or mean that it is without its own internal logic and cohesion.

>> No.3103759

>>3103391
A very well written post! I have for a long time not believed in objective morality, but you almost convinced me. The only problem I have with your post is this point: “it is objectively true that some of the morals are subjectively true to all sentient beings”.

Could you justify that statement?

>> No.3103783

>>3103391
>it is objectively true that some of the morals are subjectively true to all sentient beings.
No it isn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

Also, if every human being finds an object beautiful, does that make the object "objectively" beautiful?

>> No.3103786

nope.jpg

>> No.3103808

Absolutely not. Everybody has different goals, so it seems unlikely that we should all use the same methods to obtain our goals.

>> No.3103817

>>3103783
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder
in no way supports your objection

>Also, if every human being finds an object beautiful, does that make the object "objectively" beautiful?
yes. but it could never happen.

>> No.3103842

There's no way around it: relativism is a pretty destructive view of ethics.

>> No.3103898

I believe in objective morality. Objective morality is grounded on God's nature itself, and His nature cannot change, and there is nothing apart from God. I do not limit this to morality thought, but extend it to the laws of logic as how God thinks, rationality, existence, and uniformity. The correct term for my position is presuppositionalism.

If you are studying morality you no doubt have come into contact with the is-ought problem. For my basis for morality this isn't a problem at all. God's nature IS, and God loves that which is His nature, and hates that which is not His nature.

Jesus said, the greatest commandment is to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind. The second is like it, to love your neighbor as yourself. Your neighbor being anyone in need. All the law of the prophets are hinged on these two commandments. Jesus also says, if you love me, you will follow my commandments. At no point do I take an is statement and imply an ought, therefore the is-ought problem does not exist in my view.

Sin is therefore wrong because God hates it and no other reason. For what He hates is that which is goes against His own nature, and no one can bring a charge against God for without God, there is no morality, no logic, rationality, reasoning, uniformity, there is only nothing at all. My view treats God as God, not something politically correct finite being or anything else.

>> No.3103908

>>3103898

Please, don't turn this into another "religion vs science" thread.

>> No.3103942

>>3103908
I'm not trying to, O am simply expressing my view on objective morality. It isn't my fault if someone wants to start arguing about religion. My view simply cannot separate the two.

I would also like to point out that the bible says God has written his law on our hearts. I am not saying people who do not believe in God or His revelation cannot do moral things, I am saying though that morality cannot exist apart from God.

>> No.3103947

Even if objective morality exists, people's morality is subjective.

>> No.3103952

>>3103898

If everything has come from god, is god, then how can there be anything that is not of his nature? God created man, and therefore also created the capacity for sin and wrongdoing. It's as much in his nature as anything else.

>> No.3103973

>>3103952
That is answered by the purpose of creation itself. The purpose of creation is to glorify God. To glorify God the best qualitatively, not quantitatively as if God's glory is finite, is to express the full nature of God, via his mercy, love, hate, wrath, etc.

I would direct you to Romans 9:
22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25 As he says in Hosea: “I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people; and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,” 26 and, “In the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘children of the living God.’”

>> No.3104013

>>3103952
>is god
My God is personal, not something like the Hindu concept of Brahman. We are not God, we are a part of God only in the sense that God knows us and all finite beings necessarily as part of His omniscience. God gave us form, and the form we have is sustained by God as an ends to His self glorification.However no man is an expression of the person of God besides Jesus via the incarnation.

>> No.3104252

>>3104013
I never appreciated the traditional monotheistic notion that all Creation exists to bring glory to God. It seems a rather selfish motive on God's part, to be honest. If God exists, surely such a being would not be petty enough to do its creating for it and its glory alone.

>> No.3104299

>>3104252
Well, not for God's glory, but to make His glory known. God does not need anything after all.

The problem with what your saying is that if this God exists, then you have no basis for what you say since epistemology and metaphysical reality is grounded on God, and no such grounds can or do exists apart from God by which you could judge Him.

I am not saying you cannot feel this way, however, I am saying that such statements are not logical in the sense that based on the original definition of this God you cannot reach such a conclusion while being consistent and not contradicting yourself.

>> No.3104301

Speaking of morality implies there's a general understanding of what's ethical and what is not. There might be some alterations to the moral codex in certain societies. A more interesting topic of discussion would be "Do we have a moral responsibility?"

>> No.3104361

>>3104299
So God created the universe so that He could be known through it. Fair enough, but what purpose is served by divine revelation if He can be known through the universe?

>> No.3104374

>>3104252
It could also be argued that the Christian conception of God is not selfish since He needs nothing in the first place in which His own interest could be served. Making His glory known is not selfish because His nature is the greatest thing in which could ever be known, for it is objective reality itself. Perhaps it is in our best interest to glorify God for this reason, not arbitrarily, but because His nature is that which should be glorified.

>> No.3104402

>>3104361
I didn't say God created the universe, I said He created all things, the universe and of course you and I are included. The reason why we must have revelation is an epistemological issue. As finite being's we cannot know that we know that we know... We cannot be sure of the things in our mind, only an omniscient mind which knows all things can be that foundation for absolute knowledge. The purpose of revelation is to make the absolute knowledge and basis for knowing anything for certain available to finite creatures. Without being omniscient we would otherwise not be able to possess the objective nature of God, and thereby reality and the basis for which to view ourselves in reality. Faith is essential in believing revelation and is the beginning of reason and foundation from my perspective. In other words faith is not where reason leaves off, but where reason, etc. begins.

>> No.3104433

>>3104402

Reasoning which has faith as it's starting point is little more than a complex series of assumptions.

>> No.3104481

>>3103285
I thought the joke was obvious.

>> No.3104489 [DELETED] 

>>3104433
My argument is that of consistency and lack of contradiction. Feel free to give a non-faith based objective foundation in which you can justify the reality that you see, and thereby pose the objection in the first place.

The closest thing I have come up with is the idea of treating yourself as god and denying any objective reality outside of yourself, such as evolution etc.

From a physicalist(materialist) perspective, yourself as a starting point is illogical since you do not exist as a necessity of yourself, but as a product of outside, objective, reality. In attempting to justify objective logic, rationality, uniformity, morality, etc. you are left with trying to define these terms purely in terms of matter/energy. Matter/energy does not possess logic and morality such that these things could actually exist in an objective sense. If there is no foundation by which you can justify your thinking, and indeed proving everything, the very concept by which you object to is without foundation and thereby the nessecary conditions in which to ask the question, think about the question, and give proof cannot exist as true. In a universe of marble, there can never exists anything but marbles, even if they are arranged in a specific way, marbles would still be the only objective reality which could exist.

>> No.3104504

>objective
>morality

pick one.

>> No.3104505

>>3104433
My argument is that of consistency and lack of contradiction. Feel free to give a non-faith based objective foundation in which you can justify the reality that you see, and thereby pose the objection in the first place.

The closest thing I have come up with is the idea of treating yourself as god and denying any objective reality outside of yourself, such as evolution etc.

From a physicalist(materialist) perspective, yourself as a starting point is illogical since you do not exist as a necessity of yourself, but as a product of outside, objective, reality. In attempting to justify objective logic, rationality, uniformity, morality, etc. you are left with trying to define these terms purely in terms of matter/energy. Matter/energy does not possess logic and morality such that these things could actually exist in an objective sense. If there is no foundation by which you can justify your thinking, and indeed prove anything, the very concept by which you object to is without foundation and thereby the necessary conditions in which to ask the question, think about the question, and give proof cannot exist as true.

In a universe of marble, there can never exists anything but marbles, even if they are arranged in a specific way, marbles would still be the only objective reality which could exist.

>> No.3104772 [DELETED] 

<span class="math">[/spoiler]

>> No.3104795

>>3103246
I do not believe in human knowable objective morality.

>> No.3104825

>>3103246
I believe in an objective morality. To love your fellow man, and to love God/the gods/the tao/or however you think of it.

>> No.3105309 [DELETED] 

<span class="math">[/spoiler]

>> No.3105403 [DELETED] 

<span class="math">[/spoiler]

>> No.3105423

>>3104299

Exactly. One of the principles of Christianity is that God didn't need to create anything. He did it just because he could.

>> No.3105425

>>3103391
It's not just about physical pleasure. You have to think to be sapient.

>> No.3105483
File: 21 KB, 400x400, 41vkB-YbXHL._SS400_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3105483

A morality thread and I missed it. Damn.

Yes. I believe that there is an objective morality provided we accept a specific axiom based on it. This is not an unreasonable request as science demands we accept specific axioms. As does health, logic and mathematics.

>> No.3108027 [DELETED] 

<span class="math">[/spoiler]

>> No.3108524 [DELETED] 

<span class="math">[/spoiler]

>> No.3108573

>>3105483
I think it is unreasonable when it comes to something as subjective as morals. This whole "Let's take 'well-being' as a measuring stick for the moral righteousness of an action" approach stands on very shaky ground considering all those people who actually do value other things higher than personal well-being, like conformity with their religious beliefs, for example.

>> No.3108699

>>3108573
>conformity with their religious beliefs
is done only because they think that it will increase overall well-being - and it just so happens to be wrong.

>> No.3108761

>>3108573

>This whole "Let's take 'well-being' as a measuring stick for the moral righteousness of an action" approach stands on very shaky ground considering all those people who actually do value other things higher than personal well-being

Valueing human wellbeing, that is to say wishing to avoid the worst possible misery for everyone, has GOT to be the most reasonable axiom there is. As Harris says, if you think there's something more important than avoiding the worst possible misery for everyone, I don't know what you're talking about, and I'm fairly certain you don't know what you're talking about either.

If there are people who disagree, why the hell should we care? Do we care when there are people who don't wish to be healthy, or who think obesity is an equally valid form of health? Does that make us think there can be no science of health or medicine?

>> No.3108783

>>3105483
>Yes. I believe that there is an objective morality provided we accept a specific axiom based on it.

This axiom makes the whole thing subjective though, because there's still quite a bit of leeway in the ones we pick. I agree with the rest of your post though

>> No.3108830

>>3108699
>is done only because they think that it will increase overall well-being
That's not true. There are many religious doctrines that don't value personal well-being at all, or at least not in this life.

>>3108761
>Valueing human wellbeing, that is to say wishing to avoid the worst possible misery for everyone, has GOT to be the most reasonable axiom there is.
I do agree that it's reasonable; I don't agree that we should take it as a universally applicable axiom.

>As Harris says, if you think there's something more important than avoiding the worst possible misery for everyone, I don't know what you're talking about, and I'm fairly certain you don't know what you're talking about either.
That's... hm, I don't even know *what* that is, but it's definitely not an argument.

>If there are people who disagree, why the hell should we care?
Because you are (well, Harris is) the one making an appeal to objectivity. If the argument for your moral axiom rests on "not caring" about the beliefs of those who disagree, then I don't think you have much of a reasonable right to call your perspective "objective".

>Does that make us think there can be no science of health or medicine?
You can objectively examine and evaluate the effects of certain conditions on the body even without any presupposed axioms, so I don't know why Harris is so fond of this Health/Morality comparison. It just doesn't work.

>> No.3108867

>>3108830
>That's not true. There are many religious doctrines that don't value personal well-being at all, or at least not in this life.
>There are many religious doctrines that don't value personal well-being, or at least not in this life.
>religious doctrines value personal well-being not in this life.
religious doctrines that value personal well-being in an afterlife that does not exist.
my declaration is still logically sound

>> No.3108881

>>3108867
No, it isn't. My point was that certain people do not value their personal well-being over their religious beliefs.

>> No.3108902

>>3108881
Yes, it is. my counter point was that certain people's religious belief is incorrect and therefor leads to incorrect morals

>> No.3108904

If we observe humans as a animal species which can only succeed as other animals do, the only morally justifiable way to condemn or reward someone is by judging them on their effect on society.

For example, all those people who got record bonuses on Wall Street would have been executed the moment word got out, as that was certainly not in the best interests of the human species as a whole.

>> No.3108922

>>3108902
>my counter point was that certain people's religious belief is incorrect and therefor leads to incorrect morals
And this is logically inconsistent, because *your* appeal to objective righteousness is based on nothing but a self-serving axiom; exactly like *their* appeal to objective righteousness.

>> No.3108937 [DELETED] 

>And this is logically inconsistent, because *your* appeal to objective righteousness is based on nothing but a self-serving axiom; exactly like *their* appeal to objective righteousness.
The axiom of "suffering sucks" is nothing close to the axiom of "Do the will of Allah". One is proven, the other is unproven. My argument is *still* logically sound.

>> No.3108944

>>3108922
>And this is logically inconsistent, because *your* appeal to objective righteousness is based on nothing but a self-serving axiom; exactly like *their* appeal to objective righteousness.
The axiom of "suffering sucks" is nothing close to the axiom of "Do the will of Allah". One is proven, the other is unproven. My argument is *still* logically sound.

>> No.3108977

>>3108944
>One is proven, the other is unproven.
They're both subjective assertions, especially the way you phrased them.

As I said, there are people willing to endure suffering, not because they don't consider it to "suck", but because they prioritize other things over their own well-being and the well-being of others, and there's simply no way to actually prove Harris' perspective to be more correct than theirs. It all boils down to "My Axiom > Your Axiom", and that's not what I consider anywhere near objective truth.

>> No.3108994
File: 98 KB, 999x497, 1290833146936.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3108994

Without suffering, adversity, life would not exist. Active homeostasis can only evolve in a competitive environment where some will be sold short.

Without suffering, life on Earth would be nothing but a soup of amino acids. Having reached a stable equilibrium, everyone is satisfied. Everyone is content. Everyone has what they need.

This is what happens when opportunism is not an option.

>> No.3109020

>>3108994
It needs the Angry Birds Pig at the end.

>> No.3109022

>>3108977
>They're both subjective assertions, especially the way you phrased them.
when a moral is subjectively true among all beings capable of suffering, then the moral is objectively true. it is subjectively true among all beings capable of suffering, that suffering sucks. "suffering sucks" is therefor objectively true.

>As I said, there are people willing to endure suffering, not because they don't consider it to "suck", but because they prioritize other things over their own well-being and the well-being of others, and there's simply no way to actually prove Harris' perspective to be more correct than theirs.
You can prove that suffering sucks. The experiment is done billions of times every day by humans and other sentients. You cannot prove that ignoring the suffering (despite still experiencing it) and doing the Will of Allah is equally correct because it is unprovable and false.

>It all boils down to "My Axiom > Your Axiom", and that's not what I consider anywhere near objective truth.
it all boils down to "my axiom has evidence and logic, yours doesn't".

>> No.3109100

>>3109022
>when a moral is subjectively true among all beings capable of suffering, then the moral is objectively true.
Well, it isn't. Some people think suffering builds the character, others think suffering makes one more like Jesus Christ, and then there's the whole issue of properly defining "suffering" to begin with, which you glossed over completely.

>You cannot prove that ignoring the suffering (despite still experiencing it) and doing the Will of Allah is equally correct because it is unprovable and false.
You can "prove" people's willingness to endure suffering for their religious beliefs just as easily as you can prove that people think suffering sucks. I don't actually know why you think this would be a difficult thing to do, let alone impossible. People demonstrate this kind of dedication to their faith all the time.

>it all boils down to "my axiom has evidence and logic, yours doesn't".
No, your argument (and Harris') is still just the aforementioned "My Axiom > Your Axiom".

>> No.3109126
File: 52 KB, 303x480, LeoSprinkle24.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3109126

Yes, because pain and pleasure are objectively different.

>> No.3109134
File: 10 KB, 241x313, hume.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3109134

>>3109126
And which one's objectively better?

>> No.3109139

>do you believe in
Anything that requires belief is silly.

>> No.3109154 [DELETED] 

>>3109100
>Well, it isn't. Some people think suffering builds the character, others think suffering makes one more like Jesus Christ, and then there's the whole issue of properly defining "suffering" to begin with, which you glossed over completely.
Those people still acknowledge the existence of suffering and that it is not a good sensation. They're merely justifying having the negative experience by attributing a possible positive future outcome to it. This does not negate the fact that they don't like suffering. I'm not about to get into an argument of what the definition of a word is with you.

>You can "prove" people's willingness to endure suffering for their religious beliefs just as easily as you can prove that people think suffering sucks.
Correct. However, being willing to endure suffering for a reason does not necessarily make the reason true, nor does it mean that the suffering was an unpleasant experience.
>I don't actually know why you think this would be a difficult thing to do, let alone impossible. People demonstrate this kind of dedication to their faith all the time.
I do not think that nor did I state anything that would suggest that. I clearly stated: "You cannot prove that ignoring the suffering (despite still experiencing it) and doing the Will of Allah is equally correct because it is unprovable and false."

>No, your argument (and Harris') is still just the aforementioned "My Axiom > Your Axiom".
Yes, my argument (and Harris') is still just the aforementioned "my axiom has evidence and logic, yours doesn't"

>> No.3109227

>>3109100
>Well, it isn't. Some people think suffering builds the character, others think suffering makes one more like Jesus Christ, and then there's the whole issue of properly defining "suffering" to begin with, which you glossed over completely.
Those people still acknowledge the existence of suffering and that it is not a good sensation. They're merely justifying having the negative experience by attributing a possible positive future outcome to it. This does not negate the fact that they don't like suffering. I'm not about to get into an argument of what the definition of a word is with you.

>You can "prove" people's willingness to endure suffering for their religious beliefs just as easily as you can prove that people think suffering sucks.
Correct. However, being willing to endure suffering for a reason does not necessarily make the reason true, nor does it mean that the suffering was not an unpleasant experience.
>I don't actually know why you think this would be a difficult thing to do, let alone impossible. People demonstrate this kind of dedication to their faith all the time.
I do not think that nor did I state anything that would suggest that. I clearly stated: "You cannot prove that ignoring the suffering (despite still experiencing it) and doing the Will of Allah is equally correct because it is unprovable and false."

>No, your argument (and Harris') is still just the aforementioned "My Axiom > Your Axiom".
Yes, my argument (and Harris') is still just the aforementioned "my axiom has evidence and logic, yours doesn't"

>> No.3109240

>>3109227
>Those people still acknowledge the existence of suffering and that it is not a good sensation.
This is why it would have helped if we hadn't started out with a phrasing as worthlessly ambiguous as "suffering sucks". Yes, those people do experience the painful sensation, and I wasn't trying to claim otherwise either, but this fact alone cannot be used as a validation for Harris' axiom, because those people *still* consider the suffering to be something that should be endured rather than avoided.

>I clearly stated...
Yeah, you're right. Sorry.

>Yes, my argument (and Harris') is still just the aforementioned "my axiom has evidence and logic, yours doesn't"
Look, when condensed down to its very basics, Harris' argument is that suffering is a demonstrably negative experience and, therefore, the avoidance of suffering is an objective virtue. My argument is that this logic is *not* any more valid than, say, the notion that suffering is demonstrably negative and, therefore, should be endured to strengthen one's character.

It's the same "evidence", but different conclusions, and both are equally subjective. Harris' appeal to objectivity is simply unwarranted.

>> No.3109411

>>3109240
> Yes, those people do experience the painful sensation, and I wasn't trying to claim otherwise either, but this fact alone cannot be used as a validation for Harris' axiom, because those people *still* consider the suffering to be something that should be endured rather than avoided.
They think suffering should be endured for reasons which are either (1) false (2) no reasoning or (3) to increase the likelihood of reducing future suffering. most people who think like that are in category 3. Being that category 3 is the only logically supported conclusion, the axiom "suffering is a bad thing and should be eliminated" is again vindicated.

>Look, when condensed down to its very basics, Harris' argument is that suffering is a demonstrably negative experience and, therefore, the avoidance of suffering is an objective virtue.
Correct. suffering is a negative state programmed into us by evolution, and it is further objectively true that this suffering has no purpose other than to increase our ability to consume and reproduce in the circumstances in which it evolved. being that there is no objective purpose for evolution, there is no objective reason for the effects of evolution to exist. we are therefor suffering for no objective reason. the only thing in the universe that is capable of experiencing "good" and "bad" - all sentient beings - subjectively dislike suffering, therefor "suffering is bad" is objectively true. suffering should therefor be eliminated, though plenty more suffering must be endured in particular ways before this can occur (e.g. suffering over this argument about suffering).

>It's the same "evidence", but different conclusions, and both are equally subjective. Harris' appeal to objectivity is simply unwarranted.
not all conclusions are equally subjective. I have presented several objectively true chains of logic that lead to the same conclusion that Harris has.

>> No.3109456

Objective morality cannot exist. And even if it could exist, how would we tell if something was or was not objectively moral?

Why? Because the only things we know of that have preferred outcomes, ie, who have an idea of what is good and what is bad, are human beings. Subjective by our very nature.

Bad things happen as a result of the interaction of the dispassionate, impersonal laws of nature and human needs and wants; or because of the incompatibility of one humans needs and wants, and another humans needs and wants. How can this be made into any kind of objective set of rules? What we need is a better understanding of and ability to exploit the laws of nature, to reduce the former, and a better set of dispute resolution systems, to reduce the latter. These are things we get better at all the time, and, while we'll never get it perfect, we have always made it better.

As a question for objectivefags, give me an unambiguous example of something that is objectively moral?

>> No.3109606

>>3109411
>They think suffering should be endured for reasons which are either (1) false (2) no reasoning or (3) to increase the likelihood of reducing future suffering.
Harris' reasoning is an appeal to a self-serving axiom and an attempt to turn an "Is" (-suffering is a negative sensation-) into an "Ought" (-therefore, the avoidance of suffering is an objective virtue-). This would be all fine and dandy, if it were the line of reasoning he followed to justify only his own, personal sense of morality, but declaring it an objective truth is just not backed up by anything more substantial than the lines of reasoning of those who disagree. Harris' "Everyone should avoid suffering, because suffering sucks" is just as substantiated as some random Peta member's "Everyone should suffer a lot, because we've been mean to Mother Nature", or anything else along those lines. You can't say that the latter falls in either of your three categories; it's just a different axiom.

>we are therefor suffering for no objective reason. the only thing in the universe that is capable of experiencing "good" and "bad" - all sentient beings - subjectively dislike suffering, therefor "suffering is bad" is objectively true. suffering should therefor be eliminated, though plenty more suffering must be endured in particular ways before this can occur
I think the above paragraph already serves as a proper response to this, but it actually reminds me of another issue I personally have with Harris' approach, namely this oversimplification of a person's well-being as something that can be easily and precisely quantified, and then weighed against another person's well-being in a clean, utilitarian equation. I think most moral conflicts are a bit more complex than that.

FIELD TOO LONG

>> No.3109611

>>3109606
>not all conclusions are equally subjective.
I didn't mean to imply this. I was just saying that Harris' conclusions in particular are as subjective as those of the moral relativists, or, as Harris likes to call them, the "savages".