why it is you're sure that objectivity is baked-in (or vice verse) to morality and that objections to this must necessarily be predicated on biases or rejections (as opposed to objection, that is)?? — AmadeusD
I feel the opposite. I feel that the cry for objectivity in morality is an indicator the person crying(not pejorative!) is at a loss as to how to function upon their own concepts of right and wrong. — AmadeusD
If two people had differing subjective experiences of red, whether they liked it, whether they didn't, we wouldn't say that means that red itself has no objective basis. The confusion MoK has is he thinks that a debate over liking or not liking things means there's no underlying objective notion of morality that transcends simply like and dislike. — Philosophim
"In my experience," — Philosophim
I truly have not found a good and unbiased rational argument which leads to morality only being a subjective outcome. — Philosophim
reason to pursue objective morality — Philosophim
First, as I mentioned earlier ignorance is not bliss. It is powerlessness. The handling of ignorance results in superstitions and emotional decisions. Anytime we can replace this with rational thought, we as a species gain power to understand ourselves, the world, and make smart decisions that help us navigate through it better. — Philosophim
Only an objective morality can ensure that AI develops rightly and co-exists peacefully with the rest of life on Earth. — Philosophim
It is wholly subjective, between those two, what 'redness' is (under some constraints, for sure). Maybe I'm not getting what you're saying here.. — AmadeusD
A thought akin to 'No one has ever provided a reasonable account of an objective morality which isn't imposed from without, and so we are free to reject the claim that there is one'. Is that a bit better for you? — AmadeusD
I think you are reversing the onus, then. The claim to objective morality must be proved. — AmadeusD
I have to say, your reasons don't appear to be reasons, but interpretations that would support an emotional attachment to objective morality — AmadeusD
Are you able to outline a positive argument which would evidence an objective morality? — AmadeusD
Yes, I noted these are reasons to pursue an objective morality, I was not giving you evidence for it. — Philosophim
doesn't mean the wavelength doesn't exist. — Philosophim
As I've noted, subjective experiences have been consistently discovered to have an underlying objective explanation. What used to once be insanity is now understood as schizophrenia and can be treated with proper medication — Philosophim
Further, there are certain common moral precepts that tend to align across cultures — Philosophim
The fact we have a common understanding of the term 'morality' and its not a completely foreign concept across different cultures. — Philosophim
No, that wasn't what I was attempting to respond to in your first query, just explaining why I think we need to look for an objective morality. My apologies if I wasn't too clear on that. — Philosophim
But there are also plenty of shared cultural beliefs/feelings/behaviours which aren't even in the question. An example would be the discipline of children. This is wiiiiiildly variable. What would be the difference between those issues and ones you're purporting to invoke here? — AmadeusD
I can grok it, but I can't see how it speaks to an objective moral... What's the connection between multiple cultures holding a view, and it being an objective moral? What would actually be the source of it? — AmadeusD
No worries - a good exchange imo :) — AmadeusD
No, they are different. Liking a rose is another feature of our experience.Ok, but liking a rose isn't the same as experiencing redness. — Philosophim
As I mentioned in another thread, feeling and reason, are two fundamental things that affect us. And yes, I am saying that rose is good because it feels good.What you're saying is that liking the rose is the same as saying the rose is good. Are you saying that good is something apart from what you like, or is it the same? — Philosophim
I think you are mixing right with good. A serial killer thinks differently from the rest of the people when it comes to killing. How do you derive rightness from goodness?Generally the base definition of good is, "What should be". — Philosophim
Ok, but liking a rose isn't the same as experiencing redness.
— Philosophim
No, they are different. Liking a rose is another feature of our experience. — MoK
And yes, I am saying that rose is good because it feels good. — MoK
Generally the base definition of good is, "What should be".
— Philosophim
I think you are mixing right with good. A serial killer thinks differently from the rest of the people when it comes to killing. How do you derive rightness from goodness? — MoK
Cool. :)We agree then. — Philosophim
Feeling good is a feature of our experiences.And what is 'feeling good"? Is it just an expression of "I like the rose"? Or is it different? — Philosophim
To me, the right action is what we should do and that can be good or evil, like rewarding or punishing.How do you define 'rightness' MoK? — Philosophim
And what is 'feeling good"? Is it just an expression of "I like the rose"? Or is it different?
— Philosophim
Feeling good is a feature of our experiences. — MoK
How do you define 'rightness' MoK?
— Philosophim
To me, the right action is what we should do and that can be good or evil, like rewarding or punishing. — MoK
While the subjective methods of disciplining children may vary, .... and is a form of discipline to ensure greater harmony in a society. — Philosophim
Generally the objective nature of a subjective thing is divorced from the emotions and experiences we attach to the subjective experience of it. — Philosophim
I believe morality is a natural consequence of it being reasonable that existence should be instead of not. Y — Philosophim
You're probably looking for some other force or intention that makes morality. — Philosophim
If existence (as a whole) is to be, it should be — Philosophim
It is an illogical premise to say "It should not be," as something needs to exist to have the rule that it should not be without contradiction. — Philosophim
People want to talk about morality in terms of the subjective human experience — Philosophim
Likewise. :) — Philosophim
I say that, as I can't quite understand what that is. I read this as a description of why morality differs across cultures/religions. That seems to support, at least prima facie, that there's no underlying moral question to be asked. — AmadeusD
I believe morality is a natural consequence of it being reasonable that existence should be instead of not. Y
— Philosophim
Forgive if this is being a little.. uncharitable.. but this boils down to a belief? — AmadeusD
This is why I can't get away from the odour of divine intervention in your points.. — AmadeusD
It shouldn't "either". It just is, as the wavelength just is. There's no moral question to be tried, upon existence. — AmadeusD
That is the only context in which morality obtains. — AmadeusD
We like things because they make us feel good.That's avoiding the question MoK. Liking something is a feature of our experiences. Is feeling that something is good exactly the same as liking it, or is it different? — Philosophim
I have my definition of good and evil. I used these definitions to explain my coherent view when it comes to morality. Good and evil to me are subjective. Good and evil to you are synonyms for right and wrong that I cannot disagree with them anymore. So why use good and evil at all and instead don't use right and wrong? Right is what it should be so we achieve the conclusion!No one defines good as reward and punishment as evil. That's simply an incorrect use of their definitions, even given the wiggle room they provide. If a man rewards a murderer with money, its not good. If a person who murdered someone is punished for their actions, that's not evil. Good and evil are descriptors of rewards or punishments. A good/evil reward, a good/evil punishment for example. — Philosophim
We like things because they make us feel good. — MoK
Good and evil to you are synonyms for right and wrong that I cannot disagree with them anymore. So why use good and evil at all and instead don't use right and wrong? Right is what it should be so we achieve the conclusion! — MoK
There is. Should there be any existence at all? Its the ultimate should question — Philosophim
I'm an atheist. Be careful that you don't let a suspicion of divinity prevent open thinking. — Philosophim
That is A context in which morality can be discussed. It is the claim that it is the only context that ultimately fails when reasoned through fully — Philosophim
But this doesn't enter onto moral ground. Morality has to do with actions towards other sentient beings, right? I don't think this element fits into morality at all — AmadeusD
I just get a distinct flavour from your reasoning that it must rely on some kind of ... I want to say miracle, but that's not really what i mean - some unmoved mover type of thing amounting to a moral code. — AmadeusD
Its again possible I'm not groking you here - where else does morality exist? — AmadeusD
Morality has to do with actions that we should, or should not commit towards other beings. — Philosophim
"Why should anything exist at all?" — Philosophim
If there is an objective morality, it doesn't just suddenly appear when people enter the picture. There has to be something that builds up to that, like what builds your car for you to drive it. — Philosophim
Here's a researcher who believes morality exists within animals (not sure if its dubious, just an example) — Philosophim
"Why should anything exist at all?"
— Philosophim
Isn't a moral question is it? I think this is the issue i'm seeing - they are clearly different arenas. The latter is actually ontology as best i can tell. — AmadeusD
I think this is the other issue i'm seeing. Prior to the human mind, where/how does this 'build up'? It doesn't seem there is any facility for it. — AmadeusD
Ontology would be, "Why is there existence?" Morality is "Should there be existence?" — Philosophim
Ontology would be, "Why is there existence?" Morality is "Should there be existence?"
— Philosophim
Its not, though, because it has nothing to do with right action. It's a question about existence. You've accepted that Morality is the domain of right action. Your question has literally nothing whatsoever to do with right action. — AmadeusD
It is an ontological question about the origins of everything we could possibly know. "should" means something thinks about it. — AmadeusD
Hmmm...I still can't grasp what you're getting at. You're making worth-hearing points there, but they have nothing to do with morality or how "should existence be?" is even comprehensible. — AmadeusD
If you assume morality is either objective or subjective, then one can consider the metaphysical implications. This is the basis for the argument for God's based on the assumed existence of objective moral values (OMVs).I have heard very few rational notions that morality is subjective. — Philosophim
A subjective morality is based on our own feelings and intuitions. An objective morality would be something that could be evaluated apart from our feelings and intuitions using logic and objectively measurable identities. — Philosophim
This is the basis for the argument for God's based on the assumed existence of objective moral values (OMVs).
At minimum, objective morals entails physicalism being false. — Relativist
I may misunderstand, but you seem to be dismissing the role of our moral intuitions- because these manifest as feelings. — Relativist
The existence of intersubjective moral values makes the most sense to me: nearly all of us have a common set of moral intuitions (exception: sociopaths, who may have a genetic defect). This shared set of values seems a reasonable basis for morality, one that is independent of metaphysical implications. — Relativist
Without a God, how can there exist objective morality? That's why I brought it up, and also brought up intersubjectivity.The OP does not argue for, nor need a God to argue for an objective morality. — Philosophim
Yes, this is a more common approach to the issue. But have you read the OP? I'm trying to establish what at minimum, must exist in any objective morality. — Philosophim
No, I'm not. What I'm trying to find is a base for an objective morality that builds up to something which better explains why we have the moral intuitions that we do, and a guide to understand beyond instinct and emotion. — Philosophim
Without a God, how can there exist objective morality? — Relativist
"All moral questions boil down to one fundamental question that must be answered first, "Should there be existence?""
This is nonsense if, as I explained, morality is not objective in a transcendent sense of existing independently of humans. — Relativist
If morality is entirely intersubjective among humans, moral judgements apply to things that relate to humans and are contingent upon the human perspective. — Relativist
We have our moral intuitions because they provided an evolutionary advantage, and these intuitions manifest as instinct and emotion. — Relativist
Objective morals are consistent with theism, and inconsistent with physicalism. They may not entail theism, but objective morals just existing untethered to anything seems ad hoc - logically possible, but lacking any good reason to think they exist. Of course, this is just as far as I can tell. I'm open to hearing why one might be more open to their existence.I'm going to follow that up with, "Why do you need a God to exist for there to be an objective morality?" I see an objective morality as a rule of existence. — Philosophim
I should have said "seemingly incoherent", because I can't see how to make sense of them. But no, I can't prove objective morals can't exist independently of humans, any more than I can prove the nonexistence of gods, but "not provably false" is not a justification for believing something. So I don't believe such things exist. You seem to think they do, so tell me the justification for that belief."Nonsense" is not an argument. Explain to me where I'm wrong in demonstrating that all moral questions boil down to this fundamental question. Have you also proven that an objective morality cannot be separated from humans? Not yet. Feel free to provide examples. — Philosophim
This question assumes an objective rule exists. Sure, the advantage is an objective one: empathy for others helps motivate behavior that has a positive impact toward survival of the species. Moral values, as we know them, arise from verbalizing our inherent instincts. Consider that the golden rule (treat others as you would like to be treated) is consistent with empathy- vicariously experiencing the suffering of others. That alone could serve as the basis for developing a moral system.We have our moral intuitions because they provided an evolutionary advantage, and these intuitions manifest as instinct and emotion.
— Relativist
But this is not a subjective advantage. You have a subjective experience of this advantage, but what is the objective underlying moral rule?.. — Philosophim
Life exists because the environment was suitable for abiogenesis to occur. Humans exist because of the series of accidents associated with our evolutionary history. As I said I presume our empathy had a survival advantage. I don't know that I'm right, but I think it entails fewer metaphysical assumptions than you would need. But you're welcome to provide a simple basis.Why should humans even exist? Why should life exist? Why should anything exist?
They may not entail theism, but objective morals just existing untethered to anything seems ad hoc - logically possible, but lacking any good reason to think they exist. Of course, this is just as far as I can tell. I'm open to hearing why one might be more open to their existence. — Relativist
"not provably false" is not a justification for believing something — Relativist
This question assumes an objective rule exists. Sure, the advantage is an objective one: empathy for others helps motivate behavior that has a positive impact toward survival of the species. Moral values, as we know them, arise from verbalizing our inherent instincts. — Relativist
Life exists because the environment was suitable for abiogenesis to occur. Humans exist because of the series of accidents associated with our evolutionary history. — Relativist
Why must there be reasons?Those are reasons why something exists. They are not reasons that it should exist. — Philosophim
Your question can only be meaningful if existence itself is contingent. I don't think it can be contingent, because contingency entails a source of contingency. That source of contingency would have to exist. If that is contingent, it needs a source...ad infinitum - a vicious infinite regress. Therefore existence is metaphysically necessary. So a "should" (a reason) doesn't apply.At the end, even that boils down to the prime question, "Should there be existence at all?" Its irrelevant why there is existence. Should there be existence? And if there is an objective morality the OP notes that the only rational conclusion to be made is, "Yes". — Philosophim
As you noted, empathy didn't appear suddenly when humans developed. In addition, parents of most species feel some sort of affection for their offspring. There are reports of mother cats entering burning buildings to rescue their kittens, getting themselves hurt in the process. I suggest it "feels right" to them to do so. They may not contemplate the risks in advance, nor do they engage in a mental deliberation weighing the pros and cons before acting. They lack the capacity to do this. Be we have the capacity, and that's what we add to our instinctual inclinations- we intellectualize them, and think abstractly about them. What feels right instinctually IS right and good.It seems odd that morality just 'suddenly' appears when life comes about. — Philosophim
You minimize the "feeling like it". It's a strong feeling. We don't want others to commit suicide because we fear death for ourselves, and we empathetically extend this to others. By analogy, each dog in a pack will fight for other members of the pack. I imagine that if they could speak, they would say it's the right thing to doSo if we begin to say, "Its good that the species survive," we can ask, "Why?" "Because I feel like it." Then why do we bother saving people who want to commit suicide? The species will continue. Why not murder anyone who gets in our way? The species will continue, and I'll have more resources for me. Its a bit more than, "I want, gimme, I feel, gimme, I'm happy to do all sorts of atrocities for my feelings, gimme." — Philosophim
Why must there be reasons? — Relativist
Your question can only be meaningful if existence itself is contingent. I don't think it can be contingent, because contingency entails a source of contingency. That source of contingency would have to exist. If that is contingent, it needs a source...ad infinitum - a vicious infinite regress. Therefore existence is metaphysically necessary. — Relativist
There are reports of mother cats entering burning buildings to rescue their kittens, getting themselves hurt in the process. I suggest it "feels right" to them to do so. — Relativist
What feels right instinctually IS right and good. — Relativist
You minimize the "feeling like it". It's a strong feeling. We don't want others to commit suicide because we fear death for ourselves, and we empathetically extend this to others. — Relativist
I get the strong feeling that you want there to be meaning to existence - perhaps you actually need it to be the case. — Relativist
Both "reasons" and "whims" are products of minds, so this suggests deism or theism. Naturalism would imply that what occurs is a product of blind, undirected nature - neither reasons nor whims.Because if there is no logic reason, there is nothing besides whim. — Philosophim
Then you should agree your question, "Should there be existence?" is inapplicable, and certainly has nothing to do with morality.... Therefore existence is metaphysically necessary.
— Relativist
That is, (minus the infinite regress) essentially what the OP proves. Therefore we may be in agreement conceptually, just not semantically. — Philosophim
The behavior (having the feeling that induces the actions) has a survival value for the species, so that could account for its presence - demonstrating it being consistent with naturalism. In this case, there isn't a reason this particular trait evolved. Other species evolve differently; example: some produce so many offspring that there's high probability some will survive to reproduce.There are reports of mother cats entering burning buildings to rescue their kittens, getting themselves hurt in the process. I suggest it "feels right" to them to do so.
— Relativist
Of course, but that doesn't mean there is an objective underlying reason why that feeling exists. — Philosophim
I'm not suggesting that feelings fully account for all morality, just that they are at the core. A feeling can account for the concepts of "good" and "bad": hurting me invokes a "bad" feeling; helping me invokes a "good" feeling. Through empathy, these feelings get evoked vicariously. Neither concept can be understood solely by their dictionary definitions - the link to the feelings must be present. Sociopaths lack the link. They could be forced to memorize a moral code, but they'll lack the connection to their feelings.The idea that feelings alone are all we have to go on in morals and there can be no objective details does not pan out in any other feelings we have, why in your mind are moral feelings an exception?
I was only referring only to the fundamental basis of right(good) and wrong (bad). We still learn things - such as what you've taught your children. And we have other feelings that lead us in other directions, and different people will apply different reasoning and differrent sets of beliefs.What feels right instinctually IS right and good.
— Relativist
No one objectively agrees to that.... — Philosophim
Because if there is no logic reason, there is nothing besides whim.
— Philosophim
Both "reasons" and "whims" are products of minds, so this suggests deism or theism. — Relativist
Then you should agree your question, "Should there be existence?" is inapplicable, and certainly has nothing to do with morality. — Relativist
The behavior (having the feeling that induces the actions) has a survival value for the species, so that could account for its presence — Relativist
Other species evolve differently; example: some produce so many offspring that there's high probability some will survive to reproduce. — Relativist
I'm not suggesting that feelings fully account for all morality, just that they are at the core. From there, we then think abstractly, apply reasoning, and we learn things (including the morality further developed by others). — Relativist
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.