Edit: Let's get specific about "objective moral codes" (which is not really the correct term). The one's I'm familiar with are Rights Based Ethics, Virtue Based Ethics, Deonotology (Kantian Ethics) and Utilitarianism. Since you are critiquing their basis let's know what we are critiquing.
Sure. That is a better term, but still should be used carefully because it is an umbrella term that will lend itself to sweeping generalization fallacies.
I was more trying to get across that there are many objective Ethical systems which take different approaches to solving the same kinds of problems: moral dilemmas and that I think it might be more productive to get more specific about which objective systems people are criticizing.
Would you characterize these systems as finding universal moral truths in the scientific sense? My apprehension stems from an understanding that such systems present themselves as hard science, capable of divining fact rather than generalizations.
What information do our evolutionary biases give us about objective morality?
Pain sucks, pleasure is worth pursuing, other people aren't so different from us. To name a few potentially important ones.
How do we know these are even remotely related to an objective morality?
Really?
If it is true that pain "sucks" and that pleasure is "worth" pursuing that would have huge implications with respect to morality. Of course, it all sort of depends on what those words mean. If by sucks we mean bad, then we've essentially stated an objective moral principle. Pain ought to be avoided, and no matter who you are or where you're living that's true. If by "worth pursuing" we mean that pleasure ought to be pursued under even certain restricted circumstances, then we have something else objective.
Things can be contingent on empirical principles and still be objective. The fact about what color the sun is depends entirely on the contingent existence of the sun, yet if I say the sun is green, i'm wrong.
I really think that there's some serious misunderstandings going on about what "subjective" and "objective" mean with respect to the discussion of morality.
I'm not sure what makes those "objective" and not just "widely shared opinions".
What objectively necessitates that moral principles "point towards maximizing moral behaviors or outcomes"?
What evidence do you have, or what logically precludes the notion that a moral system could reasonably burn itself out? How does that not "make sense"? Where is it written, where is the evidence, or where is the logic that declares that there is an objective moral code and it maximizes itself?
Morality is, at least in part, a prescriptive enterprise. All prescriptive enterprises are in the business of suggesting optimal courses of action or states of affairs. If a course of action or state of affairs is optimal, then more instances of it are more optimal than less instances of it. A prescriptive enterprise that eliminates all instances of optimal behaviour or situations appears to contradict itself. The best state of affairs cannot be a state of affairs where "best" is meaningless.
So, you would say that the optimal universal objective moral code would mandate its own existence? Again, what if people don't feel like having that many kids?
What information do our evolutionary biases give us about objective morality?
Pain sucks, pleasure is worth pursuing, other people aren't so different from us. To name a few potentially important ones.
How do we know these are even remotely related to an objective morality?
Because they are material and relevant facts when deciding how to behave in our interactions with other beings.
As to the second question I'd simply follow the first analysis: It is morally permissible to voluntarily self-annihilate, but morally disallowed to make that a general rule or requirement for sentient beings.
In addition this example is entirely disingenuous, because it ignores the empirical fact that living beings do not intentionally behave this way. This is a toy problem divorced from reality and real consequences.
I think you're being incredibly disingenuous when you call me disingenuous. Particularly when you yourself are divorced from reality:
Edit: Let's get specific about "objective moral codes" (which is not really the correct term). The one's I'm familiar with are Rights Based Ethics, Virtue Based Ethics, Deonotology (Kantian Ethics) and Utilitarianism. Since you are critiquing their basis let's know what we are critiquing.
Sure. That is a better term, but still should be used carefully because it is an umbrella term that will lend itself to sweeping generalization fallacies.
I was more trying to get across that there are many objective Ethical systems which take different approaches to solving the same kinds of problems: moral dilemmas and that I think it might be more productive to get more specific about which objective systems people are criticizing.
Would you characterize these systems as finding universal moral truths in the scientific sense? My apprehension stems from an understanding that such systems present themselves as hard science, capable of divining fact rather than generalizations.
I understand your reluctance here, because I shared it when I considered myself a Moral Relativist.
It can be argued that Ethics is similar to a science like anthropology or geology, but most of the work and thought on Ethics is firmly in the realm of philosophy.
That said, I would argue that, like a science, Ethics are subject to revision under new empirical facts.
Similar to a science, the point of Ethics is to provide a Universal problem solving tool and an explanation of observable behavior, but Ethics is for dealing with moral dilemmas, and chemistry is for dealing with chemical reactions.
Similar to a science, general rules of ethics must be internally consistent and follow the basic rules of predicate logic.
However, science is silent on the topic of what sentient beings should do and how we should behave, and that is the entire point of Ethics.
What objectively necessitates that moral principles "point towards maximizing moral behaviors or outcomes"?
What evidence do you have, or what logically precludes the notion that a moral system could reasonably burn itself out? How does that not "make sense"? Where is it written, where is the evidence, or where is the logic that declares that there is an objective moral code and it maximizes itself?
Morality is, at least in part, a prescriptive enterprise. All prescriptive enterprises are in the business of suggesting optimal courses of action or states of affairs. If a course of action or state of affairs is optimal, then more instances of it are more optimal than less instances of it. A prescriptive enterprise that eliminates all instances of optimal behaviour or situations appears to contradict itself. The best state of affairs cannot be a state of affairs where "best" is meaningless.
So, you would say that the optimal universal objective moral code would mandate its own existence? Again, what if people don't feel like having that many kids?
What information do our evolutionary biases give us about objective morality?
Pain sucks, pleasure is worth pursuing, other people aren't so different from us. To name a few potentially important ones.
How do we know these are even remotely related to an objective morality?
Because they are material and relevant facts when deciding how to behave in our interactions with other beings.
It is morally permissible to voluntarily self-annihilate, but morally disallowed to make that a general rule or requirement for sentient beings.
^^ This is still all I need to say on the issue, because it is not all that complicated.
The example you offer continues to be disingenuous because it is readily apparent that the Japanese are not seeking self-annihilation at all. In fact, the cause of this trend is the collective rational practice of family planning, not the seeking of their own ending. You are ignoring basic facts to make your point here, I call that disingenuous.
What information do our evolutionary biases give us about objective morality?
Pain sucks, pleasure is worth pursuing, other people aren't so different from us. To name a few potentially important ones.
How do we know these are even remotely related to an objective morality?
They are objectively true statements, and empirically demonstrable?
Objectively true? What is it to "suck"? What is it to be "worth pursuing"? The Stoics would dispute the notion that pleasure is worth pursuing. Why are they wrong?
First of all, it is only good to pursue pleasure when that pursuit does not infringe upon the same pursuit of others, which is why hedonism is a bankrupt philosophy.
I can't judge the Stoic position, because I don't know it. If you would care to get more specific, the perhaps I can better answer the questions.
It is morally permissible to voluntarily self-annihilate, but morally disallowed to make that a general rule or requirement for sentient beings.
^^ This is still all I need to say on the issue, because it is not all that complicated.
The example you offer continues to be disingenuous because it is readily apparent that the Japanese are not seeking self-annihilation at all. In fact, the cause of this trend is the collective rational practice of family planning, not the seeking of their own ending. You are ignoring basic facts to make your point here, I call that disingenuous.
In addition this example is entirely disingenuous, because it ignores the empirical fact that living beings do not intentionally behave this way. This is a toy problem divorced from reality and real consequences.
I cited a real-world example, one that's also present in a number of other developed countries. Your "empirical fact that living beings do not intentionally behave this way" is demonstrably false, has been demonstrated to be false.
How do we know these are even remotely related to an objective morality?
Because they are material and relevant facts when deciding how to behave in our interactions with other beings.
...according to what?
Any rational living creature.
So, according to your fiat? Is that how objective morality works?
Obviously not, since I said "any living creature". I don't own rationality and logic is very much independent of anything I say. I'm making a fairly logically sound and consistent argument that you are perfectly able to be irrational about, and ignore what I'm saying, but that doesn't make you right.
This should be easy for you though, since all you need is an actual counter-example of a rational being favoring death and suffering of over life and satisfaction.
It is morally permissible to voluntarily self-annihilate, but morally disallowed to make that a general rule or requirement for sentient beings.
^^ This is still all I need to say on the issue, because it is not all that complicated.
The example you offer continues to be disingenuous because it is readily apparent that the Japanese are not seeking self-annihilation at all. In fact, the cause of this trend is the collective rational practice of family planning, not the seeking of their own ending. You are ignoring basic facts to make your point here, I call that disingenuous.
In addition this example is entirely disingenuous, because it ignores the empirical fact that living beings do not intentionally behave this way. This is a toy problem divorced from reality and real consequences.
I cited a real-world example, one that's also present in a number of other developed countries. Your "empirical fact that living beings do not intentionally behave this way" is demonstrably false, has been demonstrated to be false.
Wrong.
You cited an empirical fact and are trying to use it to support a position that it does not support, because population decline is a side-effect of other rational decisions.
This does not to preclude the possibility that a society couldn't rationally choose to have a small population or to shirk it population because that is all the people that may be supported on the available resources.
It is morally permissible to voluntarily self-annihilate, but morally disallowed to make that a general rule or requirement for sentient beings.
^^ This is still all I need to say on the issue, because it is not all that complicated.
The example you offer continues to be disingenuous because it is readily apparent that the Japanese are not seeking self-annihilation at all. In fact, the cause of this trend is the collective rational practice of family planning, not the seeking of their own ending. You are ignoring basic facts to make your point here, I call that disingenuous.
In addition this example is entirely disingenuous, because it ignores the empirical fact that living beings do not intentionally behave this way. This is a toy problem divorced from reality and real consequences.
I cited a real-world example, one that's also present in a number of other developed countries. Your "empirical fact that living beings do not intentionally behave this way" is demonstrably false, has been demonstrated to be false.
Wrong. Population decline is a side-effect of other rational decisions.
It's the side effect of people electing to have a lower birth rate than the death rate. given the (current) inevitability of death, it's all about the individual's choice to have--to "family plan"--fewer babies in a lifetime. They are, in fact, electing to self-annihilate. I'm not sure how that's supposed to be a bad thing, or an "untrue" thing, or whatever.
It is morally permissible to voluntarily self-annihilate, but morally disallowed to make that a general rule or requirement for sentient beings.
^^ This is still all I need to say on the issue, because it is not all that complicated.
The example you offer continues to be disingenuous because it is readily apparent that the Japanese are not seeking self-annihilation at all. In fact, the cause of this trend is the collective rational practice of family planning, not the seeking of their own ending. You are ignoring basic facts to make your point here, I call that disingenuous.
In addition this example is entirely disingenuous, because it ignores the empirical fact that living beings do not intentionally behave this way. This is a toy problem divorced from reality and real consequences.
I cited a real-world example, one that's also present in a number of other developed countries. Your "empirical fact that living beings do not intentionally behave this way" is demonstrably false, has been demonstrated to be false.
Wrong. Population decline is a side-effect of other rational decisions.
It's the side effect of people electing to have a lower birth rate than the death rate. given the (current) inevitability of death, it's all about the individual's choice to have--to "family plan"--fewer babies in a lifetime. They are, in fact, electing to self-annihilate. I'm not sure how that's supposed to be a bad thing, or an "untrue" thing, or whatever.
Again, according to my analyses it is morally permissible to voluntarily self-annihilate, but morally disallowed to make that a general rule or requirement for sentient beings.
hanskey on
0
Tiger BurningDig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tuberegular
This should be easy for you though, since all you need is an actual counter-example of a rational being favoring death and suffering of over life and satisfaction.
How do we know these are even remotely related to an objective morality?
Because they are material and relevant facts when deciding how to behave in our interactions with other beings.
...according to what?
Any rational living creature.
So, according to your fiat? Is that how objective morality works?
Obviously not, since I said "any living creature". I don't own rationality and logic is very much independent of anything I say. I'm making a fairly logically sound and consistent argument that you are perfectly able to be irrational about, and ignore what I'm saying, but that doesn't make you right.
This should be easy for you though, since all you need is an actual counter-example of a rational being favoring death and suffering of over life and satisfaction.
So, it's objective because of a loose democratic consensus on a few tenets? You don't seem to realize that strength in numbers--even unanimity!--don't constitute truth, they only arbitrate it.
This should be easy for you though, since all you need is an actual counter-example of a rational being favoring death and suffering of over life and satisfaction.
Spoilered for gruesomeness.
How is this rational again?
Aside from that consideration I might have been too quick with that predicate statement, because there are several exceptions to the general rule. However, every exception can also be explained by rational arguments, even if the rational argument is as simple as: "that dude is crazy".
It is morally permissible to voluntarily self-annihilate, but morally disallowed to make that a general rule or requirement for sentient beings.
^^ This is still all I need to say on the issue, because it is not all that complicated.
The example you offer continues to be disingenuous because it is readily apparent that the Japanese are not seeking self-annihilation at all. In fact, the cause of this trend is the collective rational practice of family planning, not the seeking of their own ending. You are ignoring basic facts to make your point here, I call that disingenuous.
In addition this example is entirely disingenuous, because it ignores the empirical fact that living beings do not intentionally behave this way. This is a toy problem divorced from reality and real consequences.
I cited a real-world example, one that's also present in a number of other developed countries. Your "empirical fact that living beings do not intentionally behave this way" is demonstrably false, has been demonstrated to be false.
Wrong. Population decline is a side-effect of other rational decisions.
It's the side effect of people electing to have a lower birth rate than the death rate. given the (current) inevitability of death, it's all about the individual's choice to have--to "family plan"--fewer babies in a lifetime. They are, in fact, electing to self-annihilate. I'm not sure how that's supposed to be a bad thing, or an "untrue" thing, or whatever.
Again, according to my analyses it is morally permissible to voluntarily self-annihilate, but morally disallowed to make that a general rule or requirement for sentient beings.
Oh.
Well, you and some other guy who think he's got the objective morality coursing through his veins are in disagreement. I suggest you two have it out. Maybe dueling electric chairs?
This should be easy for you though, since all you need is an actual counter-example of a rational being favoring death and suffering of over life and satisfaction.
Spoilered for gruesomeness.
He said life and satisfaction. Satisfaction in that case was antithetical to life, as it could not be attained while others suffered needlessly.
redx on
They moistly come out at night, moistly.
0
Tiger BurningDig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tuberegular
This should be easy for you though, since all you need is an actual counter-example of a rational being favoring death and suffering of over life and satisfaction.
Spoilered for gruesomeness.
How is this rational again?
Aside from that consideration I might have been too quick with that predicate statement, because there are several exceptions to the general rule. However, every exception can also be explained by rational arguments, even if the rational argument is as simple as: "that dude is crazy".
If you're gonna try to base your moral system on the universality of some particular sentiment, that sentiment had better be pretty darn universal.
So, it's objective because of a loose democratic consensus on a few tenets?
Not at all what I said. It's objective by virtue of being consistent with known empirical fact, and by virtue of being a replicable consistent system for assessing the morality of given actions.
Again, the empirical facts about population growth rates don't say what you want them too at all. The Japan data is not relevant to the killing rule, because they are not killing anyone!!! These people are not committing suicide or slaughtering each other in the street, they are simply controlling how many children they have because of the costs associated with having them. I consider that evidence irrelevant to a discussion of the anti-murder axiom since murder is not the cause of population decline, nor does Japan consider murder to be morally permissible.
This should be easy for you though, since all you need is an actual counter-example of a rational being favoring death and suffering of over life and satisfaction.
Spoilered for gruesomeness.
How is this rational again?
Aside from that consideration I might have been too quick with that predicate statement, because there are several exceptions to the general rule. However, every exception can also be explained by rational arguments, even if the rational argument is as simple as: "that dude is crazy".
If you're gonna try to base your moral system on the universality of some particular sentiment, that sentiment had better be pretty darn universal.
You really think prohibition against murder is not universal?
It is morally permissible to voluntarily self-annihilate, but morally disallowed to make that a general rule or requirement for sentient beings.
^^ This is still all I need to say on the issue, because it is not all that complicated.
The example you offer continues to be disingenuous because it is readily apparent that the Japanese are not seeking self-annihilation at all. In fact, the cause of this trend is the collective rational practice of family planning, not the seeking of their own ending. You are ignoring basic facts to make your point here, I call that disingenuous.
In addition this example is entirely disingenuous, because it ignores the empirical fact that living beings do not intentionally behave this way. This is a toy problem divorced from reality and real consequences.
I cited a real-world example, one that's also present in a number of other developed countries. Your "empirical fact that living beings do not intentionally behave this way" is demonstrably false, has been demonstrated to be false.
Wrong. Population decline is a side-effect of other rational decisions.
It's the side effect of people electing to have a lower birth rate than the death rate. given the (current) inevitability of death, it's all about the individual's choice to have--to "family plan"--fewer babies in a lifetime. They are, in fact, electing to self-annihilate. I'm not sure how that's supposed to be a bad thing, or an "untrue" thing, or whatever.
Again, according to my analyses it is morally permissible to voluntarily self-annihilate, but morally disallowed to make that a general rule or requirement for sentient beings.
Oh.
Well, you and some other guy who think he's got the objective morality coursing through his veins are in disagreement. I suggest you two have it out. Maybe dueling electric chairs?
Heh. I would win because I could just channel "Ride The Lightning".
Given ethical principles must be weighed against each other somehow when they conflict, but this is very doable. It is also possible that under some specific circumstances that I have not considered, self-annihilation would be morally impermissible. I can envision at least one instance myself. Anyone else?
hanskey on
0
Tiger BurningDig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tuberegular
This should be easy for you though, since all you need is an actual counter-example of a rational being favoring death and suffering of over life and satisfaction.
Spoilered for gruesomeness.
How is this rational again?
Aside from that consideration I might have been too quick with that predicate statement, because there are several exceptions to the general rule. However, every exception can also be explained by rational arguments, even if the rational argument is as simple as: "that dude is crazy".
If you're gonna try to base your moral system on the universality of some particular sentiment, that sentiment had better be pretty darn universal.
You really think prohibition against murder is not universal?
Cite that please.
Moral prohibition? Pick up a newspaper. People are murdering each other all over the world. Many of them believe they are doing good. Some of them even believe they're doing God's work. Remember OBL? Remember the parties the next day?
This should be easy for you though, since all you need is an actual counter-example of a rational being favoring death and suffering of over life and satisfaction.
Spoilered for gruesomeness.
He said life and satisfaction. Satisfaction in that case was antithetical to life, as it could not be attained while others suffered needlessly.
What information do our evolutionary biases give us about objective morality?
Pain sucks, pleasure is worth pursuing, other people aren't so different from us. To name a few potentially important ones.
How do we know these are even remotely related to an objective morality?
Really?
If it is true that pain "sucks" and that pleasure is "worth" pursuing that would have huge implications with respect to morality. Of course, it all sort of depends on what those words mean. If by sucks we mean bad, then we've essentially stated an objective moral principle. Pain ought to be avoided, and no matter who you are or where you're living that's true. If by "worth pursuing" we mean that pleasure ought to be pursued under even certain restricted circumstances, then we have something else objective.
Things can be contingent on empirical principles and still be objective. The fact about what color the sun is depends entirely on the contingent existence of the sun, yet if I say the sun is green, i'm wrong.
I really think that there's some serious misunderstandings going on about what "subjective" and "objective" mean with respect to the discussion of morality.
I'm not sure what makes those "objective" and not just "widely shared opinions".
What do you think that Objective means?
LoserForHireX on
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
0
Tiger BurningDig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tuberegular
This should be easy for you though, since all you need is an actual counter-example of a rational being favoring death and suffering of over life and satisfaction.
Spoilered for gruesomeness.
He said life and satisfaction. Satisfaction in that case was antithetical to life, as it could not be attained while others suffered needlessly.
Thank you for seeing what I could not!
It's an explanation. Impossible to say if it's accurate. Nice way of minimizing the sacrifice, though. In fact, under your formulation, is self-sacrifice even possible? Or is it just always irrational?
This should be easy for you though, since all you need is an actual counter-example of a rational being favoring death and suffering of over life and satisfaction.
Spoilered for gruesomeness.
How is this rational again?
Aside from that consideration I might have been too quick with that predicate statement, because there are several exceptions to the general rule. However, every exception can also be explained by rational arguments, even if the rational argument is as simple as: "that dude is crazy".
If you're gonna try to base your moral system on the universality of some particular sentiment, that sentiment had better be pretty darn universal.
You really think prohibition against murder is not universal?
Cite that please.
as murder is defined as illegal homicides, it is tautologically true that murders are universally prohibited by all moralities. This was observed by Mr.Mister earlier in the thread.
Outside of a few examples, Quakers and Jains are the first that spring to mind, moral systems do not have general prohibitions against homicide and there is little universal agreement about when it is permissible.
edit: It was not my intent to minimize the sacrifice of the Buddhist monk. His death, probably, helped to hasten the ouster of the oppressive regime in south Vietnam. I think it was an impressive instance of someone demonstrating that strength of their moral beliefs and don't feel it was terribly illogical.
So, it's objective because of a loose democratic consensus on a few tenets?
Not at all what I said. It's objective by virtue of being consistent with known empirical fact, and by virtue of being a replicable consistent system for assessing the morality of given actions.
Again, the empirical facts about population growth rates don't say what you want them too at all. The Japan data is not relevant to the killing rule, because they are not killing anyone!!! These people are not committing suicide or slaughtering each other in the street, they are simply controlling how many children they have because of the costs associated with having them. I consider that evidence irrelevant to a discussion of the anti-murder axiom since murder is not the cause of population decline, nor does Japan consider murder to be morally permissible.
Tell me about these empirical facts and how they serve to provide a shadow of evidence for an objective morality.
Also, I never talked about killing or suicide in the context of self-annihilation. That it fails to whatever your murder whatever is immaterial to what was being discussed. Annihilation via low birth rate is annihilation all the same.
What information do our evolutionary biases give us about objective morality?
Pain sucks, pleasure is worth pursuing, other people aren't so different from us. To name a few potentially important ones.
How do we know these are even remotely related to an objective morality?
Really?
If it is true that pain "sucks" and that pleasure is "worth" pursuing that would have huge implications with respect to morality. Of course, it all sort of depends on what those words mean. If by sucks we mean bad, then we've essentially stated an objective moral principle. Pain ought to be avoided, and no matter who you are or where you're living that's true. If by "worth pursuing" we mean that pleasure ought to be pursued under even certain restricted circumstances, then we have something else objective.
Things can be contingent on empirical principles and still be objective. The fact about what color the sun is depends entirely on the contingent existence of the sun, yet if I say the sun is green, i'm wrong.
I really think that there's some serious misunderstandings going on about what "subjective" and "objective" mean with respect to the discussion of morality.
I'm not sure what makes those "objective" and not just "widely shared opinions".
What do you think that Objective means?
True whether people believe it or not. Something that is mind independent.
This should be easy for you though, since all you need is an actual counter-example of a rational being favoring death and suffering of over life and satisfaction.
Spoilered for gruesomeness.
How is this rational again?
Aside from that consideration I might have been too quick with that predicate statement, because there are several exceptions to the general rule. However, every exception can also be explained by rational arguments, even if the rational argument is as simple as: "that dude is crazy".
If you're gonna try to base your moral system on the universality of some particular sentiment, that sentiment had better be pretty darn universal.
You really think prohibition against murder is not universal?
Cite that please.
Moral prohibition? Pick up a newspaper. People are murdering each other all over the world. Many of them believe they are doing good. Some of them even believe they're doing God's work. Remember OBL? Remember the parties the next day?
1. OBL's death celebrations could easily be explained as relief to the ending of an existential threat, and in no way contradicts the murder prohibition. OBLs death could also easily fit into the self-defense exception that accompanies the no-killing rule; so, another reason that this offers no contradiction whatsoever.
2. Despite the fact that people do murder that does not make it right. Ethics purports to tell us the "right" or "best" way to act and behave, and additionally tells us that there are objective measures for determining this. One objective procedure is the test of Universality that Kant developed. This involves making a specific act under question a general rule that everyone should follow and examining the consequences. If such a general rule makes no sense from that perspective then it must be rejected. Murdering people cannot be universalized as a general rule: no rational being would accept it as the "right" or "best" way to behave and if accepted it would inevitably lead to our collective extinction, which should be obviously not a rational or reasonable goal. However, a reasonable and logical exception is added for self-defense.
So, it's objective because of a loose democratic consensus on a few tenets?
Not at all what I said. It's objective by virtue of being consistent with known empirical fact, and by virtue of being a replicable consistent system for assessing the morality of given actions.
Again, the empirical facts about population growth rates don't say what you want them too at all. The Japan data is not relevant to the killing rule, because they are not killing anyone!!! These people are not committing suicide or slaughtering each other in the street, they are simply controlling how many children they have because of the costs associated with having them. I consider that evidence irrelevant to a discussion of the anti-murder axiom since murder is not the cause of population decline, nor does Japan consider murder to be morally permissible.
Tell me about these empirical facts and how they serve to provide a shadow of evidence for an objective morality.
Also, I never talked about killing or suicide in the context of self-annihilation. That it fails to whatever your murder whatever is immaterial to what was being discussed. Annihilation via low birth rate is annihilation all the same.
Yet still totally irrelevant to prohibiting murder, despite the fact that you presented it as relevant.
This should be easy for you though, since all you need is an actual counter-example of a rational being favoring death and suffering of over life and satisfaction.
Spoilered for gruesomeness.
How is this rational again?
Aside from that consideration I might have been too quick with that predicate statement, because there are several exceptions to the general rule. However, every exception can also be explained by rational arguments, even if the rational argument is as simple as: "that dude is crazy".
If you're gonna try to base your moral system on the universality of some particular sentiment, that sentiment had better be pretty darn universal.
You really think prohibition against murder is not universal?
Cite that please.
as murder is defined as illegal homicides, it is tautologically true that murders are universally prohibited by all moralities. This was observed by Mr.Mister earlier in the thread.
Outside of a few examples, Quakers and Jains are the first that spring to mind, moral systems do not have general prohibitions against homicide and there is little universal agreement about when it is permissible.
This is just poorly worded, can you edit that so it makes sense?
What information do our evolutionary biases give us about objective morality?
Pain sucks, pleasure is worth pursuing, other people aren't so different from us. To name a few potentially important ones.
How do we know these are even remotely related to an objective morality?
Really?
If it is true that pain "sucks" and that pleasure is "worth" pursuing that would have huge implications with respect to morality. Of course, it all sort of depends on what those words mean. If by sucks we mean bad, then we've essentially stated an objective moral principle. Pain ought to be avoided, and no matter who you are or where you're living that's true. If by "worth pursuing" we mean that pleasure ought to be pursued under even certain restricted circumstances, then we have something else objective.
Things can be contingent on empirical principles and still be objective. The fact about what color the sun is depends entirely on the contingent existence of the sun, yet if I say the sun is green, i'm wrong.
I really think that there's some serious misunderstandings going on about what "subjective" and "objective" mean with respect to the discussion of morality.
I'm not sure what makes those "objective" and not just "widely shared opinions".
What do you think that Objective means?
True whether people believe it or not. Something that is mind independent.
I have the sinking feeling that "objective" is, by (and apparently these are very popular) special exception, going to be expanded to D&D in this case.
(I mean Dungeons and Dragons)
voodoospork on
0
Tiger BurningDig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tuberegular
2. Despite the fact that people do murder that does not make it right. Ethics purports to tell us the "right" or "best" way to act and behave, and additionally tells us that there are objective measures for determining this. One objective procedure is the test of Universality that Kant developed. This involves making a specific act under question a general rule that everyone should follow and examining the consequences. If such a general rule makes no sense from that perspective then it must be rejected. Murdering people cannot be universalized as a general rule: no rational being would accept it as the "right" or "best" way to behave and if accepted it would inevitably lead to our collective extinction, which should be obviously not a rational or reasonable goal. However, a reasonable and logical exception is added for self-defense.
That doesn't explain why the capacity for adoption as a general rule is compelling, though. And societies with much higher levels of 'justifiable exceptions' to the rule against killing have gotten along just fine.
This should be easy for you though, since all you need is an actual counter-example of a rational being favoring death and suffering of over life and satisfaction.
Spoilered for gruesomeness.
How is this rational again?
Aside from that consideration I might have been too quick with that predicate statement, because there are several exceptions to the general rule. However, every exception can also be explained by rational arguments, even if the rational argument is as simple as: "that dude is crazy".
If you're gonna try to base your moral system on the universality of some particular sentiment, that sentiment had better be pretty darn universal.
You really think prohibition against murder is not universal?
Cite that please.
as murder is defined as illegal homicides, it is tautologically true that murders are universally prohibited by all moralities. This was observed by Mr.Mister earlier in the thread.
Outside of a few examples, Quakers and Jains are the first that spring to mind, moral systems do not have general prohibitions against homicide and there is little universal agreement about when it is permissible.
This is just poorly worded, can you edit that so it makes sense?
Murders are instances of humans killing humans that societies, based on their collective morality, have determined are criminal.
Because of this, pointing to the fact that all societies consider murder to be immoral is simply restating the definition of murder.
Many cultures have defined murder differently. Aside from a couple exceptions, they do not consider every instance of a human killing another human to be murder, illegal or immoral.
2. Despite the fact that people do murder that does not make it right. Ethics purports to tell us the "right" or "best" way to act and behave, and additionally tells us that there are objective measures for determining this. One objective procedure is the test of Universality that Kant developed. This involves making a specific act under question a general rule that everyone should follow and examining the consequences. If such a general rule makes no sense from that perspective then it must be rejected. Murdering people cannot be universalized as a general rule: no rational being would accept it as the "right" or "best" way to behave and if accepted it would inevitably lead to our collective extinction, which should be obviously not a rational or reasonable goal. However, a reasonable and logical exception is added for self-defense.
That doesn't explain why the capacity for adoption as a general rule is compelling, though. And societies with much higher levels of 'justifiable exceptions' to the rule against killing have gotten along just fine.
I was addressing the specific question so naturally my answer does not address other issues. However, they can be addressed pretty easily, but I'm tired and don't really want to keep up this nonsense for a few people that should just get a lot more familiar with ethical systems and a lot less attached to magical thinking and irrational positions.
This should be easy for you though, since all you need is an actual counter-example of a rational being favoring death and suffering of over life and satisfaction.
Spoilered for gruesomeness.
How is this rational again?
Aside from that consideration I might have been too quick with that predicate statement, because there are several exceptions to the general rule. However, every exception can also be explained by rational arguments, even if the rational argument is as simple as: "that dude is crazy".
If you're gonna try to base your moral system on the universality of some particular sentiment, that sentiment had better be pretty darn universal.
You really think prohibition against murder is not universal?
Cite that please.
as murder is defined as illegal homicides, it is tautologically true that murders are universally prohibited by all moralities. This was observed by Mr.Mister earlier in the thread.
Outside of a few examples, Quakers and Jains are the first that spring to mind, moral systems do not have general prohibitions against homicide and there is little universal agreement about when it is permissible.
This is just poorly worded, can you edit that so it makes sense?
Murders are instances of humans killing humans that societies, based on their collective morality, have determined are criminal.
Because of this, pointing to the fact that all societies consider murder to be immoral is simply restating the definition of murder.
Many cultures have defined murder differently. Aside from a couple exceptions, they do not consider every instance of a human killing another human to be murder, illegal or immoral.
General rules are not thrown out over exceptions that may be accounted for. Look at the wiki on fallacies to figure out which one you're employing here.
hanskey on
0
Tiger BurningDig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tuberegular
2. Despite the fact that people do murder that does not make it right. Ethics purports to tell us the "right" or "best" way to act and behave, and additionally tells us that there are objective measures for determining this. One objective procedure is the test of Universality that Kant developed. This involves making a specific act under question a general rule that everyone should follow and examining the consequences. If such a general rule makes no sense from that perspective then it must be rejected. Murdering people cannot be universalized as a general rule: no rational being would accept it as the "right" or "best" way to behave and if accepted it would inevitably lead to our collective extinction, which should be obviously not a rational or reasonable goal. However, a reasonable and logical exception is added for self-defense.
That doesn't explain why the capacity for adoption as a general rule is compelling, though. And societies with much higher levels of 'justifiable exceptions' to the rule against killing have gotten along just fine.
I was addressing the specific question so naturally my answer does not address other issues. However, they can be addressed pretty easily, but I'm tired and don't really want to keep up this nonsense for two people that should just get a lot more familiar with ethical systems and a lot less attached to magical thinking and irrational positions.
What information do our evolutionary biases give us about objective morality?
Pain sucks, pleasure is worth pursuing, other people aren't so different from us. To name a few potentially important ones.
How do we know these are even remotely related to an objective morality?
Really?
If it is true that pain "sucks" and that pleasure is "worth" pursuing that would have huge implications with respect to morality. Of course, it all sort of depends on what those words mean. If by sucks we mean bad, then we've essentially stated an objective moral principle. Pain ought to be avoided, and no matter who you are or where you're living that's true. If by "worth pursuing" we mean that pleasure ought to be pursued under even certain restricted circumstances, then we have something else objective.
Things can be contingent on empirical principles and still be objective. The fact about what color the sun is depends entirely on the contingent existence of the sun, yet if I say the sun is green, i'm wrong.
I really think that there's some serious misunderstandings going on about what "subjective" and "objective" mean with respect to the discussion of morality.
I'm not sure what makes those "objective" and not just "widely shared opinions".
What do you think that Objective means?
True whether people believe it or not. Something that is mind independent.
Then we had two different readings of what Grid wrote.
LoserForHireX on
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Posts
Would you characterize these systems as finding universal moral truths in the scientific sense? My apprehension stems from an understanding that such systems present themselves as hard science, capable of divining fact rather than generalizations.
I'm not sure what makes those "objective" and not just "widely shared opinions".
So, you would say that the optimal universal objective moral code would mandate its own existence? Again, what if people don't feel like having that many kids?
...according to what?
I think you're being incredibly disingenuous when you call me disingenuous. Particularly when you yourself are divorced from reality:
http://www.indexmundi.com/japan/birth_rate.html
http://www.indexmundi.com/japan/death_rate.html
I understand your reluctance here, because I shared it when I considered myself a Moral Relativist.
It can be argued that Ethics is similar to a science like anthropology or geology, but most of the work and thought on Ethics is firmly in the realm of philosophy.
That said, I would argue that, like a science, Ethics are subject to revision under new empirical facts.
Similar to a science, the point of Ethics is to provide a Universal problem solving tool and an explanation of observable behavior, but Ethics is for dealing with moral dilemmas, and chemistry is for dealing with chemical reactions.
Similar to a science, general rules of ethics must be internally consistent and follow the basic rules of predicate logic.
However, science is silent on the topic of what sentient beings should do and how we should behave, and that is the entire point of Ethics.
Any rational living creature.
The example you offer continues to be disingenuous because it is readily apparent that the Japanese are not seeking self-annihilation at all. In fact, the cause of this trend is the collective rational practice of family planning, not the seeking of their own ending. You are ignoring basic facts to make your point here, I call that disingenuous.
So, according to your fiat? Is that how objective morality works?
I can't judge the Stoic position, because I don't know it. If you would care to get more specific, the perhaps I can better answer the questions.
Uh, really?
I cited a real-world example, one that's also present in a number of other developed countries. Your "empirical fact that living beings do not intentionally behave this way" is demonstrably false, has been demonstrated to be false.
This should be easy for you though, since all you need is an actual counter-example of a rational being favoring death and suffering of over life and satisfaction.
Wrong.
You cited an empirical fact and are trying to use it to support a position that it does not support, because population decline is a side-effect of other rational decisions.
This does not to preclude the possibility that a society couldn't rationally choose to have a small population or to shirk it population because that is all the people that may be supported on the available resources.
It's the side effect of people electing to have a lower birth rate than the death rate. given the (current) inevitability of death, it's all about the individual's choice to have--to "family plan"--fewer babies in a lifetime. They are, in fact, electing to self-annihilate. I'm not sure how that's supposed to be a bad thing, or an "untrue" thing, or whatever.
Again, according to my analyses it is morally permissible to voluntarily self-annihilate, but morally disallowed to make that a general rule or requirement for sentient beings.
Spoilered for gruesomeness.
So, it's objective because of a loose democratic consensus on a few tenets? You don't seem to realize that strength in numbers--even unanimity!--don't constitute truth, they only arbitrate it.
Aside from that consideration I might have been too quick with that predicate statement, because there are several exceptions to the general rule. However, every exception can also be explained by rational arguments, even if the rational argument is as simple as: "that dude is crazy".
Oh.
Well, you and some other guy who think he's got the objective morality coursing through his veins are in disagreement. I suggest you two have it out. Maybe dueling electric chairs?
He said life and satisfaction. Satisfaction in that case was antithetical to life, as it could not be attained while others suffered needlessly.
If you're gonna try to base your moral system on the universality of some particular sentiment, that sentiment had better be pretty darn universal.
Again, the empirical facts about population growth rates don't say what you want them too at all. The Japan data is not relevant to the killing rule, because they are not killing anyone!!! These people are not committing suicide or slaughtering each other in the street, they are simply controlling how many children they have because of the costs associated with having them. I consider that evidence irrelevant to a discussion of the anti-murder axiom since murder is not the cause of population decline, nor does Japan consider murder to be morally permissible.
You really think prohibition against murder is not universal?
Cite that please.
Heh. I would win because I could just channel "Ride The Lightning".
Given ethical principles must be weighed against each other somehow when they conflict, but this is very doable. It is also possible that under some specific circumstances that I have not considered, self-annihilation would be morally impermissible. I can envision at least one instance myself. Anyone else?
Moral prohibition? Pick up a newspaper. People are murdering each other all over the world. Many of them believe they are doing good. Some of them even believe they're doing God's work. Remember OBL? Remember the parties the next day?
Thank you for seeing what I could not!
What do you think that Objective means?
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
It's an explanation. Impossible to say if it's accurate. Nice way of minimizing the sacrifice, though. In fact, under your formulation, is self-sacrifice even possible? Or is it just always irrational?
as murder is defined as illegal homicides, it is tautologically true that murders are universally prohibited by all moralities. This was observed by Mr.Mister earlier in the thread.
Outside of a few examples, Quakers and Jains are the first that spring to mind, moral systems do not have general prohibitions against homicide and there is little universal agreement about when it is permissible.
edit: It was not my intent to minimize the sacrifice of the Buddhist monk. His death, probably, helped to hasten the ouster of the oppressive regime in south Vietnam. I think it was an impressive instance of someone demonstrating that strength of their moral beliefs and don't feel it was terribly illogical.
Tell me about these empirical facts and how they serve to provide a shadow of evidence for an objective morality.
Also, I never talked about killing or suicide in the context of self-annihilation. That it fails to whatever your murder whatever is immaterial to what was being discussed. Annihilation via low birth rate is annihilation all the same.
True whether people believe it or not. Something that is mind independent.
2. Despite the fact that people do murder that does not make it right. Ethics purports to tell us the "right" or "best" way to act and behave, and additionally tells us that there are objective measures for determining this. One objective procedure is the test of Universality that Kant developed. This involves making a specific act under question a general rule that everyone should follow and examining the consequences. If such a general rule makes no sense from that perspective then it must be rejected. Murdering people cannot be universalized as a general rule: no rational being would accept it as the "right" or "best" way to behave and if accepted it would inevitably lead to our collective extinction, which should be obviously not a rational or reasonable goal. However, a reasonable and logical exception is added for self-defense.
Yet still totally irrelevant to prohibiting murder, despite the fact that you presented it as relevant.
This is just poorly worded, can you edit that so it makes sense?
I have the sinking feeling that "objective" is, by (and apparently these are very popular) special exception, going to be expanded to D&D in this case.
(I mean Dungeons and Dragons)
That doesn't explain why the capacity for adoption as a general rule is compelling, though. And societies with much higher levels of 'justifiable exceptions' to the rule against killing have gotten along just fine.
Murders are instances of humans killing humans that societies, based on their collective morality, have determined are criminal.
Because of this, pointing to the fact that all societies consider murder to be immoral is simply restating the definition of murder.
Many cultures have defined murder differently. Aside from a couple exceptions, they do not consider every instance of a human killing another human to be murder, illegal or immoral.
General rules are not thrown out over exceptions that may be accounted for. Look at the wiki on fallacies to figure out which one you're employing here.
Oh dear. Will you be taking your ball, too?
Then we had two different readings of what Grid wrote.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche