My latest moral argument.

Author: secularmerlin

Posts

Total: 124
Topic's author
#61
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Morality is a code of behavior derived from values, to list off values and then say "despite morality" is like adding cinnamon despite taste.

If your values are wellbeing and public health, then a morality is implied by that.

If you mean to say the values you listed supersede all your other values or any value anyone else may hold... congratulations you are now at level 0 of the ethics tech tree. Everybody from Hitler to mother Theresa has values and pursues them.
Tell that to someone who thinks morals are an objective thing. 

As for other values I don't know what considerations should be more important than human wellbeing and the public health (assuming we can even discover what makes us well and healthy)

And by the way you could hardly have found two humans that were worse for human wellbeing and the public health than Hitler and mother Theresa. That one is generally considered immoral and the other moral speaks volumes about moral opinions. 


Topic's author
#62
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
Even the notion of objectivity is subjective, or more correctly, data subject to the same processes of internal manipulation.

It's not that morals are independent and definitive objects that float about and occasionally bump you on the head.
Well stated.
They are created inside your head....And disinterested or not you will still possess some data sequences that resemble what is loosely regarded as morality.
Well

IF morality is subjective THEN I have already given you my standards

And

IF morality is objective and it doesn't support my standard THEN I don't give a fig about being moral.

My argument has the charm (if you want to call it that) of being equally effective when arguing with moral realists and moral relativist alike.
Topic's author
#63
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Is everyone on this site a moral relativist? What arguments have made it so popular here or is it just coincidence?
I'm pretty sure it is our observations of humans holding different moral values subjectively that has convinced us that morals are subjective rather than any particular argument. 
Topic's author
#64
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I would advertise my morality as objective. Everything but axioms are relative to something, normally when one says "moral relativist" they mean morals relative to whims. Morals that are not relative to values is not defined.
IF you have chosen a subjective standard THEN you can make objective statements based on that standard BUT that doesn't make your standard anything other than subjective. 
#65
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,552
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@secularmerlin
This:

IF morality is subjective THEN I have already given you my standards

And

IF morality is objective and it doesn't support my standard THEN I don't give a fig about being moral.
… should be included in your OP. It would clear up a lot and prevent the ensuing confusion. I tend to agree with Matt Dilahunty on this:  the foundation of morality is subjective, but once a foundation is chosen, morality is objective from that point onward.
Topic's author
#66
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@cristo71
My stance remains that I am disinterested in the concept of morality and instead only in the effects of actions on human wellbeing and the public health. 

#67
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,552
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@secularmerlin
My stance remains that I am disinterested in the concept of morality and instead only in the effects of actions on human wellbeing and the public health. 
Oh, I thought progress was being made, but you regress here. Your claim is not coherent. It’s akin to claiming “I am disinterested in the concept of survival and instead only in what it takes to keep us alive.”


Topic's author
#68
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@cristo71
Survival is not a subjective matter. You either are alive or you are not. It is not opinion based. 

What I said is more akin to saying "I don't care about the rules of chess I just want to win". This is not a nonsense statement. One can observe the rules of chess without caring about the rules simply because it is in line with tour actual concerns to do so. 
#69
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@TheMorningsStar
I think the thing that gets confusing is that people assume because people engage in something they consider that their moral standard. They're obviously things that people find across the board immoral that's why there's laws against them. The people engaging in breaking the law do not consider what they're doing moral they know it's not they intentionally commit immoral acts. Just because a society finds something to be moral doesn't make it moral. Slavery was never moral. Rape is never moral. Murder is never moral. And I don't think for one minute that the people engaging in those acts don't know they're doing something wrong. No matter what society they live in or how they were raised.
#70
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@secularmerlin
Disagreement over facts does not rationally translate to morals are subjective. If this was the case then I doubt that moral relativist philosophers would admit that moral realism is the default position.
#71
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,552
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@secularmerlin
One can still care about morality if one believes it to be subjective.

How does pursuing your stated priorities  differ from a moral code?

Topic's author
#72
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheMorningsStar
I want to make it clear that I don't care what the majority of philosophers agree on. Anecdotal evidence and opinions do not become facts no matter how many people agree with you.

Disagreeing with someone about the moral implications of homosexuality (if there even are any) for example is not the same as disagreement about the shape of the earth. One is measurable and observable. The other you must either decide for yourself or take the word of some humans. 
#73
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@secularmerlin
Disagreeing with someone about the moral implications of homosexuality (if there even are any) for example is not the same as disagreement about the shape of the earth. One is measurable and observable. The other you must either decide for yourself or take the word of some humans. 
Which goes straight back to what I brought up yesterday, the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Both what is good and the shape of the earth are natural facts of reality. To assert, without anything to back it up, that they are inherently different in nature is to make an unsupported claim, yet you keep thinking you are making logical points. If you are this ignorant on the field of metaethics and yet this confident in your assertions, then what else might this apply to?
Topic's author
#74
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@cristo71
How does pursuing your stated priorities  differ from a moral code?
If someone claims homosexuality is immoral I can say "I don't care if it is immoral they aren't hurting anyone" and oppose them in these grounds. If someone claims that they have a divine mandate to own some people or take their land then I can say "I don't care if it is morally justified you are hurting people" and oppose them on those grounds. 

IF morality is subjective THEN it is besides the point.

And 

IF morality is objective THEN I only support it in a much as it supports human wellbeing and the public health. 
Topic's author
#75
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Both what is good and the shape of the earth are natural facts of reality.
Then please demonstrate the natural fact of what is good with the kind of objective evidence that you have for the shape of the earth. 
#76
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,552
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@secularmerlin
If someone claims homosexuality is immoral I can say "I don't care if it is immoral they aren't hurting anyone" and oppose them in these grounds. If someone claims that they have a divine mandate to own some people or take their land then I can say "I don't care if it is morally justified you are hurting people" and oppose them on those grounds. 
You are still making an argument about morality in any case— you just don’t seem to realize it…


Topic's author
#77
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@cristo71
You seem to be misunderstanding me on purpose. I don't care if protecting human interests is right or wrong. If it were provably and objectively morally incorrect I would still want to protect human interests and I think if you are honest with yourself you would feel the same. I would resist the extinction of humans even if it were the only way save a much more enlightened and morally upstanding race if beings. 

#78
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@secularmerlin
Then please demonstrate the natural fact of what is good with the kind of objective evidence that you have for the shape of the earth. 
It would be more alike the facts a biologist or zoologist can derive about various species, but it boils down to human telos. Just as a good knife is a knife that cuts well (as that is related to the telos of a knife), so to would a good human be that which coheres to its telos (won't go into too much detail here as I really am skeptical on if it is worth the effort). The telos is a natural fact about us and can, thus, be studied. The more we study it the more we can understand what, precisely, it is and how one best coheres to it.

Dr. Hursthouse's conclusion, based on the research into the human nature he read when writing his book, came to view that there are four main parts of the human telos:
  1. Survival of self
  2. Survival of species (usually through reproduction)
  3. Characteristic and Systematic Enjoyment & Freedom from Pain
  4. The Good Functioning of the Social Group
As such, any action that coheres to human telos (like charity, which coheres to #4) is objectively good while any action that goes against human telos (like murder, which goes against #2 and #4, or self-harm, which goes against #3 and to an extent #1) would be objectively bad.

As the telos is an objective fact of reality, and certain actions would objectively differ or cohere from human telos, this means certain actions are objectively moral or immoral. As human telos is a natural thing that means such facts are natural facts, and what constitutes a human telos can be studied scientifically (as all 4 points above were derived from various scientific works).

If you want more details there are numerous books you can read (and books I still need to read. As I said earlier, I am weaker in regards to ethics than other philosophical topics).
#79
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,552
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@secularmerlin
You seem to be misunderstanding me on purpose.
No, but you seem to be creating needless confusion on purpose.

You asked for feedback in your OP, so here’s mine:

You are espousing a moral system founded upon human well being and public health, which is fine and dandy as far as it goes. The glaring problem is that you deny this concept, this code of morality constitutes a concept of morality. This merely creates an incoherent, semantics wild goose chase in a forum intended to be about philosophy.


#80
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@cristo71
The glaring problem is that you deny this concept, this code of morality constitutes a concept of morality. This merely creates an incoherent, semantics wild goose chase in a forum intended to be about philosophy.
That is one of the angles I was considering tackling but figured that others would get to it. I find it odd how much this has had to be repeated when it seems quite clear cut.
Topic's author
#81
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheMorningsStar
What makes a knife a good knife is largely subjective to your goal. A pairing knife must be sharp but a putty knife must be dull. No one knife design is objectively correct. 
Topic's author
#82
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@cristo71
You cannot define my position for me and doing so will never change my actual position. 
#83
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@secularmerlin
 A pairing knife must be sharp but a putty knife must be dull
I didn't say sharp or dull for that reason, I said that it needs to cut well (as that is part of what a knife is). Just because there are different ways a knife can be a good knife does not discount that there are still objective facts one can make about it based on its telos. Furthermore, I would argue that a pairing knife and putty knife, while sharing aspects of telos (needing the ability to cut), also have aspects of their telos that is different from each other. That doesn't make anything subjective, it is still entirely objective.
Topic's author
#84
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheMorningsStar
There is no one objectively correct design for a knife and no objectively correct moral standard. It depends on what you are trying to accomplish. If you are trying to follow the dictates of a probably fictional god then your goal is not human wellbeing and we will perforce be at odds when these two goals come into conflict. 
#85
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@secularmerlin
Again, like talking to a brick wall. Maybe you should actually read a book on the topic sometime.. or you can win the Dunning-Kruger Award if you want.
#86
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,552
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@TheMorningsStar
It’s a discussion worthy subject if not for the incoherence, contradictions, and prevarications of this particular thread.

Here’s my attempt to make it interesting:

I have come across individuals who might place ecological well being and non-human animal well being above human well being as their moral foundation.

Or:

What about when a human’s or group of humans’ well being clashes with that of another human’s or group of humans?

#87
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@secularmerlin
I would advertise my morality as objective. Everything but axioms are relative to something, normally when one says "moral relativist" they mean morals relative to whims. Morals that are not relative to values is not defined.
IF you have chosen a subjective standard THEN you can make objective statements based on that standard BUT that doesn't make your standard anything other than subjective. 
What makes a standard subjective?

[TheMorningsStar] Both what is good and the shape of the earth are natural facts of reality.
Then please demonstrate the natural fact of what is good with the kind of objective evidence that you have for the shape of the earth.
You do not justify a sphere is a sphere, you define a sphere and then prove the earth is one. You must understand that at some point there will be a definition, an axiom establishing the concept which does is not proved by anything else.

Values and morals obviously do not exist in a universe without life, morality is about choice, values are about conditional future realities that choice affects. The fundamental natural value is life. Nothing proves life is valuable, that is what value means.
#88
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@secularmerlin
In that case, we are are the same page.
#89
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Just because there are different ways a knife can be a good knife does not discount that there are still objective facts one can make about it based on its telos.
The ultimate purpose of a knife is ultimately based on the human mind, and philosophically, that would make the telos subjective, yes? 

If the telos of a knife is subjective, how is the telos of morality any different?
#90
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,923
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
In any case where morality does not support these two considerations I do not support morality and in any case where morality is in opposition to these two considerations I oppose morality.

The moral of your{SM } story is, that, morals  are fine by you, as long  they support what you support.

Ergo, there is no escaping the preoccupation of subjective moral dilemma's,  except in some special-case circumstances, that, most likely are not found, or rarely not found within human species.

It appears to me, that morals are like guidelines or teachings about life, living etc.  Do onto others as you would have them do onto you is good teaching and moral.

Do not share with others, what you would not have them share with you. Similar but oppositely applied moral/teaching.

Morals are not like inviolate cosmic principles and physical laws.  The integrity of a set of morals, only exists when there is mass-agreement on the morals presented to us.