/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 15 KB, 386x500, Sam_Harris.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 14:37:09 2011 No.3892089 [Reply] [Original]

Some people say morality can't be studied by science because morality varies depending on the situation. So, they say, there's no objective, universal thing for morality to be about. And there's no way there can be a science of morality.

But saying there can't be a science of morality is kind of like saying there can't be a science of weather. Watch.

Weather is not objective. Weather is relative. There's no one OBJECTIVE weather happening in all places at once. Weather depends on the time and place, it depends on atmosphere, on the temperature, the altitude and on the water cycles.

If you go to 5 different countries, you will get 5 different views of weather. Sometimes the exact same location will have a changing weather over time. There is no one "objective" weather active at all places that science can study.

Did I just prove there's no scientific basis to weather? I hope not.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 14:39:09 2011 No.3892097 how long did it take you to devise something that stupid? Seriously, I am in awe of how many times you made me cringe.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 14:39:09 2011 No.3892099 >proving things with words

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 14:45:09 2011 No.3892121 >>3892097 well... say something. vaguely gesturing toward unspecified mistakes doesn't help me correct those mistakes.

>>	mtp !EKFQOBEsKo Wed Oct 12 14:45:09 2011 No.3892122 not sure if troll...

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 14:46:09 2011 No.3892125 3 replies, 0 substantive comments

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 14:49:09 2011 No.3892137 Back to /b/ with you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 14:51:09 2011 No.3892146 >>3892137 4 replies, 0 substantive comments.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 14:54:09 2011 No.3892151 >>3892125 >substantive The weather is objective BECAUSE it varies from place to place, morality is objective because it varies from person to person. Locations can be scientifically analysed, people can't.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 14:54:09 2011 No.3892153 there can be science of morality. science can inform morality. it can't make broad claims of absolute right and wrong, but no one and nothing can. your weather analogy is silly because weather is objective.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 14:55:09 2011 No.3892162

morality can be studied scientifically, and is studied scientifically. there is an evolutionary basis behind morality, in that it causes greater cooperation and group cohesion etc that gives a comparative advantage over less cooperative amoral groups. there is plenty of scope for study of morality from a biological perspective, it's not all anthopological.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 15:02:09 2011 No.3892194

>>3892151
>The weather is objective BECAUSE it varies from place to place,

??? It's objective because of fundamental physical laws that account for the variability of weather in any and all places.

>morality is objective because it varies from person to person. Locations can be scientifically analysed, people can't.

People can't?!? Make sure you tell the entire profession of psychology. Make sure you tell all the neuroscientists who do brain scans for the neurological correlates to pleasure and experiences of beauty. Make sure you tell Robert Zatorre and Anne Blood who did fMRIs on people to find out what objectivity is happening in human brains when they enjoy music.

And for a second I thought people would be making smart replies...

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 15:05:09 2011 No.3892206

>>3892153
>there can be science of morality. science can inform morality. it can't make broad claims of absolute right and wrong, but no one and nothing can.

That's just you contradicting me. It's not any sort of reason. On my side, the pains and pleasures people experience certainly seem to be the stuff of moral language (am I wrong?), and they certainly seem to be physiological phenomena. They happen in brains, and to bodies.

>your weather analogy is silly because weather is objective.

Again, if you're saying the difference is that morality is not in fact, objective, well, you need to do more than just assert it.

mtp !EKFQOBEsKo Wed Oct 12 15:07:09 2011 No.3892215

>>3892194
you want a smart reply, yet you dont understand what the word "objective" means.

weather is what it is. if its raining, everyone near you will agree that it is raining. when its sunny everyone near you will agree that its sunny. because its fact.

morality is subjective. when you say capital punishment is good, not everyone near you will agree. when you say walking round naked is good, not everyone near you will agree. because its opinion.

now, please, get the fuck out.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 15:08:09 2011 No.3892220 >ITT: Asspies going "hurrr, no morality, durr, world bad derp, those who bullied me in high school prove me right"

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 15:12:09 2011 No.3892233

>>3892215

>weather is what it is. if its raining, everyone near you will agree that it is raining. when its sunny everyone near you will agree that its sunny. because its fact.

I agree with that. That was the point of my analogy.

>morality is subjective. when you say capital punishment is good, not everyone near you will agree.

That's because the moral implications of capital punishment aren't immediate to human experience, which rain is. Which makes it a poor example. The painfulness of pain and the pleasure of sex is immediate to human experience and people can generally agree on such things.

For weather, an apples comparison to death penalty would be to specify a complex weather system with numerous inputs and outputs and ask a person to guess what kind of weather it would be. It would still be objective, but I would guess it would be harder for people to conclude what the answer is off the top of their head.

>when you say walking round naked is good, not everyone near you will agree. because its opinion.

Agreement doesn't automatically mean opinion. If it did, then agreement that it was raining would be "just" opinion and not objective.

>>	mtp !EKFQOBEsKo Wed Oct 12 15:14:09 2011 No.3892241 File: 60 KB, 540x634, 1305792516606.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3892233 im out of this thread.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 15:19:09 2011 No.3892260

>>3892233
Dude, you make no sense whatsoever. And fuck me, I actually agree that morality can be made secular and scientific. Look up "universally preferable behavior- a rational proof of secular ethics". I'm not telling this to mtp, as he's a complete and utter tool.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 15:28:09 2011 No.3892287

>>3892260

What didn't make sense? Some human experiences are obvious and agreed to by many people- such as the painfulness of pain.

People don't immediately agree to the rightness or wrongness of capital punishment, not because there's no truth but because the utlimate consequences of capital punishment are hard to figure.

So the obviousness of fire hurting was my apples-to-apples comparison to the obviousness of it raining in a particular place.

The non-obviousness of a complicated weather system is my apples to apples comparison to capital punishment because both are hard to figure out.

The reason I put these two apples-to-apples comparisons forward is to show that we can't distinguish the objective from the non-objective by saying one is easier to agree to than the other. Because you can construct easy and difficult cases for both weather and pains.

It's clear enough to me, but I can't even tell what you mean without some minimal attempt at interaction with the points on the table. And I agree mt is a fucking tool.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 15:30:09 2011 No.3892295 >>3892241 >someone disagrees with you >obviously that must mean they're retarded, and not because my opinions aren't universally accepted

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 15:31:09 2011 No.3892298 >>3892260 Yes, UPB is shit. A good article about it here. http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/2008/04/universally-preferable-behavior-and.html I prefer Sam Hariss's Moral Landscape.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 15:33:09 2011 No.3892310

>>3892206
>That's just you contradicting me.

how did i contradict you? you believe in a science of morality. as do i. you're mental.

>you need to do more than just assert it.

its necessarily subjective. unless you have inexorable moral truth for us, please do tell.

>>	Marion Bartoli is my Waifu Wed Oct 12 15:37:09 2011 No.3892323 Everyone agrees on pain? Really? This thread is bad and you should feel bad.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 15:39:09 2011 No.3892329 Morals are opinions. Of course you could study how these form in people, how they differ between people of different ages, places, cultures and any other variable.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 15:39:09 2011 No.3892330

>>3892310
>how did i contradict you? you believe in a science of morality. as do i. you're mental.

You say this:

> it can't make broad claims of absolute right and wrong, but no one and nothing can.

That disagrees with me.

>its necessarily subjective. unless you have inexorable moral truth for us, please do tell

And this does as well. So you, hilariously, ask how you are contradicting me, and then proceed to contradict me.

The stuff of human pains and pleasures happen at a physiological level. It's not just their mere happening that can be investigated by science, their intensity too. So sure, I don't see why we can't use science to prescribe certain moral choices over others.

You think no difference would show up in a brain scan between a pin prick and a severed leg? Obviously one causes more suffering than the other, that's reflected in objective brain activity.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 15:41:09 2011 No.3892338 >>3892323 Forests for the trees. There are pretty clear cut cases of agreement on pain that establish the principle. You think people disagree as to the painfulness of being burnt by fire? The denial of that is more ridiculous than the affirmation.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 15:44:09 2011 No.3892352 The analogy between morality and health is better. Though we are still left with preferring healthiness, or morality, a priori. But there is no possible moral system that does not require you to take something a priori.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 15:46:09 2011 No.3892357

>>3892330

My mistake. Of course science can make claims, everyone can make claims. But the claims are not more justifiable simply by the fact that science advocates it.

>I don't see why we can't use science to prescribe certain moral choices over others.

Because there are things some people like that other people don't like. How do you decide which is morally justifiable?

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 15:46:09 2011 No.3892358

>>3892352
>The analogy between morality and health is better.

The point of my analogy was to show that arguments from variability or context-dependence don't disprove objectivity. I don't see how an analogy to health proves the point better than an analogy to weather.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 15:49:09 2011 No.3892372

>comparing morals which are based on individual beliefs to weather which is based on physical laws

come on dude. sure if you believe that a psychoanalytic theory of the emotions and morality is correct, they you would have to find a way to account for differing opinions on morality. This gets in to dangerous territory because it implies that morals and emotions are innate, rather than spawned from experiences, beliefs, etc... I don't believe this but others might. I don't claim to have any answers, but I just don't think morality isn't a field that hard science can fully understand...... yet

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 15:51:09 2011 No.3892384

>>3892357
>Because there are things some people like that other people don't like.

Again, which is relfected in facts about their biology. Some people get chills from techno music. Others from classical. But the phenomenon of getting chills remains the same and you know when it happens based on fMRI. The high-level disagreement doesn't change the fundamentally common biology shared by all humans.

I think the neuroscientist Semir Zeki said it very well:

>Art of course, belongs in the subjective world. Yet subjective differences in the creation and appreciation of art must be superimposed on a common neural organization that allows us to communicate about art and through art without the use of the spoken or written word. In his great requiem in marble at St. Peter's in Rome, Michelangelo invested the lifeless body of Christ with infinite feeling - of pathos, tenderness, and resignation. the feelings aroused by his Pietã are no doubt experienced in different ways, and in varying intensity, by different brains. But the inestimable value of variable subjective experiences should not distract from the fact that, in executing his work, Michelangelo instinctively understood the common visual and emotional organization and workings of the brain. That understanding allowed him to exploit our common visual organization and arouse shared experiences beyond he reach of words.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 15:52:09 2011 No.3892387

OP is wrong.

Weather deals with situations. The terms "good" and "bad" don't come anywhere near weather, and it is whith those "good" or "bad" terms that trouble starts knocking on your door. Those are the things that are really relative.

Much of mathematics is subjective, too.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 15:55:09 2011 No.3892400 >>3892387 Oh and one other thing I forgot to mention. OP's understanding of subjective and objective is a mile off. Subjective = the system is there because of Man and Man alone. Objective = the system is there regardless of Man's existence.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 15:55:09 2011 No.3892406

>>3892372
>just asserts that they are different, effectively begging the question, missing the point of the analogy.

sigh...

> sure if you believe that a psychoanalytic theory of the emotions and morality is correct, they you would have to find a way to account for differing opinions on morality.

Uh... excuse me? Did I deny that any where? My point was variable, context-dependent phenomena can still be described by fundamental objective rules that account for variability.

>This gets in to dangerous territory because it implies that morals and emotions are innate, rather than spawned from experiences, beliefs, etc...

I don't even understand this. You don't think objective facts about how brains respond to experiences or behave in light of beliefs, that can in principle be described by science? I don't see any reason anyone would have to believe they are "innate" in whatever sense to believe they are objective. Objectivity can accommodate a vast amount of neuroplasticity.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 15:56:09 2011 No.3892408

>>3892384
I'm always reminded by an example i read from John Gray - great philosopher for this kind of thing by the way!

Can't remember it exactly but loosely it's a story of a guy in a concentration camp, raped by a nazi officer. afterwards the nazi took his hat knowing that any jew wandering around the camp without a hat would be shot on sight. Not wanting to be the jewish guy took another camp victim's hat to avoid being shot. on one hand. i person avoids getting shot and on the other one person most likely got. What the was the course of action? How could science possibly solve?

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 15:58:09 2011 No.3892416

>>3892358

They may not be any way to disprove objective morals. But there is certainly no way to know what that morality actually is. We are left with practical subjective morality, which is subject to argument, review and progression. Which is what we would see with a morality that was merely the best way we know, from conscience and reason, to live as and in a social species.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 15:59:09 2011 No.3892420 File: 15 KB, 294x240, oreillycantexplain1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Moral landscape. Vegans.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 16:00:09 2011 No.3892425

>>3892387

It's like you didn't even make the minimal attempt to interact with anything I said. WTF is in the water here in /sci/? Only one or two people have offered responses even slightly related to anything I said.

The point of the analogy is people sometimes argue against the objectivity of morality by showing morality is context-dependent and variable.

I showed that argument to be silly because you could argue the same thing about weather. Yet obviously weather is objective, despite changing from place to place and context to context. The analogy was NOT to prove morality was objective. It was to show a particular and common argument against moral objectivity fails, because objectivity can accommodate variability quite well.

>>3892400

According to that logic, human femurs are "subjective" because they wouldn't exist if humans didn't exist.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 16:03:09 2011 No.3892436 >>3892425 I'm glad you're so confident in science's monopoly on correct moral decision. This has been troubling me all day but you can solve it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem Go science!!

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 16:05:09 2011 No.3892448

>>3892416
>But there is certainly no way to know what that morality actually is.

Well, there is no way to know the "objective" meaning of a mouth-sound that happens to be spelled m-o-r-a-l-i-t-y. But that doesn't mean there's no possible way to know what people mean when they actually use moral should and ought language in everyday circumstances, or that there is no cross-cultural agreement.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 16:07:09 2011 No.3892457 >>3892436 I don't know what the temperature is going to be like in San Fransisco on January 16th, 2594. Go ahead, tell me what it is. If you can't, this PROVES irrefutably that there's no science of temperature. Am I doing it right?

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 16:08:09 2011 No.3892461

>>3892436

I wonder how any morality not based in reason would handle that problem.

It's not that you should use science, necessarily, but when it comes to problems like this we have to apply our moral intuitions AND consider the rational consequences. It's the only game in town. Saying otherwise is only saying that an earlier solution to this problem, more than likely with the actual arguments lost to history, is now right forever.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 16:10:09 2011 No.3892470

>>3892436

also, all I did in the post you are replying to was clarify what my analogy was intended to do, and criticize your definition of subjectivity. How that signals confidence in the "scientific monopoly" on moral understanding I don't know.

It's like your replies only ever relate to 3% of what I'm actually saying.

>>	Marion Bartoli is my Waifu Wed Oct 12 16:11:09 2011 No.3892472 >>3892338 Whether they agree on what causes pain or not is kind of irrelevant. At least, I don't see what it has to do with anything.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 16:12:09 2011 No.3892475

>>3892457

The difference is that we cannot predict the weather over such long periods or with such accuracy because the system in so complex not because it is inherently unprovable.

Morals however will always depend on the opinion of the individual. It will differ in different systems, of course one can study these different system, laying a few moral ground rules and logically derive other morals from them.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 16:12:09 2011 No.3892477

>>3892457
You can't even compare the two. For one we know precisely how to measure that temperature. the problem is time scale.

With moral issues, the problem isn't solely time scale, but how to measure it.

>>3892461

The point is that there are hundreds of possible ways to rationalise these these kind of decisions. read through all the examples and variations given in that wiki entry. Decisions change dramatically with slight additions.

this is not an affront to science. science can and will undoubtedly inform our decisions but it does not have final absolute authority on what is the correct course of action

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 16:13:09 2011 No.3892479

>>3892448

If you mean objective in a very weak sense, as in, there are some things that are just better for people than not, that's fine. As side-effects of our basic situation, as a biological, social species, there are some rules that just work, and will likely never change. But these rules will be simple to show with reason, and indeed, they are. We know why we shouldn't kill, injure, steal or lie, and it's based on protecting ourselves and our kin from being killed, injured, robbed or betrayed, and it's an innate intuition to boot.

But any kind of morality that could exist outside the conceptual imaginings of humans is going too far.

Maybe maths is a better analogy. Do we discover maths or invent it? Some of it we clearly invent. But some of it seems to be discovered.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 16:14:09 2011 No.3892483 >>3892472 Then what was the point of disputing whether people agree which pains are which, as you were doing a few comments ago?

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 16:14:09 2011 No.3892486

>>3892425
I see what you mean now. I apologise for not understanding you correctly. I nontheless want to explain to you the real meanings of objectivity.

>Weather is not objective. Weather is relative.
These two can be in correlation with each other. What would be correct to say, if we only look at the definitions and not at the truth behind your claim, it would be "weather is not objective. It is subjective." Look at the definition of objective I provided in my previous post, or refer to Wikipedia.

You are simply misunderstanding the meanings behind objective and subjective (which is just fine), which I will explain below.

Your second argument to my second post.
No, because the "objective" and "subjective" parts only refer to human mind constructs. This doesn't mean hammers are subjective because humans made them. They would continue to exist even if we disappeared, never to return - because they aren't human mind constructs. They exist.

Capitalism, human rights, cruelty, goodness - these are all subjective things, because they are thought of and defined by man.

You're right on your point, though - just because there are alterations in morality doesn't mean it's not objective. There are an infinite alterations in physics and chemistry, but yet they are based on observations and are therefore objective.

>>	Marion Bartoli is my Waifu Wed Oct 12 16:19:09 2011 No.3892501 >>3892483 It was more like > people agree on pain > morality is objective non sequitur not > people don't agree on pain

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 16:19:09 2011 No.3892502

>>3892477
>You can't even compare the two. For one we know precisely how to measure that temperature. the problem is time scale.

I'll give a different one. How many breathes of air were taken by everyone in the state of Ohio last tuesday? If you can't answer, thats PROOF that no one in Ohio breathes.

Oh wait? It's not? Sometimes questions are hard to answer. That doesn't mean there's no answer.

>With moral issues, the problem isn't solely time scale, but how to measure it.

You don't think we can identify neural correlates to experiences of beauty, of pain, of pleasure, of satisfaction? You think we can't measure the intensity of such things even in principle? I know, I know. You'll probably say "Yes we can measure them, but we can't tell if they are MORAL."

That's fair enough, we can get to that claim when we get to it, but there was no point in saying we can't measure what's happening physiologically when people enjoy things or are hurt by things when we clearly can. It's hard to trace out the effects to complicated issues, but that's irrelevant. Just like it is with finding San Fransisco's time 200 years in the future and determining how many breaths were taken by Ohioans.

Calculational impasse doesn't disprove objectivity.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 16:21:09 2011 No.3892506 >>3892501 >not >> people don't agree on pain Except this is what you said: >>3892323 >Everyone agrees on pain? Really? I'm glad you came around on this point, but I'm not glad you've had to contradict yourself to do it.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 16:25:09 2011 No.3892528

>>3892479
>If you mean objective in a very weak sense, as in, there are some things that are just better for people than not, that's fine. As side-effects of our basic situation, as a biological, social species, there are some rules that just work, and will likely never change. But these rules will be simple to show with reason, and indeed, they are. We know why we shouldn't kill, injure, steal or lie, and it's based on protecting ourselves and our kin from being killed, injured, robbed or betrayed, and it's an innate intuition to boot.

I agree with pretty much all of that, but I'm not sure in what sense that's "weak" objectivity. There is an objective fact of the matter about what your heart rate is, and what the normal range of all heart rates are across humanity. Are those "weakly" objective? I think they are just objective full-stop. Just like biological facts about pleasures and pains.

>But any kind of morality that could exist outside the conceptual imaginings of humans is going too far.

Not sure what this means. The fact that morality, as a free-standing thing, would apply to humans is true regardless of whether there are humans. It's a truth that kind of exists out there in conceptual space. Any time something comes along that happens to have a human form, this morality will apply to it.

>Maybe maths is a better analogy. Do we discover maths or invent it? Some of it we clearly invent. But some of it seems to be discovered.

I think we probably agree on most of this stuff. That being the case, maybe you could help me and reply to the many commenters who, on my reading, are just clearly making misinterpretations of me.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 16:27:09 2011 No.3892534

>>3892502
That analogy is exactly has the same faults as the first. Theoretically we know exactly how to measure breaths and we know it will always come out at a number, we can even estimate the number probably with some complex math accounting for population size and breaths per minute for the average person among other information.

Morality cannot be measured like this. Sure we can identify things that correlate with and affect moral decisions. Science is great for that. but take the nazi example of I tried to give earlier. Forget the rape part, I can't really remember it that well and it's not relevant any how.

A nazi officer takes a prisoners hat knowing all prisoners without a hat will be shot on sight.. Not wanting to die, the prisoner takes the hat of a fellow prisoner while they sleep. that other prisoner gets shot.

Now please, how do we use science to decide what was morally justifiable in that course of events? If you find out how it will be fucking miracle. But it sincerely doubt it.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 16:28:09 2011 No.3892541

>>3892486
>No, because the "objective" and "subjective" parts only refer to human mind constructs. This doesn't mean hammers are subjective because humans made them. They would continue to exist even if we disappeared, never to return - because they aren't human mind constructs. They exist.

You are so close! Human pains and pleasures exist at the physiological level in the same way femurs exist at a physiological level. Whether you feel pain in response to fire or pleasure in response to sex is literally not up to you. It's an objective fact embedded in your biology. Not a construct.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 16:29:09 2011 No.3892542 >Apply scientific methods to study morality, how it works and how it is formed It isn't hard. Just because they're opinions doesn't mean we can't find reasons behind them and make sense out of them.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 16:29:09 2011 No.3892549

Listen OP, I have a feeling there's some kind of misconception going on here.

You think that morality should be made a science? At least that's what I get from your post.

Mathematics, at least arithmetics, is subjective. We assume some basis, called axioms, from everything in math is based on. One of those is, for example, a+(b+c) = (a+b)+c.

Morality would be subjective if we tried to make it a science. I hope you realize that.
As it is subjective, we won't be handed laws that morality would automatically follow like that of chemistry and physics. We'd have to assume them ourselves, like in math, and base everything else from that.

Now arises the problematic question: What axioms should we choose, and why are they the most desirable?

Should we choose the axiom "all human life is equal"? If I asked you the question, Is it okay to kill one man to save ten, would you be able to answer it? You could and you could not, depending on whether you would understand what you're assuming to the fullest.
You're assuming, note: assuming, that: 1) 1 life is equal to 10, or 1000, or a million lives, or 2) lives can be measured such that 1 life is worthier than another, or 1 life is always less worth than 2

The problem is this: You won't be able to prove either way. You won't be able to prove that either 1) or 2) is correct, simply because the man next to you can say "I disagree". You could say that a poor person has less worth than a rich one, and the man next to you could say "I believe it's to the contrary".

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 16:30:09 2011 No.3892554 >>3892542 Okay what's the solution to the trolley problem, or this: >>3892534

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 16:38:09 2011 No.3892574

>>3892541
Pain and pleasure are grey areas which have not been investigated enough to say whether they are human mind constructs, or if they are objective. I don't know how this changes anything I said, however, and why I am "so close" but not "correct".

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 16:40:09 2011 No.3892579

>>3892534
You're pretty much doing what I expected you would. You're conceding the things I'm talking about can be measured by denying they are moral. But you simply aren't putting any sort of argument forward that morality is in fact different. You're just asserting it. That's question begging.

You can present a hypothetical that already embeds your assumption "science can't measure this," but all you've done is beg the question. My point is human pleasures and pains make sense of human uses of moral language. And since pleasures and pains exist objectively, so does morality.

As for your example, you can see the immorality by looking along the causal chain for decisions likely to give rise to harm. In this case, the Nazi officer stealing the hat, and the nazi decision to shoot anyone without hats gave rise to an unfortunate situation. We know wanting to stay alive, and stealing someone else's hat, isn't the same as outright intending someone is murdered. It's a difficult situation, but we don't throw up our hands and say "there's no morality" simply because it's difficult. That's not an answer. That's an act of intellectual desperation.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 16:41:09 2011 No.3892581 >>3892554 Science doesn't make opinions, it tells facts. It isn't morality, though it might tell us how and why they work. You need to add certain moral compass to those situations to make science in any way helpful.

>>	Marion Bartoli is my Waifu Wed Oct 12 16:43:09 2011 No.3892588 >>3892506 > people agree on pain? that's really your support for objective morality? Stay out of the big league, kiddo. You're not ready.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 16:45:09 2011 No.3892592

>>3892574
>Pain and pleasure are grey areas which have not been investigated enough to say whether they are human mind constructs, or if they are objective.

Absolutely, completely 100% false. That's just an anti-scientific statement. We know the physiological mechanisms for pain.

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

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

Some people say the most common anti-scientific belief is creationism, or belief that vaccines don't work. But I think, the most common anti-scientific beliefs come from people like you who claim science doesn't have knowledge of subjective experiences such as pain and pleasure, when it clearly does.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 16:46:09 2011 No.3892596

>>3892579
>we don't throw up our hands and say "there's no morality" simply because it's difficult.

I didn't say anyone is doing that and I and certainly not saying that.

science can say nothing about whether or not it's right for the prisoner to steal the hat. At least it can't say anything that is automatically superior to any other opinion on the issue.

Simply appreciating this fact is not in any way the same as saying morality doesn't exist or science shouldn't have anything to say on moral issues.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 16:48:09 2011 No.3892599

>>3892588

says person at the kids table who still can't acknowledge that their blatant self-contradiction

And no, that's not, in fact, my argument for the objectivity of morality. It's my argument for the objectivity of PAIN. Which you initially denied. Perhaps before assuring people they can't reach the "big leagues" you should take care not to contradict yourself, and also not to misread the arguments of people you purport to respond to.

>>	Marion Bartoli is my Waifu Wed Oct 12 16:50:09 2011 No.3892607 >>3892599 > contradiction I explained the remark for you. Deal with it. > it wasn't about morality >>3892206 > on my side I have pleasure and pain derp

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 16:55:09 2011 No.3892622

>Morality would be subjective if we tried to make it a science. I hope you realize that.

I hope some day you stand in front of a creationist who condescendingly tells you they "hope you realize" creationism is true. It would be karmic justice. I hope you realize that it would be karmic justice.

>The problem is this: You won't be able to prove either way. You won't be able to prove that either 1) or 2) is correct, simply because the man next to you can say "I disagree".

Interestingly, you could make the same argument about creationism vs. evolution. People disagree about whether humans evolved. But disagreement is irrelevant to the truth.

Perhaps you will say "but you can, in fact, prove evolution is true." But I can also say "you can, in fact, prove, morality is objective." Then you will tell me "no you can't." And then we're back where we started.

So there's not really any argument here. There's just you expressing your belief morality is such that no one can prove any perspective right. That's great for what it is, but it amounts to "I disagree!"

I however, think I am right because of this: >>3892448

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:03:09 2011 No.3892651

>>3892607

still missing the point. still at the kids table. carry on...

>>3892596

>science can say nothing about whether or not it's right for the prisoner to steal the hat. At least it can't say anything that is automatically superior to any other opinion on the issue.

That's a claim, not an argument. As for your nazi analogy, you are giving a hypothetical, and then turning it over to me, and saying "what do we do!?!? science can't tell us." But the inability to figure out a difficult scientific question is not proof that there's NO way to answer the scientific question. We've been over this and we both appear to agree to this.

So not knowing how to answer the Nazi question isn't any more revealing of anything than not knowing how to answer "how many breathes did they take in Ohio last tuesday."

And this is the part where you say "but they are different, because you can't measure moral issues the same way you can measure how many breathes of air were taken." And then I point out, that's merely an assertion of your position, not an argument in favor of your position.

Then you bring up the Nazi analogy, which doesn't reveal anything more than that it's a difficult moral issue. I agree, it's a difficult moral issue. But sometimes stuff is difficult to figure out. That doesn't attack the issue of whether morality is objective.

As I see it your your nazi analogy is only helpful insofar as you already agree with the assumption

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:08:09 2011 No.3892666

I submit Christian Smith's proposal as to why the typical sociobiological and evolutionary psychology are insufficient:

>...sociobiological and evolutionary psychology accounts are beset with a number of insignificant--and in my view, fatal--problems...First, such explanations invariably reduce the rich and complex character of human morality to the single dimension of "altruism"...something like "any act that increases the reproductive potential of another organism relative to the actor's own potential." This flattens and distorts the multidimensional reality of morality...leaving as a remainder and emaciated concept. Indeed, by sociobiologists' own admission, this definition would allow that having a genetic predisposition to have bad teeth would be altruistic, since that would cause that organism to eat less food, leaving more food for others to consume. This points out the problem, among many others, that the logic of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology lacks an adequate appreciation for conscious human intentions in moral action.

>But even if we grant its shriveled image of morality, the sociobiological and evolutionary psychology account has difficulty explaining the many empirical cases of altruism to non-kin. If sacrificing oneself for the welfare of others consistently increased one's own reproductive fitness, then sociobiology's account would work. But self-sacrifice normally decreases one's reproductive fitness, lessening...the chances of survival."

I'm gonna stop here, I didn't realize how long this passage was.

tl;dr Morality can be studied scientifically, but morality is multidimensional and a scientific approach alone is insufficient in its understanding

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:09:09 2011 No.3892669

>>3892448

ok, I realize that I referred someone to this, but its insufficient to make my point. I think there is cross-cultural agreement on what human well being, broadly construed, is. And, as I said elsewhere..

>My point is human pleasures and pains make sense of human uses of moral language. And since pleasures and pains exist objectively, so does morality.

A simple example: someone has a giant rock fall on their foot. You help them lift it because you know the rock on their foot causes pain. Pain is an objective, biological thing and a person not wanting to be in pain is an objective fact about their brain state.

We can get into "why would you choose to help a person" if necessary...

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:10:09 2011 No.3892670 >>3892666 *typical sociobiological and evolutionary psychology arguments are insufficient

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:13:09 2011 No.3892680

>>3892666

>First, such explanations invariably reduce the rich and complex character of human morality to the single dimension of "altruism"

I don't agree that I'm doing that. Do you think I am?

>a scientific approach alone is insufficient in its understanding

That's just a failure of imagination that leads you to sell the science short. It doesn't have to collapse moral categories down to emaciated, flattened oversimplifications. If anything I think a science of mind, and the explosive complication of our neural organziation broadens and complicates our standard moral conceptions.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:15:09 2011 No.3892688 >>3892666 >>3892596 >>3892534 I may check back in, but I'm probably done. I think whoever these people are gave thoughtful replies, and I appreciate that. a lot better than some of the stupid, dismissive stuff in this thread.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:19:09 2011 No.3892698

>>3892680

>I don't agree that I'm doing that. Do you think I am?

Not at all, I simply wanted to present his stance on the issue. It wasn't targeted toward any argument ITT in particular.

>That's just a failure of imagination that leads you to sell the science short

It's not that the science is being sold short; I actually think neurobiology and evolutionary psychology are incredibly important in our understanding of morality. Yet morality is intrinsically anti-reductionist, and in order to acquire a more complete understanding of morality and what constitutes moral behavior, we have to consider the biological, neurological, and sociological (which I believe is equally important to the previous two) perspectives.

Marion Bartoli is my Waifu Wed Oct 12 17:23:09 2011 No.3892709

>>3892651
I believe you are the only one here with a problem. It's not obvious what that problem is, because your strawman OP is silly and insisting that pain is objective is pointlessly weird and not obviously topical at all.

Suggesting, furthermore, that morality is amendable to scientific investigation because it is objective is lacking in some critical details, such as whether math is objective, and if so, whether it is amendable to scientific investigation, and if not, why is that ok when morality must be?

Scientific morality additionally has the problem that it must describe the bridge over the is/ought gap. Morality is not a description of affairs, it is a normative theory. How do we get from observations to commandments empirically?

I'm sure your answers will be illuminating.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:24:38 2011 No.3892712 [DELETED]

>>3892651
Science can't make a final decision that is inherently more justifiable than any other rationalisation because science studies the objective. These issues are subjective. Each human being humans to live and valuing one life over another cannot be done by science because it is a subjective estimation, not concerned with objective facts.

You confusion is rooted in that fact that throughout this article you have routinely mixed up the words objective and absolute.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:26:09 2011 No.3892719

>>3892651
Science can't make a final decision that is inherently more justifiable than any other rationalisation because science studies the objective. These issues are subjective. Each human being has the right to live and valuing one life over another cannot be done by science because it is a subjective estimation, not concerned with objective facts.

Your confusion is rooted in that fact that throughout this article you have routinely mixed up the words objective and absolute.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:27:09 2011 No.3892722

>>3892669
http://books.google.com/books?id=7-nLWKcUfTEC&lpg=PA238&ots=5PTCdGSSUB&pg=PA198#v=onepag
e&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=7-nLWKcUfTEC&lpg=PA238&ots=5PTCdGSSUB&pg=PA227#v=onepag
ef=false

http://bham.academia.edu/StuartDerbyshire/Papers/9488/Can_fetuses_feel_pain

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:27:09 2011 No.3892723

>>3892698
>Yet morality is intrinsically anti-reductionist

That's just a claim. People think they can simply say this, and then proceed as if it carries force of revelation or somehow drives the argument forward. But it's just running in place. It amounts to "I disagree!"

I think postulating that there is moral stuff over and above physical stuff is exactly what Ockham's razor agitates against. And I think we can, happily, talk about moral stuff without leaving the natural world. I believe that because facts about brain states and human physiology seem sufficient to me to account for moral behavior.

An argument against that cannot just claim "but morality is distinct from science..." It should show specifically how science-based morality is not up to the task of accounting for moral behavior. Preferably with specific examples.

Also, I think postulating a moral world, distinct from the natural world, yet somehow capable of interacting with the natural world, materializing and dissolving, coming and going based on changes to the natural world fails for the same reason dualist and spiritualist theories fail. They can never give an adequate explanation of how such interaction is possible.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:28:09 2011 No.3892725 >>3892592 That's great, but I still don't see how this refutes my statement in any way. I think you misunderstood me.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:30:09 2011 No.3892732

>>3892719
>Science can't make a final decision that is inherently more justifiable than any other rationalisation because science studies the objective. These issues are subjective.

Again, that's an assertion, not an argument. Just more running in place. See >>3892723

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:31:09 2011 No.3892733 >>3892622 Are you kidding me? I'm not going to argue with you if you think morality is in any way objective. Please come forth with arguments on why morality is objective. >And then we're back where we started. Yes, that's precisely my argument.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:32:09 2011 No.3892736

OP, I recommend you read Christian Smith's "Moral, Believing Animals." Most people's shortcomings in their understanding of morality stem from their attempts to reduce it to a universality. Smith provides a very erudite and well-constructed argument for the sociological understanding of morality, which I find to be more helpful and comprehensive than the other ideas being thrown around in this thread.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:34:09 2011 No.3892739

>>3892723
>accounting for moral behavior

I see your sly wording now and this is how you've perpetuated this argument

Science can easily account for moral behaviour. Once a moral decision is made, science can analyse it, no doubt. It cannot reach a conclusion that is intrinsically more justifiable than one made by someone who disagrees with the scientific view.

its the difference between objective and subjective. And objective =! absolute

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:34:09 2011 No.3892740 >>3892722 could you elaborate? how can fetuses ability or inability to feel pain weigh on my comment at >>3892669 ??

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:36:09 2011 No.3892745 >>3892736 And I suggest you read Richard Boyd, Peter Singer or any of the Cornell Realists. Lots of people read lots of different philosophers who believe lots of different stuff. Hooray.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:40:09 2011 No.3892756

>>3892733

I struggle to see how you think that's "your point." My point is you are question begging, instead of arguing on behalf of a distinction between moral stuff and scientific stuff. That's what I mean: when your argument runs its course, we're just back where we started: to an asserted distinction between scientific stuff and moral stuff.

And then you're getting all pissed when I disagree. Great for you.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:41:09 2011 No.3892759

>>3892732
it's precisely because people can make these assertions that is why morality cannot be judged solely by science. if science attempts to make a moral decision it is akin to the same baseless assertion as it inherently neglects viewpoints in something that is innately subjective.

In the trolley problem, science may determine that it's worth killing one man to save 10... but that's not right according to that one man who has to die. then science may determine that it's not alright to kill one man to save 10 and it will save the 1 man, but ... not according to those 10 people who have to die. So then science might determine that the best decision is not intervene... BUT NOT ACCORDING TO THOSE WHO ARGUE NON INTERVENTION IS AS BAD AS MURDER. See there is no way to swing this kind of problem that leaves all parties happy and all parties equally deserve a say. Unless you can prove scientifically that the opinion of any one party involved is inherently less valuable than another, then we infer that science cannot solve this problem.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:43:09 2011 No.3892764

Morality mostly comes from evolutionary impulses, and is quite arbitrary in that if humans had evolved differently several million years ago, our moral systems would be completely different. Read Baby-Eating Aliens for a slightly comical take on morality and evolution.

Study evolutionary psychology to study what creates morality.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:43:09 2011 No.3892765

>>3892756
Dude, listen to me.

How can you possibly think morality is objective?

>a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are met and are "mind-independent"—that is, not met by the judgment of a conscious entity or subject.

This is from Wikipedia.
You think that morality is objective. I ask you, then: Is there any moral statement that is objectively true?

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:44:09 2011 No.3892773

>>3892739

I'm not trying to be sly. Instead of "accounting for" moral behavior, how about this: I think science completely swallows up moral behavior and explains the entirety of it through and through. Including the initiation of moral choices.

That's because such choices happen in a biological, empirical, objective, brain. It accounts for our moral agency, our estimations of the goods and bads out there in the world and indeed the very existence of goods and bads out there in the world because goods and bads are essentially brain states. Particularly states of pleasure, pain, lust, etc. The reason I think that is because this description accommodates moral language as used by people, without the need to invoke anything beyond the natural world.

>And objective =! absolute

Yet the objective world follows absolute laws. I already know that just saying that pissed you off for some reason, which I don't understand.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:45:09 2011 No.3892777

>>3892725

You said this:

>Pain and pleasure are grey areas which have not been investigated enough to say whether they are human mind constructs, or if they are objective.

But that's false because pain and pleasure do, in fact exist objectively at a biological level in humans. I gave links supporting that.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:46:09 2011 No.3892781 OP you're using bad analogy. Weather can be examined very objectively. I can tell with science if it's sunny, cloudy, raining, humid or dry. You can't tell with science if certain action X is objectively good or bad.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:46:09 2011 No.3892784 >>3892777 Nice trips. Yes, but that was a response to a completely irrelevant argument that had no connection to my initial statement, which was this: >>3892486

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:47:09 2011 No.3892785 >>3892740 it doesn't seem to be very clear what experiences of pain are like in fetuses and recently born children.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:47:09 2011 No.3892786

>>3892773
>I think science completely swallows up moral behavior and explains the entirety of it through and through.

That's exactly the same thing as you already said! No one is denying that science can't 'explain the entirety of it'. What we have to object to is whether science can reach a final decision on a moral issue that is intrinsically more justifiable than any other.

See: >>3892759 >>3892765

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:49:09 2011 No.3892794

>>3892739

>objective =! absolute

Hear hear.

Morals exist, just like beauty exists, just like love exists. There aren't morality particles produced when someone is good and destroyed when someone is bad. And it doesn't make any sense at all unless you view it from the perspective of the subjects in the case.

This distinguishes it from weather, since weather just is. People may judge weather, and decide if it is good or bad at that time, at that place, sure. Morality is more like judging judgement, so at the least it is one order more compounded than the human response to weather, and at least two orders more compounded than weather itself.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:50:09 2011 No.3892795 >>3892786 Additionally, you have been evading this issue all night: >whether science can reach a final decision on a moral issue that is intrinsically more justifiable than any other.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:50:09 2011 No.3892797

>>3892723

>"but morality is distinct from science..."

Perhaps you misunderstood, or perhaps I made myself unclear (the latter being the more likely). I do not maintain that morality is distinct from science. My position is that it cannot be reduced to a single branch of science, and must be considered comprehensively from various scientific perspectives (as I listed earlier, sociological, neurological, psychological, biological, etc.)

As far as specific examples go, I'll use a common one: "morality exists as a method for humans to preserve the longevity of their genetic data." For example, a mother sacrificing herself to save her children, much like how a worker bee might sting a predator to preserve the well-being of its hive. Consider this the evolutionary biological perspective. If moral behavior always aimed at "preserving genes," then the evolutionary-biological perspective would be sufficient in explaining morality. Yet humans frequently engage in "moral" behavior which not only does nothing for the survival of their genetic material, but at times actually puts it at risk (think Sidney Carton in a Tale of Two Cities). In this case, morality cannot be reduced to a simple evolutionary-biological explanation. That's what I mean when I say morality is anti-reductionist.

It seems to me that you're suggesting that a complete understanding of neurology and other mind sciences hold the universal key to morality. Am I mistaken?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:50:09 2011 No.3892798 But OP, all of reality, including perception, is relative. Nihilistic philosophy can really fuck you up, (damn all of that logical hypocrisy) but it can really open up your views of the world.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:50:09 2011 No.3892799

>>3892759
Not the person you replied to, but my view of this is that science is studying the thought patterns that generate questions of morality.

In this case, science has already discovered that priming people for rational thought makes them more likely to save the maximum number of people, where as priming people for emotional thought makes them less likely to act.
Thus, this question is merely a conflict between the rational and emotional parts of your brain. Once you realize this, the question of morality is dissolved - you can explain everything about the question and how people react to it and why they do so.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:53:09 2011 No.3892807

>>3892759
>it's precisely because people can make these assertions that is why morality cannot be judged solely by science.

But you could say that about anything. People can make all kinds of assertions about what the sun is. And throughout history they have. That doesn't mean there was no objective Sun, or that the sun can't be "judged by science." People can disagree about things, or have flawed judgment of things. That just means word-meanings aren't objective. Not that the stuff out there in the world that words sometimes strive to describe are non-objective. So replace the symbols with the subtance.

You could say "And its precisely because people can make these assertions about the sun that there's no objective sun" but that would be silly.

>if science attempts to make a moral decision it is akin to the same baseless assertion as it inherently neglects viewpoints in something that is innately subjective.

It's like all you know how to do is flat-footedly repeat yourself. That's not an argument. That's a mere statement of your position. I already know what your position is. Repeating it does not constitute forward progress in the conversation. Arguing on behalf of it does.

> So then science might determine that the best decision is not intervene... BUT NOT ACCORDING TO THOSE WHO ARGUE NON INTERVENTION IS AS BAD AS MURDER.

Science can argue that the sun is a ball of burning hydrogen.... BUT NOT ACCORDING TO THOSE WHO BELIEVE ITS A CHARIOT BEING RODE ACROSS THE SKY.

Of course people can believe different things about what morality is, just like they can believe different things about what the sun is. But that doesn't make morality, or the sun, subjective. This is the part where you say "But morality IS subjective" which just repeats the position again instead of arguing on behalf of it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:53:09 2011 No.3892808 >>3892745 I have. I recommended you a scientific text, not the ruminations of some philosopher. Broaden your horizons. If anything, it will provide you with another approach to morality that can help to fill in the holes left by other theories.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:53:09 2011 No.3892811

You guys ever heard "No ought from is"

That means that following logic isn't valid:
1. Violence causes much suffering for many
-->
hence violence is bad.

There is missing premise that states something long lines "causing suffering is bad."

You guys are essentially trying to reinvent the wheel(or should I say uninvent).

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:54:09 2011 No.3892814

GUYS GUYS GUYS, op might be right. And I'm not even samefagging.

The statement goes like this:

Morality is subjective because you, who believe it is objective, cannot make a single moral statement that is objective.

That's actually a fallacy. Just because he can't provide a statement that is morally objective doesn't mean that morality is subjective.

This is, btw, not like the atheism/theism debate where the burden of proof lies definitely on the theist, because the atheistic view is actually a response to the theistic view, hence a - theism.

Objective/subjective morality is a two-sided argument. You must take a positive stance on either side. As there is no evidence on either side, and the default-knowledge (like in atheism-theism, where the default-knowledge is atheism) is actually nothing none, you may believe either way and get away with it.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:55:09 2011 No.3892816

>>3892799
Whether the justification for action comes from rationality or emotion does not make it any more justified than the opposite viewpoint. What about someone who save the guy on the tracks and decides whatever happened to the 10 other people was unavoidable.

the moral supremacy of utilitarian perspective (saving the majority n this case) is not self evident. it is not an absolute truth it is a value judgement.,

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:56:09 2011 No.3892820 >>3892811 You have to take that part, 'suffering is bad' or some variation, as an axiom. No system of morality can avoid this.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:56:09 2011 No.3892821 >>3892807 > just repeats the position again instead of arguing on behalf of it. That's what you're doing with 'morality is objective' ~.~

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:57:09 2011 No.3892825 >ITT: People having a subjective debate about objectivity.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:58:09 2011 No.3892826 How about you guys go read what G.E. Moore has concluded about this subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:58:09 2011 No.3892828 >>3892825 As opposed to?

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:59:09 2011 No.3892830

>>3892765

Take facts about your heart-rate. Your heart rate is a certain value, independent of your judgment of what that is. Each person has their own heart rate, but they usually fall within a certain range. So it's not strictly "subjective" since it's an empirical fact about something in the world (namely, your body.)

Your brain is also something out there in the objective world. It has built-in reactions to pain and pleasure which objectively do what they do regardless of your opinion on the matter. The totality of pains, pleasures, jealously, self-validations you can have are objective facts about your biological condition as a human being.

>I ask you, then: Is there any moral statement that is objectively true?

Sure. Ceteris paribus, a brain experiencing euphoria is better than experiencing depression. The objective facts of euphoria, depression, and the brain's preferring one over the other aren't hard to accept I don't think.

But people clutch to subjective morality like a religion which compounds the problem.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 17:59:09 2011 No.3892832 >>3892828 he thinks we can step out our bodies and look down on the universe as if it were an ordinance survey map. fuck, that could be cooooool

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:03:09 2011 No.3892842 >>3892820 Point being, you can't say "See! Beating women causes suffering!" hence it must be wrong! Guy named descartes tried to create reallife axioms but failed since he got stuck after he got the "I think there for I am"

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:03:09 2011 No.3892843

>>3892830
there may be an objective morality (given by god or nature) but it is unknown. people do not clutch to subjective elements of morality as if it were a religion, quite the opposite. those who are religiously inclined tend to argue for objective morality. the reason people stress subjective morality is because moral issues and complex and very heavily dependent on VALUE JUDGEMENTS over scientific facts.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:03:09 2011 No.3892846

>>3892830
>Ceteris paribus, a brain experiencing euphoria is better than experiencing depression.
That's a chemical and biologic fact, not a moral fact. From Wikipedia:

>Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation among intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong).

You better find a better example.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:05:09 2011 No.3892851

>>3892287
>People don't immediately agree to the rightness or wrongness of capital punishment, not because there's no truth but because the utlimate consequences of capital punishment are hard to figure.

actually you are wrong about this OP, because the core of the issue is that you may not want the same things from life as I do.
You may not want the same pleasures or the same pains, you shouldn't extrapolate your desires onto everyone else, as you are an individual.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:08:09 2011 No.3892858

>>3892781

read through the thread a bit.

>>3892784

Actually I was responding to this: >>3892574. It definitely seems like

>Pain and pleasure are grey areas which have not been investigated enough to say whether they are human mind constructs, or if they are objective

is a denial that pains or pleasures are objective. Which is obviously false.

>>3892786

WTF? I was trying to make the most expansive, comprehensive statement possible.

When you say

>No one is denying that science can't 'explain the entirety of it'.

I look back at what you said before, which was:

>It cannot reach a conclusion that is intrinsically more justifiable than one made by someone who disagrees with the scientific view.

But I think it can, in fact, do that. In fact, I explained that right here: >>3892773

And you've just repeated yourself, "science can't decide...." even though I am pretty sure I explicitly said it can in fact decide that certain things are more right than others.

Replies coming in too fast, I will come back to this when I can.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:11:09 2011 No.3892862

>>3892830
Sure. Ceteris paribus, a brain experiencing euphoria is better than experiencing depression. The objective facts of euphoria, depression, and the brain's preferring one over the other aren't hard to accept I don't think.

Care to tell where you pulled this from? I see no good arguments for "pleasure=good".
This is naturalistic fallacy: There is something that causes pleasure but it still wrong thing to do. So you can't base your morals on it. In case of pleasure for example: Rape. Gives rapist a lot sexual pleasure, yet it's wrong to rape people.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:11:09 2011 No.3892866 Sure is is ought problem in here.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:11:09 2011 No.3892867

>>3892816
I think we're actually pretty close in our views. I was saying that science cannot construct morality, because there's not really such a thing as objective morality - there's ev-psych and thought patterns and the such, and when we were naive about such things we talked about stuff like 'morality'.

>>	Marion Bartoli is my Waifu Wed Oct 12 18:12:09 2011 No.3892876 >>3892858 > is a denial that pains or pleasures are objective. Which is obviously false. Obviously false! Hahaha, oh wow. Can you give an example of anything that is not objective?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:12:09 2011 No.3892877 >>3892858 Yes, god, shut the fuck up you fucking idiot. I was wrong with what you pointed out, but THAT response that I MADE was COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to my ORIGINAL POINT. Got it, numbnuts?

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:13:09 2011 No.3892879

>>3892842

You need to just make them. You can have justifications, but you have to just pick axioms.

Every system of morality, now or ever, has done this. The bad ones start off with 'well, if I say it, then it's the right thing to do', which has obvious points of weakness. Modern morality does start with something like 'suffering is wrong, liberty is good' and so on, though it's hardly formalised. This has some weaknesses too, I'm sure.

We have to use axioms to do science and to do maths, we have to tackle with them in philosophy, and in morality, and we also have to use them to build morality. Once in place, they will be subject to the forces of history, and so they will be changed, ideally, by an evolutionary process. But for now, we can't get at the way to build them from scratch.

>>	Marion Bartoli is my Waifu Wed Oct 12 18:13:09 2011 No.3892881 >>3892866 Yeah I brought it up but babby's first philosophy ignored me.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:14:09 2011 No.3892884

>>3892858
>I am pretty sure I explicitly said it can

Yeah your word doesn't make it true.

What you said is that science can measure things about our biology and chemistry and all that jazz.

but morality is more than that. Morality demands that you place value in one life over another, prioritising individual wants. These are VALUE JUDGEMENTS informed by but not based on scientific facts.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:15:09 2011 No.3892885

Morality changes under certain circumstances. OP misunderstands what this means.

For example murder isn't always as bad as other murders to some, even though objectively it IS.

Eg man kills man both aggressive
man kills woman man aggressor

Very basic but leads into complex situations like deontology vs utilitarianism

OP is a pseudo-intellectual

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:15:09 2011 No.3892888

>>3892846
>That's a chemical and biologic fact, not a moral fact.

I disagree that there is a distinction. My argument ITT, which I've given in various forms, is that moral facts are a subset of empirical facts. It seems that most replies are just varations on "b-b-b-but they're different!" That's a restatement of the position, not a response.

>From Wikipedia:

I don't see anything there that's inconsistent with moral facts being empirical facts. In any case I don't see the virtue of arguing from definitions. Sometimes we turn over old definitions that are inadequate to reality. "Malaria" used to mean bad air "by definition." I can just imagine you yelling at a scientist positing a more precise explanation of what malaria is. "But malaria is bad air BY DEFINITION! THAT'S THE DEFINITION!"

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:16:09 2011 No.3892892 Weather isn't something mankind just made up. Morality is.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:18:09 2011 No.3892897 >>3892879 You can get stuff like minimization of suffering and maximization of liberty from more generally applicable deontological or consequentialist considerations, but you're still forced to pick some axioms, yeah.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:18:09 2011 No.3892898

>>3892773
>That's because such choices happen in a biological, empirical, objective, brain. It accounts for our moral agency, our estimations of the goods and bads out there in the world and indeed the very existence of goods and bads out there in the world because goods and bads are essentially brain states. Particularly states of pleasure, pain, lust, etc. The reason I think that is because this description accommodates moral language as used by people, without the need to invoke anything beyond the natural world.

Go read naturalist fallacy.

If we found out that morals come from our brains they would be subjective. You can't generalize that because study on a brain revealed some good/bad morals would apply to other people or species. They would be subjective to humans. And aliens could have completely different morals. THAT'S NOT OBJECTIVE.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:19:09 2011 No.3892899 >>3892892 Then you obviously have no idea what morality implies.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:19:09 2011 No.3892900

>>3892888
You can't just say "I disagree", when morality is defined as I just explained. Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing because you don't want to lose the debate.

Words change in meaning when the majority of them use them in a different way. Morality is still used in this manner, and thusly the definition stays as it is.

You can't just keep on changing the definition of concepts in your favour. This is what morality is defined as. Deal with it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:21:09 2011 No.3892904 People have morals. Science does not. Trying to impose morals onto a system of physical techniques is stupid. Who the fuck thought to do something so stupid? Sam Harris should be repeatedly punched in the head.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:21:09 2011 No.3892906

>>3892888
There is no way to prioritise individual desires scientifically because none of those desires are objective, every single one of them is dependent upon the mind of the person who has them.

Science can stress the moral importance of one behaviour over another if it likes but doing so is not based on value judgements. We make value judgements all the time. there is nothing inherently wrong with it. We derive ought from is all the time, there is nothing inherently wrong with THAT either. But it isn't scientific and it cannot ever be scientific simply because it is by definition a value judgement and not axiomatic.

>>	Marion Bartoli is my Waifu Wed Oct 12 18:21:09 2011 No.3892907 >>3892898 Interesting side-note: the guy who came up with the so-called naturalistic fallacy was in fact a moral realist. So it is kind of funny to see it juxtaposed with the rest of your post. Anyway, tangential.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:21:09 2011 No.3892903 >>3892897 You're apparently utilitarian. FYI it's not objective moral theory. Go study philosophy and come then to discuss this matter.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:22:09 2011 No.3892908 >>3892899 Morality is entirely a human construction. The weather isn't.

>>	Marion Bartoli is my Waifu Wed Oct 12 18:22:09 2011 No.3892910 >>3892904 Since he also supports torture, I propose we torture him until we find out what makes people so dense. This would be immensely valuable and so he should not object.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:24:09 2011 No.3892916

>>3892862
> I see no good arguments for "pleasure=good".

I don't equate the two, but I think pleasure is among the things that are good. My argument, in brief form because there are too many replies to keep up with, is that there can be no "objective" answer to what the mouth-sound m-o-r-a-l-i-t-y "truly" means. There's no "objective" definition of words.

On the other hand, sometimes people use words to mean things about the world, that really exist. And it seems to me that moral language is often about real stuff in the world. And that a definition of morality that accommodates people's word usage and makes sense of how they use moral language is one we are entitled to call "true" or at least "accurate." I think a definition that relies on brain states, pains, pleasures, and most generally, desire satisfaction, accommodates the way people use moral language.

The way to prove me wrong is to give clear cut examples where my definition would fail to accommodate moral language or moral behavior.

Obviously one exception is going to be people who believe they are acting morally because they are doing what god told them to do. Such beliefs are false because there is no god. I explain these as people mistakenly believing morality is related to god because they were taught that by culture. Just like some people mistakenly believe the sun is a chariot riding across the sky because their culture taught them so.

This is naturalistic fallacy: There is something that causes pleasure but it still wrong thing to do. So you can't base your morals on it. In case of pleasure for example: Rape. Gives rapist a lot sexual pleasure, yet it's wrong to rape people.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:25:09 2011 No.3892919

>>3892916

oops, I actually left in a quote from you about the naturalistic fallacy at the bottom.

As for G.E. Moore's naturalistic fallacy: It's only actually a fallacy if you accept G.E. Moore's contention that moral stuff is different from natural stuff in the first place. If you don't accept the premises of the fallacy, of course you're not going to accept that you fall on the wrong side of a naturalistic fallacy. You have to argue that I should accept those premises in the first place. If you don't, it's question begging.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:25:09 2011 No.3892920

>>3892910
To be fair, you need to be pretty dense not to support torture. it has it's applications. The main thing about morality is you it isn't absolute. you should usually be open to compromise since every situation is different and there is no one single template solution.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:26:09 2011 No.3892921 >>3892904 Nah, someone should just tell him that he accidentally redefined morality as "human flourishing" which didn't actually solve any of his "theory's" problems. He's just not talking about same "morality" as rest of us.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:27:09 2011 No.3892929

>>3892898
>If we found out that morals come from our brains they would be subjective.

Brains are part of the objective world that can be prodded and learned about by other people.

If they were subjective, well.. then are brain tumors subjective? They are probably different depending on the person, too, right?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:28:09 2011 No.3892934 >>3892919 So how do you get from something like "action A causes unnecessary suffering" to "we should not take action A"?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:29:09 2011 No.3892935 >>3892892 This is really common. People just stating their position instead of arguing on behalf of it. Obviously I reject that. I've explained why ITT. Repeating it again doesn't cut it.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:29:09 2011 No.3892938

>>3892921
Well to be fair, it's generally a nice idea but again the main thing to remember about morality is that the worst thing to do is to try to come up with a one size fits all solution. The problem with the human flourishing idea isnt that it's horrible and immoral. it's that it can't be be so easily justified over and above someone else's view of morality as he likes to suggest. Just like no moral perspective can be justified over and above another.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:30:09 2011 No.3892942

>>3892900
>You can't just say "I disagree", when morality is defined as I just explained

Of course I can. I think the nature of morality is different than you. That's the point of the discussion. Definitions can't just be waved around as if they have authoritative purchase.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:30:09 2011 No.3892943

>>3892935
yeah you keep responding to that same point. but you forget your doing exactly the same thing. you're just stating things in the hope that they are true. And you're also not addressing other concerns ITT. I at least hope you read them because your view of morality is incredibly naive.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:32:09 2011 No.3892946 >>3892942 >I think the nature of morality is different than you. Exactly. And you're view of morality cannot be justified over and above all others. Thanks for agreeing with everyone finally.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:32:09 2011 No.3892948 >>3892919 So you're saying that there is morality in nature? Then please tell me how you get past the problem you quoted. you have no basis for just dismissing it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:33:09 2011 No.3892951 >>3892908 are you saying theres a mathematical description of nice weather?

Marion Bartoli is my Waifu Wed Oct 12 18:34:09 2011 No.3892955

>>3892920
I think Harris has this problem where he fails to distinguish between moral agents. It's like, he can imagine a situation where *he* would be justified in torturing someone, but this doesn't imply that we should actually *institutionalize* torture. His examples in "End of Faith" are of that variety.

It's a typical problem consequentialists have. They get so swamped by the death-and-furniture arguments that they lose all sight of the context that raised the question in the first place.

For instance, I definitely believe that there are actions a person can do that should be reciprocated with death. But why would this imply that I think the government should have a death penalty? Social organization is qualitatively different than individual behavior.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:34:09 2011 No.3892956

>>3892951
No, rain exists whether we are here to observe it not.

obviously any designation of good is a value judgement

>>3892948

there is evidence of morality in nature obviously (there is ample research on this). but that does not mean there is an observed objective definition of what constitutes good and bad. these are VALUE JUDGEMENTS

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:34:09 2011 No.3892957

>>3892920

The real dirty secret of torture is that it does work. People will tell you things. Over time, you will be getting obsolete or imaginary stuff, sure. But it works. They don't even train you to resist in in the service, they just train you to hold out for long enough that the intel you give up will no longer put active missions in jeopardy, ie, four or five days. Long enough to notice you've been captured, assume you've been compromised, and make sure the stuff you know will happen won't happen.

It's just a question of whether we want to be part of a society that reserves the right to do it to anyone they deem needs it be done to.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:36:09 2011 No.3892959 Also other problem for you "science can find objective morality" person: Nothing in science is final. So how can you find the knowledge of final, ultimate morals?

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:37:09 2011 No.3892963

>>3892906
>There is no way to prioritise individual desires scientifically because none of those desires are objective, every single one of them is dependent upon the mind of the person who has them.

Re-statement of the position again, hooray! I promise there will be confetti when you repeat it the millionth time.

Minds are objective things. Just like rocks, fish, dead cats, cat dissection kits and dead cat garnish. All of these can be weighed, smelled, measured, stimulated with electricity, held in hands, observed by people, etc. It's in this sense that they belong to the objective world. Desires happen in brains and can, if we really want, be detected and mapped via brain scans.

And you can prioritize desires, because desires can differ in intensity.

>Science can stress the moral importance of one behaviour over another if it likes but doing so is not based on value judgements.

Restatement #422,300! We're getting there!

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:38:09 2011 No.3892965 >>3892957 That's why soldiers aren't told anything of great value outside of their current scope of operations, and their job is to be disposable and replacable.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:38:09 2011 No.3892966

>>3892948

To the degree that there are examples of maternal, fraternal and romantic love in nature.

If we look, we find in animals things that we can recognise as proto-morality. We did not just invent it from whole cloth when we became homo's. Our moral intuitions come from somewhere deeper, even if the specifics are invented later.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:38:09 2011 No.3892969 >>3892877 well at least you finally explicitly acknowledged it, after like half-a-dozen comments. Could you restate your original point because to be honest I was having trouble understanding it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:39:09 2011 No.3892971 >>3892963 Wow, just shut the fuck up already. You've already lost the debate. To save the last of your dignity, leave now. No one takes you seriously anymore.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:39:09 2011 No.3892972 >>3892963 >doing so is not based on value judgements. But that is wrong you fucking retard., All you've done it state that, where is your evidence of objective axiomatic truths in this regard???

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:39:09 2011 No.3892973 >>3892929 They are subjective in a sense that every living creature has different kind of brain. There are no two completely alike. Which brain contains "the key" to objective morality? Ours? Alien? Dog? Why brains of [insert race/sex/IQ/etc.]

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:41:09 2011 No.3892980

>>3892959

That's an interesting question, but I believe science is linear, and we never fully discard old theories. Instead we preserve them as a special case of a new, more encompassing theory. It could possibly be false, but science nevertheless represents our best understanding of the world and should be preferred to the alternatives.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:43:09 2011 No.3892985

>>3892948
>So you're saying that there is morality in nature? Then please tell me how you get past the problem you quoted. you have no basis for just dismissing it

I'm saying moral stuff is a subset of natural stuff. And I'm saying telling me I commit the naturalistic fallacy is question-begging because it's based on the very premises you are supposed to be arguing on behalf of.

My argument, made numerous times in this thread is that objective facts about human brains, their pains, pleasures, desires, accommodate our moral language better than any alternative explanation, and its on this basis that a moral theory can be right.

I'm happy to elaborate but that's it in a nutshell.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:44:09 2011 No.3892987 >>3892980 That is all incontrovertibile but it means science will necessarily be wrong at stages along it's progression. woohoo science achieved immorality

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:44:09 2011 No.3892988 >>3892985 Guys, please just stop responding to him. He knows he has lost the debate, and we know as well.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:44:09 2011 No.3892989

>>3892973

No brain could contain that 'key'. Without reference to the subject, morality ceases to make logical sense.

Is it good or bad that a star went supernova? Unless it affected something like us, a thing with subjectivity, perspective, consciousness, we'd probably just call it a neutral event. If it affected trillions of things something like us, we'd call it a terrible, awful event.

The same with the actions of subjects. If I knock a load of bricks off a wall, is that morally good or bad? Unless you have reference to the effect this has on another subject, even an animal, you could not say it was good or bad at all. If it lands on someone, then it's very bad. If it lands on a cat, it's pretty bad too. If it means the builder has to clean it up, or carry them back up again, then he would definitely consider it wrong.

Morality as objective in the sense that one subjects idea of what is good and bad is actually totally right in all situations, is naive. And the idea of a key to such a morality is actually absurd.

Gen IV nuclear Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:46:09 2011 No.3892994
File: 11 KB, 460x269, 1311189414879.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-PRISM

http://www.esquire.com/features/best-and-brightest-2009/nuclear-waste-disposal-1209

Why are we not building this?

General Gen IV nuclear thread. What are some other good designs besides the mighty LFTR we all know of?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:47:09 2011 No.3893000 >>3892994 Saved by the mispost. THREAD DERAIL! I think this is an excellent idea.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:47:09 2011 No.3893001 >>3892994 oh fuck, bad window..

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:48:09 2011 No.3893004

>>3892985
>and its on this basis that a moral theory can be right.

that is the bit in which you are wrong. or at least it is just you stating you are right with no evidence

>I'm saying moral stuff is a subset of natural stuff.

no one denies that

>objective facts about human brains, their pains, pleasures, desires

exist, yes

You can prioritise these but none of your priorities will be necessarily more justifiable than any other system of valuing "human brains, their pains, pleasures, desires". unless you have some secret axiom of science that is utterly indisputable? yeah thought not

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:48:09 2011 No.3893005

>>3892980
"it's interesting question"
Isn't a counter argument.

Besides, that's not objective morality right there. Objective morality is objective in a sense that it's objective truth about something. Science has no objective truths, hence science can never discover objective morality. No reason to assume not knowledgeable objective morality if all you're going to do is be like a relativist. *cough* Occam's razor *cough*

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:49:09 2011 No.3893010

>>3892973

OP here. I want to credit you as being one of a select, very small group of people actually acknowledging my point, and signalling an understanding of it. Congrats.

Brains are indeed different. But they share a common fundamental structure. In each of us, the same part of our brain is responsible for euphoria. The same neural correlates exist in response to experiences of beauty. The same auditory cortex is used to process sound.

Individual differences arise as a result of neuroplasticity: our capacity to self-cultivate specialized tastes and inclinations. Our brain is malleable, and if we try we can transform ourselves in numerous ways: we can learn calculus, we can hate Joey from Friends etc.

For most of us, each of those possibilities for individuation away from the norm stands before you as a possibility, also accessible by others. You can like obscure avante garde music. But so can other people, if they try. What's objective and free-standing to all of you is the brain's capacity to come into contact with such experiences from the same perspective.

But the more fundamental point is that individual differences miss the forest for the trees. We still are fundamentally harmed by the same pains, satisfied by the same pleasures, dislike starving, like social validation, etc.

We share a common human condition, an objective condition embedded in our biology, that makes certain rights and wrongs applicable to all of us.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:51:09 2011 No.3893021 >>3893010 we know all this. the crux of the matter is the morality is based on VALUE JUDGEMENTS. value judgements are NOT objective facts.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:51:09 2011 No.3893025 >>3892985 Yes, brain might be nice source for moral guidance. That doesn't however mean that there is OBJECTIVE MORALITY. That's the thing I find strange about your arguments. As if it was required for your idea to work or something.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:56:09 2011 No.3893038

>>3893005
>quote my first four words, ignores the other 50+ words

"it's interesting question" is the start of my answer, which you COULD have continued to read, if you so chose

>Objective morality is objective in a sense that it's objective truth about something. Science has no objective truths, hence science can never discover objective morality.

Science is predicated on there being an objective world, as is our lives, even if science, in any of its iterations does not purport to perfectly represent that world in its final, fully known form.

The objectivity we're talking about here, is the kind that people in this thread already accept: the kind the pertains to soda cans and dead cats and weather, as distinguished from subjectivity. My contention is that the objectivity that pertains to soda cans and dead cats and weather also pertains to human minds and the stuff of morality. Before you say "that isn't an argument"... I've made anywhere from 20-40 if not more replies in this thread approaching the argument from different angles.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:57:09 2011 No.3893043

>>3893010
What you fail to acknowledge is that you have that not all possible brains are similar.

If I made, by genetically modifying a human that got pleasure from things we find painful and visa versa. Would morality still be objective? Waht if I made 10 billion of such creatures? They'd out-number us so they'd win? I see no objectivity here.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 18:59:09 2011 No.3893052

>>3893021

>we know all this. the crux of the matter is the morality is based on VALUE JUDGEMENTS. value judgements are NOT objective facts.

Value judgments happen in brains, don't they? And they estimate the amount of suffering or pleasure, or desire satisfaction that happens to people as the consequence of a decision, yes? Those pleasures and suffering and jealousies are in fact, factual things, because they exist in other peoples factual, objective brains.

And it's my position, as I've argued ITT, that pleasures, jealousies, pains etc. experienced by brains is indeed the STUFF of morality. We can elaborate on whether that's true if necessary.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 19:01:09 2011 No.3893058 >>3893052 Value judgments happen in brains, yes, BUT they are relative to each and every person. That's why they can't possibly be objective. Each person has been brought up in a different way, and is physically different than any other being.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 19:01:09 2011 No.3893061 >>3893038 btw please tell me the scientific method you'd use to find out that rape isn't moral, I'm asking just out of curiosity.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 19:05:09 2011 No.3893078

>>3893004
>>and its on this basis that a moral theory can be right.
>that is the bit in which you are wrong. or at least it is just you stating you are right with no evidence

I thought I argued for that numerous times in this thread. Did you miss the part where I said..

>My argument, made numerous times in this thread ...

? I do it here, for example: >>3892916

>>I'm saying moral stuff is a subset of natural stuff.
>no one denies that

Really? It seems like everyone and their grandmother ITT denies that. In fact, I think G.E. Moore denies that. I thought that was the whole point of the naturalistic fallacy: Moore argued you can't reduce goods to natural things.

>You can prioritise these but none of your priorities will be necessarily more justifiable than any other system of valuing "human brains, their pains, pleasures, desires". unless you have some secret axiom of science that is utterly indisputable? yeah thought not

This is the part where reading what I've said elsewhere in the thread would help. Given that this IS moral stuff, and is desired in different intensity, and experienced in different intensity, that's a basis for prioritizing some things over others.

Why do I get the feeling you will just say "You never argued for it, bro?" I did link to my argument.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 19:07:09 2011 No.3893085 >>3893061 the psychological damage it does to women, as evidenced in their subjective reports of how it makes them feel, that can probably be correlated via brain scans for brain activity related to emotional trauma and depression.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 19:07:09 2011 No.3893088

>>3893052
Here's a little mind game for you:
Would it be moral to torture one person indefinitely against his will if everyone else on this planet had a good life, know about the torture and could stop it if they wanted to.

This by measurement would show that pleasure is greatly larger than pain. Still someone would suffer literal "hell" just to accommodate the selfishness of all other people on earth.
Would this really be moral although your scientific measurement shows so?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 19:07:09 2011 No.3893089 >>3893058 that's what this post was for: >>3893010

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 19:10:09 2011 No.3893098 >>3893089 Yes, yes, yes YES. God, you just won't stop, will you? It's the VALUE of judgments that's the problem. The value. Not the type of brains we have, or anything we have in common. Seriously, why won't you just stop?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 19:11:09 2011 No.3893104 >>3893085 And? You just described what happened. Where do you pull the this is right/wrong and by what basis? "No ought from is"

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 19:14:09 2011 No.3893113 >>3893043 that's what this post was for: >>3893089 Also, why human brains determine what's right? Why not possible alien brains WITH FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT STRUCTURE?

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 19:15:09 2011 No.3893115

>>3893043
>What you fail to acknowledge is that you have that not all possible brains are similar.

did... did you even read my post? I spent three paragraphs talking about how brains differ from one another, and how that was a missing the trees for the forest issue. Funny how I spent three paragraphs addressing an issue I supposedly didn't acknowledge.

>If I made, by genetically modifying a human that got pleasure from things we find painful and visa versa. Would morality still be objective? Waht if I made 10 billion of such creatures? They'd out-number us so they'd win? I see no objectivity here.

They couldn't "outnumber us" unless we DID, as a matter of fact, constitute a group that really did have common moral interests, that they were opposed to. And I thought you were DENYING that that was true. So you seem to be accepting that for the purposes of the analogy, yet arguing against it?

As for evil beings that got joy from our suffering: their interests are incompatible with ours, and the objective state of the world would be that of a human existence thats fundamentally antagonistic to the existence of these other creatures and vice versa. It would suck.

Kind of like lions and hyenas. Competition with one another is embedded in their nature.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 19:15:09 2011 No.3893119

>>3893085
All that stresses is that rape does emotional and physical damage to women. from there you CAN infer that it is this that makes it immoral but that judgement is not axiomatic.

>>3893052
the fact that value judgements are formed in the brain does not make the judgement itself an objective fact,. it makes the brain an objective fact. but the judgement is necessarily subjective.

you don't seem to know what a value judgement is because you're ignorant or being deliberately obtuse to win the argument by evasion. value judgement don't indicate any of that stuff. that stuff is measurable by science but the value judgement only indicates what that person values and nothing more. science can prioritise these values over one another if it likes, but it would not be objective. it is not axiomatic.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 19:19:09 2011 No.3893133

>>3893104

If you've been following the thread, I've probably explained where I've "pulled it" from like 5-6 times now. As for is/ought, it has the same problems as the naturalistic "fallacy:: That's only a problem if we accept that the premises motivating it in the first place. That is, for is/ought, that's only a problem if you really accept that "is" and "ought" are distinct from one another.

But my contention is that "ought" is a subset of "is", so I reject the premises that would motivate the problem. So the problem vanishes, and I don't run afoul of it. Anyway, here's where I get my "oughts" from: >>3892916

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 19:21:09 2011 No.3893142 >>3893133 Your previous posts have been refuted in other previous posts. Stop citing them. Your whole argument has been refuted, in fact. See here: >>3893058

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 19:24:09 2011 No.3893147

>>3893098
>It's the VALUE of judgments that's the problem. The value. Not the type of brains we have, or anything we have in common

What do you mean by value? Why do you think value is different from that which is embodied in brains? I've said why I think value is the stuff that goes on in brains. On what basis am I wrong, and on what basis do you draw the distinction? Again, you can't just say "They are different because I say so." Maybe you haven't been doing that, but a shit-ton of people ITT are doing it. Just re-stating their position that values and brains are different, when they are supposed to be arguing on behalf of that difference.

A valid way to argue against me would be this: give a clear cut example of a moral issue where reference to brains is insufficient to settle the issue, where non-brain, non-natural values do a better job settling the issue. If I disagree, I will criticize and explain why. Fair?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 19:25:09 2011 No.3893150 >>3893147 By value I mean the weight of certain moral arguments. Saying this person's life is more worth than another is completely relative, as it is based on the opinion you currently hold.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 19:27:09 2011 No.3893155

>>3893115
The what I meant with pleasure from pain thing meant that they'd get pleasure from such things as bleeding, being abused, violated etc.
And find things we find good bad. Like safety, sociality, sex etc.

So objectivity would differ? Then it's not objective.

BTW just a note stop recycling stuff like "I've already addressed that before" since that's not valid counter argument.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 19:27:09 2011 No.3893157

>>3893142
>Your previous posts have been refuted in other previous posts. Stop citing them.

This is the post I was citing: >>3892916. Not a single person has replied to that, let alone "refuted" it. Would you like to be the first?

>Your whole argument has been refuted, in fact. See here:
>>3893058

I replied to that actually. Did you notice?

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 19:29:09 2011 No.3893166

>>3893133
>But my contention is that "ought" is a subset of "is"

that's a terribly misguided response to a notorious irrefutable philosophical problem. What you've done is monopolised all the oughts in the world. You clearly dont understand the problem or you're forcing a solution that doesn't work just to say you win the argument and to avoid tricky moral situations.

the better response to the is ought problem is from sam harris himself - he says that we make is ought assumptions routinely, but that still is just covering up the problem. the basic fact of the matter is is/ought is not a problem with any one solution. from an is, the thing that determines an ought is not single objective facts but much deliberation and compromise (synthesis!). this is how you reach all moral decisions. you cannot simple say something is this way therefore we best do this because science tells us so. well you could but it would not be more authoritative solution than any other since like all others it is not based on axioms (it is based on a value judgement)

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 19:32:09 2011 No.3893177 >I spent three paragraphs talking about how brains differ from one another >Brains -- share a common fundamental structure.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 19:37:09 2011 No.3893196

>>3893119

Again, I'll congratulate you for actually responding directly to the substance of my arguments, which doesn't always happen.

>All that stresses is that rape does emotional and physical damage to women.

So we agree on that much.

>from there you CAN infer that it is this that makes it immoral

Ok we agree there too...

>but that judgement is not axiomatic.

Well, what is supposed to be "axiomatic" about it? It's supposed to be a moral judgment. And I've argued that brain stuff is moral stuff here: >>3892916

>the fact that value judgements are formed in the brain does not make the judgement itself an objective fact,. it makes the brain an objective fact. but the judgement is necessarily subjective.

The existence of the brain is objective. The existence of the judgment in the brain is also objective. You could say the truth of the brain's judgment is suspect. A person's best estimation of the world is liable to error. But that's true about everything.

My judgment that a car is bigger than a banana could be called "subjective" in that it originates from me. But it's an intentional belief (as in the philosophical idea of intentionality: it has "about-ness" it's about the objective world).

And so the judgment is liable to flaw, it addresses itself toward the objective world, and its best understanding of the objective world. The moral facts it strives to reckon with, are facts about other peoples suffering, which are facts belonging to the objective world. Maybe I will need to clarify, that's fine, but I'll stop there for the moment.

>you don't seem to know what a value judgement is because you're ignorant or being deliberately obtuse to win the argument by evasion....

at least you waited this long for ad-homs

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 19:37:09 2011 No.3893199

>>3893157
I'd be happy to reduce it to trash.

>I don't equate the two, but I think pleasure is among the things that are good.
False. A religion might state that pleasure is bad. Therefore, pleasure is bad.

>there can be no "objective" answer to what the mouth-sound m-o-r-a-l-i-t-y "truly" means. There's no "objective" definition of words.
False usage of the word "objective". This gives no weight to your argument, as you're stating the obvious.

>On the other hand, sometimes people use words to mean things about the world, that really exist. And it seems to me that moral language is often about real stuff in the world. And that a definition of morality that accommodates people's word usage and makes sense of how they use moral language is one we are entitled to call "true" or at least "accurate." I think a definition that relies on brain states, pains, pleasures, and most generally, desire satisfaction, accommodates the way people use moral language.
This... doens't give weight to your statement in any way. You're saying that some words relate to real-world things and therefore you're correct? Great.

>The way to prove me wrong is to give clear cut examples where my definition would fail to accommodate moral language or moral behavior.
That's easy. You say that pleasure is good, but there's a religion that says that pleasure is bad. Who is correct?

>Obviously one exception is going to be people who believe they are acting morally because they are doing what god told them to do. Such beliefs are false because there is no god.
You can't just say that they are automatically wrong because it's what god told them what to do. It could be the priest, or their leader. They have a different opinion of yours, you can't just didmiss it. That's the problem with morality.

I have nearly exceeded the character limit. To your last paragraph: What the fuck are you saying?

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 19:37:09 2011 No.3893202

>>3893119

>that stuff is measurable by science but the value judgement only indicates what that person values and nothing more.

ok, I'm coming back to this comment for a sec... A person could "judge" that the sun is a chariot and you could say that reflects a persons beliefs. In that case their beliefs are simply mistaken. The sun is an objective thing. People will judge it and sometimes be wrong about it. People might get the wrong values too, because they will mistakenly base their morality on god (which doesn't exist) or fail to estimate how their actions will impact people. Doesn't make values non-objective.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 19:38:09 2011 No.3893209 >>3893202 You can't know whether a moral opinion is false or not. That's the difference between that and your sun example.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 19:38:09 2011 No.3893210 >>3893177 Yeah. Brains are different in some ways, and similar and other ways. Problem?

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 19:42:09 2011 No.3893222

>>3893166

>that's a terribly misguided response to a notorious irrefutable philosophical problem.
>irrefutable.

lol, ok, maybe you think that.

>What you've done is monopolised all the oughts in the world.

Monopolised? I've simply argued what I think oughts are.

>You clearly dont understand the problem or you're forcing a solution that doesn't work just to say you win the argument and to avoid tricky moral situations.

If you think I'm wrong, you can dispense with the personal attacks and explain why I'm wrong.

> the basic fact of the matter is is/ought is not a problem with any one solution. from an is, the thing that determines an ought is not single objective facts but much deliberation and compromise (synthesis!). this is how you reach all moral decisions.

You're contradicting me, not refuting me. And I don't understand what you think people are synthesizing? Competing explanations? Explanations based on what? Is that which is synthesized an ought statement or an is? etc. etc.

> you cannot simple say something is this way therefore we best do this because science tells us so.

No, you can't. But you can argue it and specify reasons, which I have done throughout the thread.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 19:43:09 2011 No.3893225

>>3893196
ad hominem isn't an insult. it's insulting someone and then saying thats why you're wrong. That's not what I did

>My judgment that a car is bigger than a banana could be called "subjective"

the difference is we can know the relative sizes of cars and bananas. We cannot know which moral argument is true. all we can is discuss how best to live together.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 19:44:09 2011 No.3893230

>>3893209

That's just you re-stating your position. You aren't actually putting forward an argument on behalf of that position. I've explained what I think moral stuff is: brain stuff. We can know about brain stuff. And I've explained why. We scan brains and shit.

You disagree. Explain why.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 19:47:09 2011 No.3893240

>>3893230
I have numerously explained why I disagree.

It's the _value_ of the judgement that creates the real problem. Values are subjective, because every human being is different, and with different opinions. There isn't any value that's objective, like that your life is more worth than mine because you're richer or anything like that. The person next to you could raise a hand and say "I disagree". Voilá, morality has become subjective.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 19:50:09 2011 No.3893248 >>3893230 autists gonna autist

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 19:52:09 2011 No.3893251

>>3893199

>False. A religion might state that pleasure is bad. Therefore, pleasure is bad.

What? I don't even understand how that's a response.

>False usage of the word "objective". This gives no weight to your argument, as you're stating the obvious.

WTF?!?!? Honestly, that made me burst out laughing. So it's "false usage of the word" (whatever that means), yet you agree with it. Ok...

>This... doens't give weight to your statement in any way. You're saying that some words relate to real-world things and therefore you're correct? Great.

Do you... think it's wrong? Sometimes people use words to refer to things in the real world. When they do, we can make sense of their uses of language by bringing our objective knowledge of the world to bear.

>That's easy. You say that pleasure is good, but there's a religion that says that pleasure is bad. Who is correct?

That's it? Honestly? That's your refutation? Religious moralities are sometimes mistaken because they base religious judgments on gods that don't exist, and there's simply going to be no way to make sense of what they mean. If you could clarify here, that'd be great.

>You can't just say that they are automatically wrong because it's what god told them what to do.

Of course I can. God isn't real. Insofar as god is the source for their morality their morality is unfounded.

> It could be the priest, or their leader. They have a different opinion of yours, you can't just didmiss it. That's the problem with morality.

That's just laughable, and misses the point. A morality based on something that doesn't exist is an unfounded morality.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 19:52:09 2011 No.3893255

>>3893230
no one is suggesting morals dont come from the brain.

Please just learn what the is/ought problem actually. Do introduction to philosophy because you are failing hard at it.
you cannot argue the supremacy of one "ought" over another based on the fact that the idea comes from your brain. thats not what makes it objective. its not what makes it true.

you havent explained your position. you've stated morals comes from brains therefore your position is right forever.

>>3893222

>> I've simply argued what I think oughts are.

and you insist that your way of developing "oughts" is the correct way when really it's just one of a number of strategies.,

>>you can dispense with the personal attacks and explain why I'm wrong.

ad hominem isn't just insults btw. it's insulting someone and then trying to use that as a reason for why they are wrong. I have not done this.

>> And I don't understand what you think people are synthesizing? Competing explanations? Explanations based on what? Is that which is synthesized an ought statement or an is

yes there are competing explanation for moral issues, no single solution or explanation has divine right or axiomatic authority over another. thats why we discuss things and reach a compromise (we use scientific knowledge all the time during this process)

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 19:53:09 2011 No.3893256 >>3893251 Morality is unfounded QED

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 19:56:09 2011 No.3893265

>>3893225
>ad hominem isn't an insult. it's insulting someone and then saying thats why you're wrong. That's not what I did

That's literally EXACTLY what you did. It's practically a dictionary definition of ad hom.You explained my wrongness in terms of ignorance and willful obtuseness. It's so perfectly, precisely ad hominem it's almost beautiful.

>the difference is we can know the relative sizes of cars and bananas. We cannot know which moral argument is true. all we can is discuss how best to live together.

That's just you restating your position. That's not you arguing in favor of your position.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 19:56:09 2011 No.3893267

>>3893251
>What? I don't even understand how that's a response.
Great. I'm not going to spoon feed you.

>WTF?!?!? Honestly, that made me burst out laughing. So it's "false usage of the word" (whatever that means), yet you agree with it. Ok...
I have come to the conclusion you don't even understand half of the reponses you get. Seriously? It's a false usage of the word, because it doesn't give any weight to your argument whatsoever.

>Do you... think it's wrong? Sometimes people use words to refer to things in the real world. When they do, we can make sense of their uses of language by bringing our objective knowledge of the world to bear.
I was hoping you weren't meaning that. And this relates to our discussion how?

>That's it? Honestly? That's your refutation? Religious moralities are sometimes mistaken because they base religious judgments on gods that don't exist, and there's simply going to be no way to make sense of what they mean. If you could clarify here, that'd be great.
That's a weak response. All I have to do is replace "god" with "political leader". There. Back to square one you go.

>Of course I can. God isn't real. Insofar as god is the source for their morality their morality is unfounded.
Again, replace "god" with political leader.

>That's just laughable, and misses the point. A morality based on something that doesn't exist is an unfounded morality.
You surely dodged the part where I said "leader", the thing that EXISTS, huh? Back to square one you go.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 20:00:09 2011 No.3893282

>>3893240
>It's the _value_ of the judgement that creates the real problem. Values are subjective, because every human being is different, and with different opinions.

Ok, you've restated what your position is. Now argue for it. Go.

>There isn't any value that's objective, like that your life is more worth than mine because you're richer or anything like that.

That's still just a restatement of the same position. Nooow..... argue for it!

>The person next to you could raise a hand and say "I disagree". Voilá, morality has become subjective.

Ok, that's almost an argument. But as I've said before, you could say the same about the sun. I say the sun is a burning ball of hydrogen. You say, "no, it's a chariot marching across the sky!" Voila, the Sun is subjective?

This is the part where you say "No, but morality is different from the sun."

Then I ask "why is morality different?"

Then you say "Because it's different it's different."

We may have exhausted the debate here. If you've argued in more detail than this, and I missed id, I apologize, and please link me to the comment so I can read that instead.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 20:01:09 2011 No.3893285

>>3893265
>That's literally EXACTLY what you did. It's practically a dictionary definition of ad hom.You explained my wrongness in terms of ignorance and willful obtuseness. It's so perfectly, precisely ad hominem it's almost beautiful.

No what i did was make an observation based on what I've read from you. i at no point claimed that it is this observation that makes you wrong. you are wrong for a number of reasons identified elsewhere.

>>That's just you restating your position. That's not you arguing in favor of your position.

My position is that we cannot know if a moral argument is true. If you think we can it's up to you to give us reasons for that. Justification for a moral argument is not what makes true,

No single solution or explanation has divine right or axiomatic authority over another. This is accepted. Justification of moral attitudes is what comes next. and it is entirely different asserting the truth of something

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 20:03:09 2011 No.3893296

Equating a more or less objectively measurable thing like weather, with its pressures and temperatures to morality, a structure of human thought, is a difficult comparaison. Maybe impossible, even. Both good and bad and weather are qualitative statements. They are of quality... to the observer!

Nice weather is weather that let's us do our human things very well: picnics and gardening and so on. Bad weather the opposite. The caveat is that what's good for one might not be good for the other: Adam likes rain, Beth likes sunshine.

And so, objectivity is lost. How? Adam might not like rain all the time. Some days he likes sunshine. So at best you make a general rule: Adam likes some kinds weather more than others. Now, a scientific theory is one you can predict the results from data with. So you could imagine a generic human, and make rules that seem to work most of the time. But suppose Adam sees new weather he's never seen before. A meteor shower maybe. How can you know wether he likes this weather or not? A science of morality should let you know if that's good or bad weather to Adam, but how can it? While you might be able to read all of his thoughts to see how he would feel or think about this new event, this would still be an open and recursive system:
Adam1 + x = Adam2
Adam2 + x = Adam3
...
Would this eventually reach a limit? Maybe if Adam(n) eventually knows every possible x?

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 20:04:09 2011 No.3893300

>>3893267

I've responded in good faith to numerous people ITT. I've put up dozens and dozens and dozens of replies. But this argument is so piss poor & intellectually lazy it simply doesn't merit a response. I can't prevent you from claiming a fake victory but I simply don't respect you enough to care.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 20:06:09 2011 No.3893313

>>3893282
>Ok, you've restated what your position is. Now argue for it. Go.
I just did, in the post you responded to.

>That's still just a restatement of the same position. Nooow..... argue for it!
No, its not.

>Ok, that's almost an argument. But as I've said before, you could say the same about the sun. I say the sun is a burning ball of hydrogen. You say, "no, it's a chariot marching across the sky!" Voila, the Sun is subjective?
There is overwhelming evidence that the sun is a star. There is no evidence whatsoever that values are anything but subjective.

>We may have exhausted the debate here. If you've argued in more detail than this, and I missed id, I apologize, and please link me to the comment so I can read that instead.
That's okay man, this is all there is to it. As human beings are different, their values are different. As their values are different, their morality is different. As their morality is different, morality has to be subjective.

>>3893300
That's me man. I wasn't in this for any victory. I just constantly search for people who have different ideas than my own, so I can learn and change my views accordingly.

Axel the Possum Wed Oct 12 20:11:09 2011 No.3893341

To define a morality, you need to define criteria for good and evil. There is, however, no good molecule, no evil atom, no distilled beaker of morality for us to examine. The only physical component to morality is the neurons the idea is stored on in our heads.

The only science there can be in morality is determining how to make certain outcomes more frequent, accomplish certain goals, and so-on; the method of application, the pointing out of inconsistencies, but not the definitions.

But this is a troll thread so, y'know, you knew that already.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 20:14:09 2011 No.3893353

it's been fun, but the low quality of replies as caused me to lose interest. I'll help you guys claim your fake victories by writing some of your replies for you:

>OP JUST THINKS MORALITY IS WHATEVER HE SAYS IT IS

>OP DOESNT UNDRESTAND IS/OUGHT EVEN THOUGH HE EXPLAINED WHY HE DISAGREED WITH IT

>OP SUCKS HITLERS DICK BECAUSE HE DOESNT BELIEVE SUBJECTIVE MORALITY

have fun!

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 20:14:09 2011 No.3893358

>>3893341
I dont think it was a troll thread. his persistence (>>3893300) leads me to believe he is the only atheist in the world who believes morality in objective without any reason. Apparently, the mere that that moral decisions are formulated in our brains is what makes it objective.
he couldn't respond adequately to >>3893285

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 20:19:09 2011 No.3893376

>>3893353
>OP DOESNT UNDRESTAND IS/OUGHT EVEN THOUGH HE EXPLAINED WHY HE DISAGREED WITH IT

its disagreeing with it that shows you dont understand it. you've disagreed with it without good reason.

you can't get an ought from is. you failed to explain how you can. (protip: ought comes from elsewhere)

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 20:25:09 2011 No.3893410
File: 24 KB, 335x352, fgsfds.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3892089
morality is objective in the sense of objectively existing. You can objectively study it only in the descriptive sense.

moral truth (!= truth about morality) depends on each individual´s preferences. To use this analogy, how do you determine what is he best weather? You cannot; all kinds of weather have their value depending on the context.

The same holds for moral truths: what do you consider "good" and "evil" (or "good" and "bad" for the non-dogmatics) DEPENDS ON YOUR PREFERENCES, among other things like your metaethics.

One more note for liberal moralfags: see Manderlay. A truly enlightening movie.

tl;dr OP is a fag, Sam Harris is a clueless shithead.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 20:26:09 2011 No.3893416 >>3893410 How does morality objectively exist? If we disappeared, would there be anyone to wonder about morality? Is there a thing called the morality atom, or the moral wave?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 20:28:09 2011 No.3893423 >>3893410 back2middleschool

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 20:32:09 2011 No.3893435 >>3893416 morality exists in the sense that behaviors exist, which are called "moral" by those who perform them. These behaviors can be objectively observed and studied (eg. anthropologically; thick description looks useful to me).

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 20:34:09 2011 No.3893446 >>3893435 morality isn't a behavior, behaviors don't exist you are so dumb

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 12 20:35:09 2011 No.3893449 >>3893435 morals =/= behaviors. morals = >Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation among intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong).

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 20:36:09 2011 No.3893451

Weather IS objective. We know what conditions can make what and study these conditions. You can study morality, sure, but because morality is such an idiosyncratic idea, you cannot make a science out of it because it only follows what one person feels like. If hot air meets with cold air the hot air can't just decide not to go to the cold air. If high pressure and low pressure systems meet you WILL get wind, the weather can't just say it doesn't feel like making wind. If a guy is dying on the sidewalk and someone walks by, they CAN just say they would rather not get involved. If someone sees a wallet on the ground they CAN choose whether to keep it or find the owner.

People USUALLY won't kick random guys in the testicles on the street, but you can't build a science off of what's usual or unusual or subjective because it does not have universal laws that apply everywhere. Morality is NOT science.

Anonymous Wed Oct 12 20:39:09 2011 No.3893466
File: 28 KB, 500x355, z8vaT.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3893446
>behaviors don't exist
pic related

>>3893449
well you can get at least people´s opinions on what is moral, and that is perfectly sufficient for a descriptive, value-free study of morality.

But I admit pulling the terminology out my ass here (philosophy student here); try reading some Jonathan Haidt if you are interested though.

Marion Bartoli is my Waifu Wed Oct 12 20:43:09 2011 No.3893484

>>3893133
> As for is/ought, it has the same problems as the naturalistic "fallacy:: That's only a problem if we accept that the premises motivating it in the first place.
You are fucking retarded. There is no premise for the is/ought gap. It is a challenge: "Describe how you logically transform observational statements into normative ones." Of course anyone can make such statements, but the problem is pernicious for moral realists because their map can't be arbitrary. You can't just say, "Well, brains like lollipops, so lollipops are good." This is just deflationary, because anything a brain likes is just as good as any other brain, so really you have to find a prototypical brain which stands for brains so that you can say, definitively (within the bounds of epistemology), that such-and-such a brain is or could be wrong. But then you're right back to where you started: how do you justify observing these brains and saying this is/isn't what brains should be like? How is this not a hasty generalization? Most importantly, why are these prototypes?

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]