|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: God's morality is objective
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
What we cannot do, if morality is not objective, is persuade them if by persuade we mean offer relevant reasons.
Whyever not? Obviously there needs to be some level of shared understanding in order for it to be possible, but as that is in fact the case for pretty much all humans everywhere then I fail to see the problem.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But if you have the power to stop the blond children from being thrown off the cliff, but you choose to not exercise that power, are you not guilty of their deaths?
The same question can (and has) been asked about God. He usually gets some kind of a Prime Directive exemption based on free will.
Yes, but doesn't that demonstrate my point above: that God's application of morality to mankind does not equate to ours entre nous (between ourselves)? "My ways are not your ways", and all that.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Actually, I think the problem with this entire argument is that it assumes that "objectivity" is a property of the thing being observed, rather than a quality of the relation between the observer and the observed. It assumes that "morality" is some kind of thing (an "object") that can be set apart from those observing it, such that they can analyze its properties and come to agreement about its nature. But morality is in us, and we as social animals exist in it--no separation is possible. Objectivity and subjectivity are not coherent constructs in this domain (I'm not sure they're coherent with regard to anything more complex than a rock, but that's another discussion).
I'd agree up to a point. Certainly, these kinds of discussion are bogged down by people talking past each other.
I'm not entirely sure, though, that we can say that the pair of words entirely lose their application.
The root meaning of 'objective' is that the thing discussed is a property of the intentional object known or perceived rather than added by the knowing or perceiving subject. It's then a fairly natural shift to use the word to mean something that is there to be known or perceived even when there's nobody who knows or perceives it. It does introduce confusion to do that, since you have to be careful not to shift fallaciously from talking about the thing as known to the thing as possibly not known and vice versa.
But just because morality is bound up with who we are doesn't mean we can't be objective about it. All that's required is that the act of understanding be to some extent separable from the phenomenon. It's possible to be under a misapprehension about one's own emotional state for example. And while the status of economics as a science perhaps suffers from the fact that it affects the behaviour studied and so on, it's still about something that some economists can have false biased beliefs about.
I suppose the basic distinction is whether it's meaningful to talk about bias. If someone can be biased, then there's something objective there for them to be biased about. Bias is basically a subjective element distorting comprehension of something not subjective. If not, then not.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
What we cannot do, if morality is not objective, is persuade them if by persuade we mean offer relevant reasons.
Whyever not? Obviously there needs to be some level of shared understanding in order for it to be possible, but as that is in fact the case for pretty much all humans everywhere then I fail to see the problem.
You can't offer someone relevant reasons to prefer champaigne to bitter. You can appeal to snob value, but snob value isn't a relevant reason in this sense.
What's a shared understanding got to do with it? On the hypothesis that morality is subjective, there's nothing there to understand. Moral judgements are nothing to do with understanding; they're expressions of emotions, or attempts to alter other people's behaviour, or something of that sort.
Reasons are grounds for thinking that an opinion is right or wrong. When right and wrong don't apply reasons are irrelevant. They have nothing to do with the case. And if morality is subjective, then right and wrong by definition don't apply.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
The claim is often made that without God objective morality can not exist. Without getting to much into the particulars of the argument, I must say that I find it convincing. In short, I believe that there are certain actions that are wrong and that God is the best ontological foundation for such a belief.
I understand "objective morality" to mean a morality that is in some sense hard-wired into the universe such that it is discoverable by a disinterested and competent intelligent creature.
On the basis that a morality that is undiscoverable is practically equivalent to no morality existing.
If such a hard-wired discoverable morality exists, then it does so regardless of how the universe came to be.
The suggestion that "natural causes" could create a universe but couldn't create a universe with built-in morality seems like an anthropomorphism too far.
Of course, most of the time we humans fall short of being competent and disinterested. We want too much to guard against the particular sins and deprivations that have been committed against us, that we therefore feel strongly the wrongness of.
Others haven't helped us when we wanted them to, or have used what power they had over us to impose on us ways we didn't want, and we seek not to repeat those evils, by helping or not imposing on others.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Morality is objective. Good is good. I was horrified to encounter what turned out to be an even more horrifically common kind of 'thinking' on Churchnet and Premier Christian, in a person of otherwise lovely disposition, the actual proposition that if God declared rape good then it would be.
Love is objective. We ALL know it when we are subject to it - and not.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Wtf?
Objectivity = truth.
God makes and sustains the world.
That is your opinion – you cannot demonstrate that it is truth.
Truth? What kind of truth? You cannot demonstrate that it is not true.
My position is more philosophically and logically sound however. The thing that creates, sustains and redeems the world is the source of objectivity precisely because it is creator, sustainer and redeemer. Without those things, there would be no life so objectivity is null and void.
Your position, as an atheist, is the weaker position as you have no logical source of objectivity. You have no source of truth
.
Is this a circular argument– I can’t prove anything but what I believe without evidence is true because it has to be true or my belief is untrue?
My position (that I do not believe in a god or gods) does not require a logical source of objectivity – I’m not the one making the claims that God makes and sustains the world. and God saved the Israelites from slavery and oppression in Egypt If you can demonstrate any valid basis for your belief in these statements please do so – I’ve never found anyone offer such a thing yet. Similarly, how do you justify (other than my inability to prove a negative*) the world needing a creator, needing a sustainer or needing a redeemer because without those things there would be no life? Perhaps you could anthropomorphize the big bang (which was a start of something) and the laws of physics (which seem to encompass pretty much everything in, on and around our world) but you’ve lost me on the redeemer bit – and when last I thought about it I seemed to be alive OK.
*I presume you’re aware of Russell’s teapot.
Checking for later posts to respond to I see that Croesos got there first – great minds etc..
quote:
The first three are the source of objectivity from which the others flow. Perfectly logical. One does not put the cart before the horse. The horse comes first.
But the cart doesn’t go very far when no-one can see, touch, taste, hear or sense the horse in any way other than via their imagination, does it? (Not much good for the roses either come to think of it).
quote:
Which was my original point. God first, then morality.
OK – it was your original point – it’s still an opinion rather than a truth.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Morality is objective. Good is good. I was horrified to encounter what turned out to be an even more horrifically common kind of 'thinking' on Churchnet and Premier Christian, in a person of otherwise lovely disposition, the actual proposition that if God declared rape good then it would be.
Love is objective. We ALL know it when we are subject to it - and not.
Firstly – such an attitude (rape being made good), I think, fully deserves to be called horrific – irrespective of the god element – it would be the same if secular law were so amended..
Secondly - being my simpleton self – is it not the case that if God decided what constitutes right and wrong (= morality?) he can change that decision and right and wrong are changed because if they’re not then something superior to god exists. (Superior in the sense of more powerful and, presumably, pre-existent). And I was always taught that that was not an option – though perhaps my teachers were wrong?
My head hurts less now I’m an atheist!
@IngoB – Thanks for your time – after a quick read through I’m not sure you’ve really answered my query, though I’m not sure I expressed the query very well either. I’ll read it again but the impression I gained (quite possibly wrongly) was that you reject the idea because of its implications regarding your beliefs. Have you read Free Will by Sam Harris? – it’s not long (66 pages)and seems to have a lot of references to published research but I have no way of knowing how good they are, nor what contrary results have been gained elsewhere. His basic tenet certainly would make life very difficult for traditional religious views, though I don’t think it damages the concept of morality at a group level. As I understand it we know that psychopaths (no remorse/conscience?) tend to have a damaged, mis-formed or missing area in the brain. That doesn’t mean we tolerate their behaviour – it might mean reassessing how we protect others until (if ever) we develop a way of making those brains whole. Similarly, if major behaviour is governed largely by experience (I recall being told that abusers more often have a history of being abused than non-abusers etc....) why shouldn’t lesser behaviours be so too? I don’t know where the statistic comes from but it’s often said that 80% of people professing religious association have the same association as their parents. Childhood emulation becomes a set form of behaviour? –we know that repetition encourages acceptance/agreement, just as we know that the brain can be trained to recall, as fact, things that never happened.
Where we get to is that a body such as a cult (Scientology?) or a state (Sparta?) can modify learning and ensure that most people’s automatic responses are acceptable to whoever is setting the rules; and I find that highly repugnant (Give me a child to the age of 7?). Yet it may be a hard-wired evolutionary fact that we can only address by providing experience that counters damaging environments/genetics. I’m frightening myself here so I’ll stop.
[ 13. December 2012, 23:33: Message edited by: HughWillRidmee ]
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
My position (that I do not believe in a god or gods) does not require a logical source of objectivity – I’m not the one making the claims that God makes and sustains the world. and God saved the Israelites from slavery and oppression in Egypt If you can demonstrate any valid basis for your belief in these statements please do so – I’ve never found anyone offer such a thing yet. Similarly, how do you justify (other than my inability to prove a negative*) the world needing a creator, needing a sustainer or needing a redeemer because without those things there would be no life? Perhaps you could anthropomorphize the big bang (which was a start of something) and the laws of physics (which seem to encompass pretty much everything in, on and around our world) but you’ve lost me on the redeemer bit – and when last I thought about it I seemed to be alive OK.
*I presume you’re aware of Russell’s teapot.
Checking for later posts to respond to I see that Croesos got there first – great minds etc..
quote:
The first three are the source of objectivity from which the others flow. Perfectly logical. One does not put the cart before the horse. The horse comes first.
But the cart doesn’t go very far when no-one can see, touch, taste, hear or sense the horse in any way other than via their imagination, does it? (Not much good for the roses either come to think of it).
quote:
Which was my original point. God first, then morality.
OK – it was your original point – it’s still an opinion rather than a truth.
I've recently been through the irrationality of atheism on another thread Hugh. I've realised I can't be arsed to go through it again.
Needles too say Russell's teapot is a load of rubbish. Theism is philosophically and logically the most rational position to explain the world.
Atheism has no evidence to say God does not exist. Indeed, they would have to prove nothing came from nothing and it all just happened randomly and we exist for nothing and it's all about nothing.
Which is highly irrational.
As for God being my opinion? Sure. But it's the most reasonable conclusion to come to based on the evidence of our existence.
Your atheism is your opinion - it's just less reasonable.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
HughWillRidmee, like many here, you are a VERY clever chap. Which means far more than I and able to do quality AND quantity.
I just do annoying sound bites.
Your teachers were obviously absurdly wrong. It's like the 'reasoning' of Oolon Colluphid.
Whatever is objectively, perfectly moral, good, loving is eternally subjectified ontologically in God.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
What's a shared understanding got to do with it? On the hypothesis that morality is subjective, there's nothing there to understand. Moral judgements are nothing to do with understanding; they're expressions of emotions, or attempts to alter other people's behaviour, or something of that sort.
But neither are they in isolation from one another. By "shared understanding" I really mean nothing more than "there is a certain level of morality on which we agree". That may be at as base a level as "it's bad for me to be killed", or it may be at as advanced a level as "we should love each other", but as long as it exists then other moralities can be discussed from it.
You could, of course, posit a situation where there is literally no such level of agreement whatsoever between two people, but I doubt that it exists in reality. And once there's that bedrock of shared understanding it's possible to have the discussion, and perhaps for one of us to convince the other that their view is better.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
By "shared understanding" I really mean nothing more than "there is a certain level of morality on which we agree". That may be at as base a level as "it's bad for me to be killed", or it may be at as advanced a level as "we should love each other", but as long as it exists then other moralities can be discussed from it.
That is only true if there is some kind of constraint upon moral judgements that means that one moral judgement can constrain other moral judgements.
Someone thinks that it's wrong for Bigendians to wage war upon Littleendians. You can ask them to explain that this is a special case of it is wrong for anyone to wage war upon anyone. And therefore get them to conclude that it is also wrong for Littleendians to wage war upon Bigendians.
But there's no reason that any such constraint need exist if morality is subjective opinion. Subjective opinion just isn't required to recognise any such constraint.
quote:
And once there's that bedrock of shared understanding it's possible to have the discussion, and perhaps for one of us to convince the other that their view is better.
Better according to whom?
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
By "shared understanding" I really mean nothing more than "there is a certain level of morality on which we agree". That may be at as base a level as "it's bad for me to be killed", or it may be at as advanced a level as "we should love each other", but as long as it exists then other moralities can be discussed from it.
That is only true if there is some kind of constraint upon moral judgements that means that one moral judgement can constrain other moral judgements.
Someone thinks that it's wrong for Bigendians to wage war upon Littleendians. You can ask them to explain that this is a special case of it is wrong for anyone to wage war upon anyone. And therefore get them to conclude that it is also wrong for Littleendians to wage war upon Bigendians.
But there's no reason that any such constraint need exist if morality is subjective opinion. Subjective opinion just isn't required to recognise any such constraint.
quote:
And once there's that bedrock of shared understanding it's possible to have the discussion, and perhaps for one of us to convince the other that their view is better.
Better according to whom?
This all seems to be far more complicated than it needs to be.
You could start by asking someone "Do you want to try and avoid hardshp, starvation and death. The majority of people will answer yes. From there you can make a very convincing case for "these things are good to do, these things aren't good to do" that pave the way to people banding together into societys to farm, keep warm and keep the bandits out.
Wham bam you get a code to live by.
Next.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
Having a code isn't the point. The question is more whether one code is as good as another, or whether it is meaningful to talk about a "best code".
And most of the time people's codes include a whole lot of stuff that is cultural rather than moral. Whether it's which way up to eat one's egg or how old a child has to be before being considered an adult.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Having a code isn't the point. The question is more whether one code is as good as another,
That depends on what you want the outcome to be. If you want to avoid starving during the winter then the code that says band together, farm land and build store houses is going to be demonstrably better than a code that says hit people with rocks to steal their pack lunch and burn buildings to the ground for warmth.
quote:
or whether it is meaningful to talk about a "best code".
Best code? I guess that would be up for debate in most circumstances.
quote:
And most of the time people's codes include a whole lot of stuff that is cultural rather than moral. Whether it's which way up to eat one's egg or how old a child has to be before being considered an adult.
Yes.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I’ll read it again but the impression I gained (quite possibly wrongly) was that you reject the idea because of its implications regarding your beliefs.
You wish. ![[Biased]](wink.gif) However, it is somewhat difficult to explain the problem, because most people have quite frankly a "magical" attitude to technology and in particular computers. It is easiest to explain it to someone who has programming experience (is a "magician"). But to keep it non-technical, ... take James Joyce' "Ulysses", well known for being a "stream of consciousness" novel. Is "Ulysses" conscious? No, of course not. It is a book. But doesn't it have all the necessary bits and pieces? All the required mental components, if you like? Setting aside any doubts one might have about Joyce' ability to capture the mind accurately, I would still say no to that. These mental components are recorded in the book as a sort of list of the actual mental processes of a real person, but no matter how accurate such a list may be, there is no life in a recorded value. A written thought is not the same as thought one actually has, even if the former is the most precise representation of the latter imaginable. But what if he made a Leopold Bloom puppet, that somehow acted out the book as we progress through it? Well, that's fun and if it's life-like enough it may even fool people into believing that the puppet is Bloom. But enacting some recorded value does give only a mechanical life to it, it does not supply the sort of life that this record is a record of. But what if the book was really not a static entity, but rather a dynamic one? What if the Bloom puppet had lots of sensors by which it detects the environment, databases against which to compare the input, massive compute power to drive an expert system that creates these values and then they are enacted as well? Wouldn't that be just like Bloom, wouldn't that be like a human being? (Now we have basically arrived where a discussion could start with a programmer). No, and mark this well Mr Turing, it still wouldn't be like Bloom or a human being at all. Because when all is said and done, all this incredible technology does is to create a kind of "Ulysses" book on the fly, calculating representative values of all kinds of mental components through complex processes, and then enacts them through a puppet body in conceivably highly convincing ways.
So I have no doubts that it is at least in principle possible to construct such a puppet that would fool absolutely everyone into believing that it is a human being. But nevertheless, in all this complexity, there would be nobody home. It would just be the most amazing gadget ever. It would just be an astonishing way of writing and performing "Ulysses" dynamically and interactively. But there would be no actual light in the eyes of this puppet (even if the engineers could make it appear so with the right kind of moistness and colour of the artificial eyeballs). The key point is that I know that I am not like that. In fact, you could convince me Matrix-style that absolutely everything I believe about the world is wrong. But you cannot convince me that I am like that. It is our primary experience that we are, I am having thoughts, I do not consist of thoughts. Even if you represent every bit of my mental life all the time by untold technological wizardry, you would just create a flawless representation of me, you would not create an actual being like me. The Turing test is a silly fail, because it ignores the most basic of psychological processes. I do not recognize a fellow human being as one of my kind due to all the smart answers they can give. Rather, I know that I am me, therefore I conclude that there could be others that are they, and then I collect evidence for what entities in my environment could qualify for that. And quite frankly, the most powerful evidence for that is "looks like me, i.e., like a human being", which has nothing to do with any assessment of their intellectual output at all. There is no real external evidence for being someone, however. Being someone is necessarily an internal experience. Yet this does not make this experience in the slightest an "irrational" thing.
Anyway, I come to this simply from having experience with programming. My contention is basically that one cannot program a person. One can possibly program something that acts just like a person, to the point where absolutely everybody is fooled. But then everybody would be fooled indeed, because this would still not be the same as programming a person. And the primary evidence I have for this is that I know what code does to a computer, and I know what I do within myself. And there just is no way these can become the same. It is not a quantitative problem, but a qualitative one. Some physicists also have an intuitive understanding of this problem (and of course, I'm primarily trained as a physicist). That's because they have described matter with mathematical rules so much, with partial differential equations and whatnot. They may not be programming nature, but they are deciphering the basic code. And that can lead to similar queasiness about this whole "being someone" concept.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
You could start by asking someone "Do you want to try and avoid hardshp, starvation and death. The majority of people will answer yes. From there you can make a very convincing case for "these things are good to do, these things aren't good to do" that pave the way to people banding together into societys to farm, keep warm and keep the bandits out.
Wham bam you get a code to live by.
Next.
As you point out in your very next post, this may or may not be sufficient to determine which code to live by.
If you believe that given enough thought the above method is sufficient to produce a single code to live by, then you're claiming morality is objective.
If you believe that it isn't, then we run into a problem, which is that some people stand to benefit more under code A than code B and other people stand to benefit under code B than code A. This means that if anything the discussion is less complicated than it needs to be.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
You could start by asking someone "Do you want to try and avoid hardshp, starvation and death. The majority of people will answer yes. From there you can make a very convincing case for "these things are good to do, these things aren't good to do" that pave the way to people banding together into societys to farm, keep warm and keep the bandits out.
Wham bam you get a code to live by.
Next.
As you point out in your very next post, this may or may not be sufficient to determine which code to live by.
If you believe that given enough thought the above method is sufficient to produce a single code to live by, then you're claiming morality is objective.
If you believe that it isn't, then we run into a problem, which is that some people stand to benefit more under code A than code B and other people stand to benefit under code B than code A. This means that if anything the discussion is less complicated than it needs to be.
I think people keep putting the cart before the horse when talking about morality. I don't think that God embodies concepts of good and bad and that some humans perceived objective goodness and decided to shape their lives accordingly so that they could be good.
I think that there are basic modes of behaviour that are going to be more sucessful than others such as forming a group as stated above. When people saw that the results of co-operation meant that they were warmer, had a store of food and lived longer they then had proof that, "These things are good". When the loan bandit is caught trying to murder and steel by the newly formed guards who agreed to work together and protect the farmers....well all could look upon the body of the bandit and have very good reason to proclaim that "His way of life was bad".
So to recap I dont think good and bad existed as such at the dawn of time and then people discovered them and thought how do we live so that we can echo these godly concepts. I think people observed that some behaviours were beneficial and some weren't and invented the labels "good" and "bad".
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
You could start by asking someone "Do you want to try and avoid hardshp, starvation and death. The majority of people will answer yes. From there you can make a very convincing case for "these things are good to do, these things aren't good to do" that pave the way to people banding together into societys to farm, keep warm and keep the bandits out.
Wham bam you get a code to live by.
Next.
Unless, of course, you are a bandit.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
You could start by asking someone "Do you want to try and avoid hardshp, starvation and death. The majority of people will answer yes. From there you can make a very convincing case for "these things are good to do, these things aren't good to do" that pave the way to people banding together into societys to farm, keep warm and keep the bandits out.
Wham bam you get a code to live by.
Next.
As you point out in your very next post, this may or may not be sufficient to determine which code to live by.
If you believe that given enough thought the above method is sufficient to produce a single code to live by, then you're claiming morality is objective.
If you believe that it isn't, then we run into a problem, which is that some people stand to benefit more under code A than code B and other people stand to benefit under code B than code A. This means that if anything the discussion is less complicated than it needs to be.
I think people keep putting the cart before the horse when talking about morality. I don't think that God embodies concepts of good and bad and that some humans perceived objective goodness and decided to shape their lives accordingly so that they could be good.
I think that there are basic modes of behaviour that are going to be more sucessful than others such as forming a group as stated above. When people saw that the results of co-operation meant that they were warmer, had a store of food and lived longer they then had proof that, "These things are good". When the loan bandit is caught trying to murder and steel by the newly formed guards who agreed to work together and protect the farmers....well all could look upon the body of the bandit and have very good reason to proclaim that "His way of life was bad".
So to recap I dont think good and bad existed as such at the dawn of time and then people discovered them and thought how do we live so that we can echo these godly concepts. I think people observed that some behaviours were beneficial and some weren't and invented the labels "good" and "bad".
The trouble is George, that the argument is too parochial. In comparing those who co-operate to the bandit that seeks to prey on others you are painting a scenario of a functioning society and those who sit of the edge of that society. But what of those societies who may be living quite happy and contented lives but who, nonetheless, decide to expand their boundaries and power by conquest of other co-operating societies? If the driver of the good is what makes our society successful, then why shouldn't we maximise the prospect of long-term sustainability by conquering or wiping out other societies to ensure we retain a monopoly on the available resources? From our point of view that could be considered good. On the basis of your naturalistic evolutionary approach, how could you argue otherwise?
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
You could start by asking someone "Do you want to try and avoid hardshp, starvation and death. The majority of people will answer yes. From there you can make a very convincing case for "these things are good to do, these things aren't good to do" that pave the way to people banding together into societys to farm, keep warm and keep the bandits out.
Wham bam you get a code to live by.
Next.
As you point out in your very next post, this may or may not be sufficient to determine which code to live by.
If you believe that given enough thought the above method is sufficient to produce a single code to live by, then you're claiming morality is objective.
If you believe that it isn't, then we run into a problem, which is that some people stand to benefit more under code A than code B and other people stand to benefit under code B than code A. This means that if anything the discussion is less complicated than it needs to be.
I think people keep putting the cart before the horse when talking about morality. I don't think that God embodies concepts of good and bad and that some humans perceived objective goodness and decided to shape their lives accordingly so that they could be good.
I think that there are basic modes of behaviour that are going to be more sucessful than others such as forming a group as stated above. When people saw that the results of co-operation meant that they were warmer, had a store of food and lived longer they then had proof that, "These things are good". When the loan bandit is caught trying to murder and steel by the newly formed guards who agreed to work together and protect the farmers....well all could look upon the body of the bandit and have very good reason to proclaim that "His way of life was bad".
So to recap I dont think good and bad existed as such at the dawn of time and then people discovered them and thought how do we live so that we can echo these godly concepts. I think people observed that some behaviours were beneficial and some weren't and invented the labels "good" and "bad".
The trouble is George, that the argument is too parochial. In comparing those who co-operate to the bandit that seeks to prey on others you are painting a scenario of a functioning society and those who sit of the edge of that society. But what of those societies who may be living quite happy and contented lives but who, nonetheless, decide to expand their boundaries and power by conquest of other co-operating societies? If the driver of the good is what makes our society successful, then why shouldn't we maximise the prospect of long-term sustainability by conquering or wiping out other societies to ensure we retain a monopoly on the available resources? From our point of view that could be considered good. On the basis of your naturalistic evolutionary approach, how could you argue otherwise?
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
The trouble is George, that the argument is too parochial. In comparing those who co-operate to the bandit that seeks to prey on others you are painting a scenario of a functioning society and those who sit of the edge of that society. But what of those societies who may be living quite happy and contented lives but who, nonetheless, decide to expand their boundaries and power by conquest of other co-operating societies? If the driver of the good is what makes our society successful, then why shouldn't we maximise the prospect of long-term sustainability by conquering or wiping out other societies to ensure we retain a monopoly on the available resources? From our point of view that could be considered good. On the basis of your naturalistic evolutionary approach, how could you argue otherwise?
That's not what I'm arguing. I'm saying that the idea of Good and Bad are a human invention and don't need there to be a God to jump start or embody them. The fact that different groups have different views on what is good and bad doesn't change that fact.
The fact that the peaceful society, the war like society and the lone bandit all have different modes of behaviour doesn't change the fact that their motives all spring from the same basic wish. I want to have food, warmth and stay alive.
Your objection paints a picture of a society with subjective morality. Which seems to fit with reality. When you make the point that people can do "bad" things and call them "good" what exactly are you arguing against.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
So to recap I dont think good and bad existed as such at the dawn of time and then people discovered them and thought how do we live so that we can echo these godly concepts. I think people observed that some behaviours were beneficial and some weren't and invented the labels "good" and "bad".
And the difference between 'good' and 'beneficial' is more than merely semantic because...?
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
@George. You wrote
quote:
That's not what I'm arguing. I'm saying that the idea of Good and Bad are a human invention and don't need there to be a God to jump start or embody them. The fact that different groups have different views on what is good and bad doesn't change that fact.
The fact that the peaceful society, the war like society and the lone bandit all have different modes of behaviour doesn't change the fact that their motives all spring from the same basic wish. I want to have food, warmth and stay alive.
Your objection paints a picture of a society with subjective morality. Which seems to fit with reality. When you make the point that people can do "bad" things and call them "good" what exactly are you arguing against.
Thank you - I misunderstood your point. I'll be interested in your answer to Dafyd's question to you.
The question that comes to my mind is, assuming your premise is correct, how you account for altruism.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
@Drew
A discussion of biological altruism.
The interesting part is at the end: "But is it 'Real' Altruism?"
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
@Drew
A discussion of biological altruism.
The interesting part is at the end: "But is it 'Real' Altruism?"
Thank you Grokesx. I'll see if the engaging Mr Spigot has time to return to this before commenting further.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
And the difference between 'good' and 'beneficial' is more than merely semantic because...?
Good question. I'm not sure I can see any meaningful difference between good and beneficial. How would you define them?
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
And the difference between 'good' and 'beneficial' is more than merely semantic because...?
Good question. I'm not sure I can see any meaningful difference between good and beneficial. How would you define them?
You appeared to be using 'good' to mean something subjective, a label created by human beings. But you also appeared to be using 'beneficial' to mean something objective: something that promotes getting food, warmth and safety.
You denied that people discovered that some things were good; you said people observed that some things were beneficial. But if good and beneficial mean the same thing, then that's simply contradicting yourself. Or else you're using 'beneficial' when it suits you to treat morality as objective and 'good' when it suits you not to.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I've recently been through the irrationality of atheism on another thread Hugh. I've realised I can't be arsed to go through it again.
And since you can’t be arsed to link to it I can’t be arsed to go looking for it.
quote:
Needles sic too sic say Russell's teapot is a load of rubbish. Theism is philosophically and logically the most rational position to explain the world.
One unsupported statement followed by another. Did you know that ostrichs don’t actually bury their heads in the sand? quote:
Atheism has no evidence to say God does not exist.
Oh dear! Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence – but it can be very strongly indicative. Atheism of course doesn’t have to do anything just because you say it must. May I suggest you repeat the following until it sticks – Atheism is the absence of belief in a god or gods. Atheists do not have to prove anything (and asking for the impossible – the proof of a negative – comes across as rather desperate doesn’t it?). You’re making specific claims (which you have not attempted to justify) so the requirement for evidence is with you.
quote:
Indeed, they would have to prove nothing came from nothing and it all just happened randomly and we exist for nothing and it's all about nothing. Which is highly irrational.
Nothing came from nothing? Do you mean something came from nothing – it's probably down to my being thick but I find it’s getting very difficult to know what you think words mean.
What "all just happened randomly"? What does “we exist for nothing” mean? What is “all about nothing”. Are you making the assumption that everything has to have a purpose? If so – upon what grounds do you base this? What is the purpose of arthritis, of depression or of the god you believe in? If you think that the Universe has a purpose CLICK HERE (Ad skipable after 5 seconds).
quote:
As for God being my opinion? Sure. But it's the most reasonable conclusion to come to based on the evidence of our existence.
No – the most reasonable conclusion is that there just might be some sort of supernature but that there is no solid basis for thinking that there is and a very good reason for thinking that it either does not exist or that, if it does, it has no interaction with our natural world. “We cannot live simultaneously in a world of natural causation and of miracles, for if one miracle can occur, there is no limit.” biologist Richard Lewontin The best evidence for the lack of an interacting supernature is that the universe works without it. Imperfectly of course – I have to look in a mirror occasionally – but work it does.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
HughWillRidmee, like many here, you are a VERY clever chap. Which means far more than I and able to do quality AND quantity.
Quantity certainly, quality – I wish quote:
I just do annoying sound bites.
I confess that sometimes I’d like to be able to stop at annoying unsound bites.
quote:
Your teachers were obviously absurdly wrong. It's like the 'reasoning' of Oolon Colluphid.
As in Everything You Never Wanted to Know About Sex But Have Been Forced to Find Out?
quote:
Whatever is objectively, perfectly moral, good, loving is eternally subjectified ontologically in God.
Seeking clarity only - Are you saying that, in your understanding, God is bound by a concept (morality() that cannot be changed, that God is, in some way, a concept used to anthropomorphize (sort of) morality, that morality is a vital element of Godishness – I fear that your answer wasn’t simple enough for me. How do you know what is perfectly moral – is perfect morality immutable – and if so what is it? As I understand it current revelations about the way our brains work are providing experimental evidence that we have little (certainly much less than we imagine), and perhaps no, freedom to make conscious decisions. If demonstrated to be unarguably true would (could) that impinge on morality, goodness, love etc..
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Anyway, I come to this simply from having experience with programming. My contention is basically that one cannot program a person. One can possibly program something that acts just like a person, to the point where absolutely everybody is fooled. But then everybody would be fooled indeed, because this would still not be the same as programming a person.
I think I pretty much agree with on this although my programming experience started and ended with key words on rubber keys and saving the result to an audio tape.
I gather that the experimental evidence is pointing to the suggestion that our programming was not “done” it evolved – and possibly very early in the evolution of multi-celled life. It, so it is suggested, is buried so deep within our brains that we often commence action in response to external stimuli (as observed through fMRI and skin monitoring) before we are conscious of the need to make a decision. (Foot lifting on accelerator before the conscious vision centre shows awareness of the oncoming vehicle for instance). Therefore the feeling that we are making a decision would be (sometimes/often/always?) untrue, the decision has been made and the action initiated – it’s just that we need(?) a story to justify what we do. And that would suggest that your argument, like mine, is the inevitable conclusion of our unique mixes of genetics and experience (and therefore liable to change if in receipt of sufficiently influential data).
HatTip to TP et al - we may be looking more like Pan narrans rather than Homo sapiens by the day.
[ 17. December 2012, 00:52: Message edited by: HughWillRidmee ]
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
And the difference between 'good' and 'beneficial' is more than merely semantic because...?
Good question. I'm not sure I can see any meaningful difference between good and beneficial. How would you define them?
You appeared to be using 'good' to mean something subjective, a label created by human beings. But you also appeared to be using 'beneficial' to mean something objective: something that promotes getting food, warmth and safety.
You denied that people discovered that some things were good; you said people observed that some things were beneficial. But if good and beneficial mean the same thing, then that's simply contradicting yourself. Or else you're using 'beneficial' when it suits you to treat morality as objective and 'good' when it suits you not to.
That's a really good point. You've made me go back and look at my definitions again.
I've had a good think and tried to come up with a distinction between good and beneficial.
If I gave a person in the desert dieing of thirst a glass of water we can see the proof that it's beneficial. And we could add the label "good" onto the action. But offer a glass of water to a drowning person isn't beneficial at all so could we then claim that whether a physical act was beneficial or not is a subjective thing?
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
If I gave a person in the desert dieing of thirst a glass of water we can see the proof that it's beneficial. And we could add the label "good" onto the action. But offer a glass of water to a drowning person isn't beneficial at all so could we then claim that whether a physical act was beneficial or not is a subjective thing?
I'd say that's not what subjective means. 'Subjective' would mean that the moral judgement depends upon the person making the judgement. It doesn't mean that the judgement depends upon the circumstances. You'd have to be a very strange kind of moral ultra-absolutist to think that giving a glass of water is always right or always wrong - it's got nothing to do with the subjective/objective distinction.
One person could think that torture is always wrong; another could think that torturing terrorists for information is acceptable. So far that doesn't tell you anything about which if either thinks their moral judgements are subjective or objective. (Moral subjectivists are less likely to think that there are things which are wrong under all circumstances, but that's not a hard and fast generalisation.) What tells you whether someone believes morality is objective is whether they think they might be wrong.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
[QUOTE]I'd say that's not what subjective means. 'Subjective' would mean that the moral judgement depends upon the person making the judgement. It doesn't mean that the judgement depends upon the circumstances.
I've never thought of it that way before. One of my objections to objective morality was the idea that the morality of an action depends on the circumstances. For example there are times when it could be right to lie. Or times when it could be right to steal. Are you saying that objective morality isn’t fixed in stone in the sense that actions are either always right or always wrong?
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
For example there are times when it could be right to lie. Or times when it could be right to steal. Are you saying that objective morality isn’t fixed in stone in the sense that actions are either always right or always wrong?
It depends.
There are philosophers who think morality is objective who think that there are actions that under some description are always right or always wrong. And there are philosophers who think no action is necessarily wrong. An example of the latter would be classical utilitarianism. A classical utilitarian believes that an action is right if it creates the greatest possible amount of utility for all concerned (utility meaning pleasure minus pain). They think that's a question of objective fact. Whether it's right to steal, lie or torture depends entirely upon whether it will create utility or not. So a classical utilitarian believes there is an objective morality in which no action is intrinsically right or wrong.
In ethical philosophy, ethics is divided into normative ethics and meta-ethics. Normative ethics argues about what it is right to do, and why: the question of whether any actions are always wrong, and if so, which ones and why, is part of normative ethics: arguing about what right and wrong are. Meta-ethics argues about what 'right' and 'wrong' mean at all, and what kind of activity morality is: the question of whether morality is objective or subjective is part of what's called meta-ethics: argument about what kind of activity morality is. Normative ethical theories and meta-ethical theories may have implications for each other, but are in principle distinct.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Wtf?
Objectivity = truth.
God makes and sustains the world.
God saved the Israelites from slavery and oppression in Egypt.
This third is obvious fiction. The archaeological evidence provides no support for the tale of slavery in Egypt and indeed quite a lot against.
If objectivity is truth, and your foundations are wrong, you need to discard your conclusions based on those foundations.
Both the first and second statements are highly questionable. Objectivity is a state of viewing - either an ideal or a myth depending. And that God creates and sustains the world is not proven. So that's one pholosophically dubious statement, one practically dubious statement, and an outright falsehood.
quote:
Only quite a bit later did God give the Ten Commandments.
According to the fictional record, the Ten Commandments were given to Moses - the same person who led the Exodus. I'd hardly describe that as "quite a bit later". And it's still a part of the bible we know to be fiction.
quote:
2: God has no morality. God has no need of morality. God loves and saves humanity before God suggested morality to humans so they could live better together.
Or rather God is amoral to the point of drowning the world, even in his own fictional PR document mind controls Pharaoh to give himself an excuse to show off, and generally is a moral example of what not to do. If morality is objectively the right thing to do then God would be the most moral entity going and would automatically follow his own rules.
And onto more interesting matters, my belief is that the difference between subjective and non-deontological objective morality is like the difference between theory and practice. Even if you have a supposedly objective morality you yourself have limited information under any given circumstance so the moral reasoning you can do has the subjective strand of the information you have available and thus the outcome is subjective. The only exception is deontological ethics - in which the ethical thing to do is to follow the rules to the letter and then wash your hands of the outcome no matter how many people you kill.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Justinian:
And onto more interesting matters, my belief is that the difference between subjective and non-deontological objective morality is like the difference between theory and practice. Even if you have a supposedly objective morality you yourself have limited information under any given circumstance so the moral reasoning you can do has the subjective strand of the information you have available and thus the outcome is subjective. The only exception is deontological ethics - in which the ethical thing to do is to follow the rules to the letter and then wash your hands of the outcome no matter how many people you kill. [/QB]
Non dentological objective morality? What's that when it's at home? How can you have objective morality with no moral duties? Christianity teaches that morality is objective because it's grounded in a Person - a Person to whom we are responsible.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And onto more interesting matters, my belief is that the difference between subjective and non-deontological objective morality is like the difference between theory and practice. Even if you have a supposedly objective morality you yourself have limited information under any given circumstance so the moral reasoning you can do has the subjective strand of the information you have available and thus the outcome is subjective.
You're saying that limited information makes our moral judgements infallible? Surely if a consequentialist, for example, thinks her moral judgements are fallible she won't think they suddenly become infallible should she lose information.
quote:
The only exception is deontological ethics - in which the ethical thing to do is to follow the rules to the letter and then wash your hands of the outcome no matter how many people you kill.
I don't quite follow. You could have an objective and therefore fallibilist deontological ethics. In fact, fallibists are more likely to be deontologists, since an ethical infallibilist is more likely to see ethics as about ends not means.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Non dentological objective morality? What's that when it's at home? How can you have objective morality with no moral duties?
Deontological ethics is any ethics in which there are certain things you must never use as means to your ends. For example, the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights is an example of deontological ethic: it declares that nobody may ever hurt or torture anybody else without their consent.
There are plenty of examples of ethics that are not deontological. Aristotle held a mixed ethics: there are some things you must not ever do, such as unlawful killing or adultery. But much of his ethics is about the cultivation of virtues, such as courage or generosity. You can believe that an act is objectively courageous or generous (and therefore good) without thinking that it is therefore done as conforming to an exceptionless injunction. Likewise, classical utilitarianism believes that an act is objectively good or bad according to whether it results in a greater amount of pleasure or suffering. It therefore rejects the idea that there's anything you should never do regardless of the consequences.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Non dentological objective morality? What's that when it's at home? How can you have objective morality with no moral duties?
Deontological ethics is any ethics in which there are certain things you must never use as means to your ends. For example, the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights is an example of deontological ethic: it declares that nobody may ever hurt or torture anybody else without their consent.
There are plenty of examples of ethics that are not deontological. Aristotle held a mixed ethics: there are some things you must not ever do, such as unlawful killing or adultery. But much of his ethics is about the cultivation of virtues, such as courage or generosity. You can believe that an act is objectively courageous or generous (and therefore good) without thinking that it is therefore done as conforming to an exceptionless injunction. Likewise, classical utilitarianism believes that an act is objectively good or bad according to whether it results in a greater amount of pleasure or suffering. It therefore rejects the idea that there's anything you should never do regardless of the consequences.
Cheers Dafyd. Glad you cleared that one up.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
You're saying that limited information makes our moral judgements infallible? Surely if a consequentialist, for example, thinks her moral judgements are fallible she won't think they suddenly become infallible should she lose information.
Backwards. I'm saying that limited information makes all our judgements falliable and therefore we need to cross-check whatever we do.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I'm saying that limited information makes all our judgements falliable and therefore we need to cross-check whatever we do.
How does that make it like ethical subjectivism? Under ethical subjectivism, by definition our judgements can't be wrong.
(There's nothing for them to be wrong about / they're not the kinds of mental activity that can be wrong / we know enough about the contents of our own psyche - pick the version that corresponds to your flavour of subjectivism.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I'm saying that limited information makes all our judgements falliable and therefore we need to cross-check whatever we do.
How does that make it like ethical subjectivism? Under ethical subjectivism, by definition our judgements can't be wrong.
Not in the way I'm familiar with it. And I don't think Wikipedia agrees with you either. There is nothing in ethical subjectivism saying that you can't be wrong, merely that you can not know that you are right.
In my understanding there are three basic camps of people. Those calling themselves objectivists who are convinced there is One True Way and that they or their authority has all the answers. Those calling themselves subjectivists who are either hopelessly nihilistic or followers of one of the mutant forms of postmodernism and deny that anything is real. And those who can be either under the objectivist or subjectivist banner who start with the idea that they don't and indeed can't know it all but there's something worth talking about. In this case the labels confuse people (as a rule atheists claim subjective morality means this with a fairly materialist metaphysics and theists claim objective morality and the provision that they can not know the complete mind of God).
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
How does that make it like ethical subjectivism? Under ethical subjectivism, by definition our judgements can't be wrong.
Not in the way I'm familiar with it. And I don't think Wikipedia agrees with you either. There is nothing in ethical subjectivism saying that you can't be wrong, merely that you can not know that you are right.
I don't think wikipedia agrees with you either.
What would it mean for a subjective judgement to be wrong? What could it be wrong about?
A judgement is wrong if there is a mismatch between the judgement and the object of the judgement. That is, it's wrong if the object is not as the judgement represents it. Therefore, the possibility of a judgement being wrong requires that the judgement is aiming to fit at some property of the object. Therefore, the judgement is about some objective matter. For example, if I say that there is life on at least one of the extra-solar planets so far discovered, that is right or wrong according to whether there is life on at least one of those planets, and is therefore objective. Even though nobody on this planet has sufficient information to know one way or the other.
So, according to, say, classical utilitarianism, a judgement that something is the right course of action is wrong just in case it does not maximise utility.
A judgment is subjective if it depends upon the judging subject. A subjective judgement is not determined by its object. Therefore, there can be no mismatch between the judgement and what the judgement depends on - the judgement is identical with its conditions of success.
For example, my judgement that my daughter is the best and most darling baby in the world, being frankly subjective, is not something that can be wrong. (What information could you give me that would change my mind?)
I'd just add that all ethical systems approximate to deontology in situations of incomplete information. For example, rule utilitarians are classical utilitarians who justify general ethical commands on the grounds that they have a higher probability of maximising utility than alternative courses of action. Similar things apply to virtue ethics: if you're not sure go with the basic rules.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
Justinian, can I extend your attempt at a summary a bit? I think there are four camps:
1. There is no objective morality and therefore... well actually no conclusions can be made and one could end up anywhere
2. There is no objective morality but there's clearly something important there to talk about such that we can for example discuss our differing subjective moralities and try to harmonise them
3. Morality is objective but the probability of humans being able to identify the standard in its entirety range from somewhat unlikely to certainly impossible
4. Morality is objective and therefore what I say is The Truth, end of story.
Now, I'd say most people here are 2 or 3 but in debate we extrapolate our opponent's position such that they appear to be in 1 or 4. 1 and 4 are the territory of sociopaths and fundamentalist zealots and can be discounted as far as serious debate goes. What we're focussing on here though is whether or not 2 makes sense, and those of us who hold position 3 are saying it does not. Not that it's a moral failing but rather that it's a position that's internally inconsistent - without a theoretical objective morality there is nothing that can be debated.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
What would it mean for a subjective judgement to be wrong? What could it be wrong about?
The frame of reference of the person or persons acted upon because you are only in your frame of reference. You're equating subjective with solipsistic.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
What would it mean for a subjective judgement to be wrong? What could it be wrong about?
The frame of reference of the person or persons acted upon because you are only in your frame of reference. You're equating subjective with solipsistic.
Could you expand please? Suppose I judge that battery farming is cruel. How is that about the frames of reference of any other person or person's acted upon? Surely it is about the treatment of chickens? To say that the frames of reference of the farmers or consumers ought to be taken into account is perhaps to miss the point of condemning battery farming on the grounds of cruelty.
Do truths about other people's frames of reference impose any normative constraint upon your moral judgements other than those that you yourself judge that they should? Are they supposed to be normative truths? Or are they supposed to be non-normative truths that can't render judgements wrong? If the former, you're grounding ethics in something objective - an objectively existing duty to respect other people's frames of reference. If the latter, then they can't render your ethical judgements wrong.
Basically, does empathy make available intrinsically relevant moral truths? Then ethics is objective. Does empathy only make available non-moral facts, facts that are judged morally relevant within some moral systems? Then it can't make judgements according to standards that don't consider those relevant wrong by their standards.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
There's a position that says that if you believe that battery farming is cruel then it's wrong for you to eat battery farmed chicken, but if I believe that battery farming is the least-bad alternative then I can eat chicken with a clear conscience.
Whereas an objectivist would insist that it has to be either OK or not-OK, but can't be morally licit for me and not for you.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Suppose I judge that battery farming is cruel.
Doesn't this contradict the premise of the OP? After all, if morality is objective your judgement is irrelevant.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
There's a position that says that if you believe that battery farming is cruel then it's wrong for you to eat battery farmed chicken, but if I believe that battery farming is the least-bad alternative then I can eat chicken with a clear conscience.
Whereas an objectivist would insist that it has to be either OK or not-OK, but can't be morally licit for me and not for you.
It's possible that someone could believe that there's an objective moral principle that your moral beliefs are binding upon you, but that you're not at fault for violating moral principles that you don't believe in. It's a bit of minimal moral priniciple, but it's possible. You'd call it objective moral relativism if you like. Certainly, a believer in objective morality can hold that sincere belief is an excuse.
It's much less likely that a believer that morality is subjective could consistently hold it so long as they held the more rigourous moral view. Someone who believes battery farming is licit could hold it. But someone who hold what they consider the subjective belief that battery farming is wrong must do so because they don't want chickens to be battery farmed. (Or they have some other objection to battery farmers.) What they care about in adopting their moral principle is the chickens (or the farmers). You can't consistently want chickens not to be battery farmed but not mind if other people do it. Therefore, they're committing themselves to saying it's wrong to support battery farming whatever your beliefs about it.
Subjective moral relativism is actually a lot harder to consistently hold that objective moral relativism. It basically becomes a permissive libertinism.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Suppose I judge that battery farming is cruel.
Doesn't this contradict the premise of the OP? After all, if morality is objective your judgement is irrelevant.
No.
(If morality is objective then my judgement doesn't affect the truth of the matter, but I was hardly arguing that it was.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
No.
(If morality is objective then my judgement doesn't affect the truth of the matter, but I was hardly arguing that it was.)
But it rather raises the question: "If morality is objective, and our moral judgments are necessarily at least partially subjective, how does it all pan out when the believer in objective morality actually makes those moral judgements? Does his/her judgement become objective by virtue of believing it to be so?
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
