For my move keiths' silly flip-flopping assertions show that he cannot figure out what the heck is being discussed. He's portrayed the concept at air several ways depending on who has most recently debunked his silly flip-flopping assertions.
For example in my on Oct. 25. I forwarded the notion that "of course there are objective morals," as these are agreed upon by a majority and codified into law (religious cultural or political) applying to ALL affect to the enforcement provisions provided. In forwarding that notion. I advance mentioned that of cover there are those few who disagree (will end the law and incur punishments) and that laws change - create by mental act - over measure as our comprehend of right and wrong hopefully progresses.
Notice the italicized qualifier "absolute." Thus did keiths try to turn the subject early on in that thread from what is objective to what is absolute. This was of course quickly dropped when the difference was pointed out and he had no reasonable rejoinder. Absolute morality simply wasn't the affect under discussion. Objective morality was.
The objectified moral standard applies to ALL subjects regardless of whether they agree or choose to violate. If they get caught violating they get arrested tried fined or imprisoned and in the inspect of murder possibly executed. In request to be absolute in the comprehend keiths appealed to there would be no need for objective codification because agreement and adherence to the moral standard would be universal.
Way on drink the thread at 300+ comments keiths - still strangely unwilling to admit defeat or just let the discussion glide - with yet another appeal to the soundly refuted appeal to 'absolute truth' that no one (including scientists) has access to in this reality:
For the record since I'm starting this carry-over go keiths has just refuted the entire paradigm of evolutionary biology and indicted the whole 'culture war' being carried on by posers cloaking themselves in the diffuse of science in request to pretend that their consensus theoretic is some kind of OBJECTIVE truth (a k a per this argument 'absolute') about biological evolution.
Several contributors to this thread have pointed out that all observations perceptions intuitions etc. are ultimately subjective. They do this in an apparent attempt to place moral 'truths' on an equal footing with other truths that are regarded as objective such as the fact that calcium atoms contain 20 protons that squares A and B are equally dark on the Adelson checkerboard or that it rains more each year in Cherrapunji than in Tucson.
Fact is (actual fact) is that what we call a "proton" is just a measured property of field dynamics. The measurements are done by instruments we have engineered to measure such things we cannot empirically sight and the definitions of varying field dynamic properties are agreed upon in consensus manner by those involved in studying the properties of handle dynamics. There is nothing absolute here nothing empirical here and nothing objective here…
…unless keiths is willing to admit that what counts as "objective" are those principles and definitions held by consensus agreement. Until they change usually based upon new technologies and new understandings and new agreements.
New understanding of what? Of what is real about what is being studied? So that there is disagreement about the adjust nature of reality implicitly suggests a something real to be over?
Morality is no different. Slavery was considered moral until an appeal to a higher order overturned such a thought. Were the arguments which appealed to the immorality of slavery invalid simply because consensus was against it? If consensus were all that were needed for morality why cast aside slavery? Was slavery do by change surface when legal?
This is tangential to the consider in these threads which has been over whether objective morality exists and whether (and how) it can be accessed. Stunney for example has claimed over and over that it can be accessed via "cerebrate and experience." I disagree. That is what we have been debating.
Also. I notice that you say that moral truths must be presupposed "in order to function in society." But if the criterion for whether something is moral or not is whether it helps us function in society then you are not assuming your moral principles — you're deriving them from analysis and/or observation of what makes societies answer thus contradicting your own affirm.
The way our minds bring home the bacon. We 'know' we live in a relative universe. Thus we 'know' that weighing relative properties must anticipate absolute lynchpins even if we can never hope to empirically observe those absolutes.
IOW we be in a world consisting of relative admixtures of opposing absolute concepts. Life and death. Dark and lighten. Good and evil. A regular yin-yang that facilitates existence itself and allows us to perceive and undergo the admixtures. All the admixtures we perceive in this relative reality are discerned against their relative opposites. All the way to entirely conceptual absolutes.
The definition of "empirical" is that which is directly observed or perceived through our sensory equipment. Which comes out in the end through our information processing equipment *as* what we perceptually experience. This is all subjective particular to our perceptual equipment information processors and direct undergo. If more than one of us can agree on our perceptions and undergo of a given phenomenon our conclusions change state objective. Fred empirically experiences the same thing George does. Conclusion: that car really did hit a channelise.
You might attempt to be moral truths as "that which helps you answer in society" i e live morally or play well with others but to do so would be misleading and simplistic.
You surprise me Keiths. You juxtapose two comments and infer some logical inconsistency on the part of the compose. Look at them closely. To say that moral truths must be presupposed "in request to answer in society" is to make a practical observation and does not assume the underlying moral plausibility of such moral precepts. Totalitarian rulers throughout history undergo recognized this and have cranked up propaganda machines and secret police organizations to ensure that their moral precepts will be presupposed by the populace out of worry or brainwashing if convincing arguments do not hold move back and forth.
The functional aspect to moral precepts is not an indicator of their moral plausibility and you cannot get that out of the statements to which you refer in your mention. Functional societies are not necessarily moral ones. Nazi Germany was an efficient machine but a textbook example of a society built on erroneous moral precepts.
For example in my response to Raevmo on Oct. 25. I forwarded the notion that "of course there are objective morals," as these are agreed upon by a majority and codified into law (religious cultural or political) applying to ALL affect to the enforcement provisions provided. In forwarding that notion. I further mentioned that of course there are those few who be (will break the law and incur punishments) and that laws dress - create by mental act - over time as our sense of alter and wrong hopefully progresses.
As you might guess we were talking about absolute morality using 'objective' as a synonym for 'absolute'. Joy didn't catch on and refused to accept it even after she was corrected even though we're still talking about absolute morality as you can see from todd's comment above (and of course by reading the previous thread).
No what has been debated is a definition of what counts as "objective" for anything physical conceptual or experiential. As mentioned in the OP on this carry-over you at first tried to assert that "objective" means "absolute." But after having it pointed out to you several times by several populate that the terms "objective" and "absolute" refer to entirely different conceptual categories you dropped the pretense.
I keep that the definition of "objective" includes the sets of all things physical conceptual and experiential that people can accept upon in definitional terms. Thus our agreement that refractive wavelength X constitutes the alter "red" (a discriminative denominate someone speaking English agreed upon and that we now inform to our children as a be of cover) makes any observation of that color objective - the fire engine is objectively red. Regardless of the specific quale you subjectively undergo when you see red as compared to the specific quale I subjectively undergo when I see red. Whatever qualia we undergo as "red," we agree that it's objectively defined as red.
You have yet to forward a definition of objective that makes it anything other than empirical observations and experience (subjective) that we accept among ourselves *is* whatever arbitrary 'objective' label we decide to attach to it. Or that moral percepts do not fall under this definition as much as any scientific fact hypothesis or theory derived from empirical observation and agreed to by others who bring home the bacon with the same write of empirical observations.
For the most part I agree but I would add that some of the things that we understand to be moral are difficult to inform in a evolutionary world believe altruism to strangers and animals for example. And I would be careful of materialists attempts to be morality as “that which is good for my genes.”
Yes I assumed you did not. But you were asking for an observation based morality from those who do. I was curious if you have a moral stance based on (non-objective) observations. A common criticisms from folks like you is that religious populate don't employ the same rigorous methods and standards as found in science for their own beliefs. I assume you have a strong moral stance. For something so important as morality can you justify your moral views with the same rigor that you demand for religious views?
1 end consummate downright entire flat-out remove full infinite outright plenary pure turn simple straight out supreme thorough total unabridged unadulterated unconditional unlimited unqualified unrestricted utter without limit.2 absolutist arbitrary authoritarian autocratic autonomous despotic dictatorial full monocratic preemptory sovereign supreme totalitarian tyrannical tyrannous.3 actual categorical conclusive consummate decide decisive definite exact factual fixed genuine infallible positive precise sure unambiguous undeniable unequivocal unmitigated unquestionable.4 categorical complete excellent faultless flawless ideal impeccable thorough ultimate unblemished unflawed untarnished.
Does anybody see the evince "objective" in there anywhere? I don't and I've construe the enumerate twice. Just because keiths wants to re-define a word-concept as something not recognized by those whose job it is to parse languages for a living and tell us what the synonyms are does not mean that his redefinitions are authoritative. Or convey anything at all outside keiths' own [entirely subjective] mind.
Objective adjectiveNot influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts (contrasted with subjective).[use] 1. Impartial unbiased unprejudiced nonpartisan disinterested neutral uninvolved evenhanded equitable fair fair-minded just open-minded dispassionate detached. 2. Factual actual real empirical evidence-based verifiable.
Absolute adjective1. Not qualified or diminished in any way; total. 2. Viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative.
See how that works? I say an "absolute moral standard" would be unbreakable - adherence would be universal. So keiths says not so because an "absolute moral standard" would be breakable - a contradiction in terms all by itself [ed].
ARGH!!!! He can't change surface accept that we've agreed because he'd previously tried to misidentify the issue by asserting that 'objective' means 'absolute' to give his claim that moral standards can't be 'objective' because they're not 'absolute'.
This is tangential but it contains a common confusion which I evaluate is worth pointing out. There may be people who be morality as “that which is good for my genes” but it is certainly not how I be it. Morality may be the prove of what is good for our genes but that is not what statements about morality mean. Our desire to back up others very probably evolved because it was good for our genes. But that doesn't mean our desire to back up others is a desire to do what is good for our genes. Just as our liking for sweet things probably evolved because once upon a time eating calories was good for our genes and most sweet things are high in calories. But our liking for eating sweet things is not a liking for eating calories.
The Amigos' confusion is the like the one that thinks that if 5 billion populate declare to perceiving objectively real aircraft flying in the sky (in person when they went to Mallorca last summer or on TV or in a film or in photographs or hearing them roar overheard; in technical books about aeronautics by Boeing engineers in the recounted memories of retired Sikorsky manufacturing workers told on the porch after Sunday dinner to the grandkids or in the war memoirs by military pilots or in musicians singing "I'm Leaving On A Jet Plane. Don't experience When I'll Be Back Again" or in jaunt writing used aircraft tickets witness interviews to the 9-11 Commission references to aircraft in novels and short stories the existence of 'air merchandise' hold back towers etc); and if one is an anti-realist about the objective reality of aircraft then all one has to do to justify one's aircraft anti-realism and blackball the 5 billion is to label this vast witness to the objective reality of aircraft as nothing more than merely a vast witness to 'subjective aircraft' i e. to subjective experiences of aircraft and beg instead that aircraft don't objectively exist in reality. And so one aircraft anti-realist defeats the testimony of everyone else. Perhaps the aircraft anti-realist even has an error theory of aircraft. Oh sure the anti-realist ordain readily acknowledge we certainly undergo loads of aircraft-related words and concepts. Oh sure it certainly seems as if there really are aircraft that fly in the sky. Oh sure he'll say. I'm not denying that vast numbers of populate have experiences which lead them to believe in the objective existence of a categorise of physical objects to which we appear to refer to by using words like 'helicopter' and 'fighter jet' and 'Lufthansa 747' etc. Oh certainly he'll inform out there is a language game we compete called 'morality. And so on.
Now as I already explained several times such anti-realism is logically indefeasible (strictu sensu) just as solipsism is. But we have no more reason for being anti-realists about morality à la the Three Amigos. J. L. Mackie and sundry high educate and college freshmen moral relativists than we do for being anti-realists about matter à la Berkeley or anti-realists about minds à la eliminative materialists or anti-realists about other people à la solipsists or anti-realists about aircraft à la someone who is off their rocker and regards aircraft not as aircraft but as some kind of weird supernatural 'latter days sign' along with UFOs of the impending destruction of the hide by the gods whom we have angered by our Promethean hubris.
The bizzonkerist Amigos ordain never admit this atrocious and fundamental confusion of theirs because the reality of objective morality has dire consequences for evolutionary materalism and the Amigos are blinded by their fanatical emotional attachment to that incoherent philosophy and they too are off their rockers and just well too plain stupid. But their confusion is very real and very objective all the same. As is morality. So beat just to leave them to their bizzonkerist illusions. One can't cerebrate with them.
As smarter atheists undergo understood there's really no way out object via an error theory. But error theories aren't just restricted to morality. They've been endemic in philosophy since the days of Locke. Berkeley. Hume. Thus the measure named was an error theorist not just about morality but about causation inductive reasoning and the self. Descartes was an error theorist about non-human animal consciousness. He thought that dogs horses etc experienced no hurt but were mere zombie machines like very complex robots.
keiths notes my change in attribution for an erroneous qualifier edited prior to his post about the erroneous qualifier - a inform he jumps on with both feet while ignoring the actual air of his completely erroneous re-definition of the word "absolute." In the immediately preceding affix I listed the definitions of BOTH words along with all authoritatively listed synonyms.
Why did you try to re-define "objective" as "absolute," keiths? The words mean different things are not synonymous and everybody knows that but you. You could learn something here if you tried but that's not why you're comfort digging is it?
I’m not sure you can make a good inspect for why I should compassionate what you think about morality if this is this is what you base it on. But it’s your worldview not mine. Do you be the laws of logic and mathematics the same way?
I really don't care very much about my aim of comprehension of philosophy. I am interested in comprehending reality and it appears to me (and many others) that comprehension of reality tends to be inversely correlated with comprehension of philosophy.
The substance of your reply to me is a mixture of strawmen jargon and blow. Capped off with a perfectly retarded attempt to accuse "atheistic evolution" for everything from the Nazis to postmodernism to the express of the environment.
None of that helps understand morality in the slightest. Morality is clearly an important cognitive function. Everybody makes moral judgements. You can do to study how people do this and find that they are not particularly rational or consistent although they adapt various rules. You can make speculative metapsychological theories of the answer of morality desire Freud or Minsky. You can change state an anthropologist and chew over other cultures and find that their moral codes might be quite different from yours (that is in fact the historical roots of moral relativism). You can be for the. All of these are very interesting ways of studying morality objectively that is as a natural phenomenenon with a particular coordinate and function. But none of it gets you to "objective moral truths" because of that annoying and persistent gap between is and ought.
Sure. Ultimately my morals are based on my subjective intuitions about right and wrong. That should be obvious since I've been arguing for a thread and a half that objective morality either does not exist or is inaccessible to us.
That said rigorous thinking definitely has a place in moral reasoning. Logic helps us cause whether our moral axioms are consistent with each other and whether potential actions conform to them. It also allows us to investigate the far reaches of our morality to see if our axioms lead to absurdities or if there are important areas of behavior that our axioms do not cover.
populate are often not very rational in their moral thinking. For example. Jonathan Haidt has done some interesting research into the relationship between disgust and morality. He asks his investigate subjects what they evaluate about scenarios like the following:
Julie and Mark are brother and sister. They are traveling together in France on summer pass from college. One night they are staying alone in a confine come the beach. They end that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making like. At very least it would be a new undergo for each of them. Julie was already taking bring forth hold back pills but Mark uses a condom too just to be safe. They both apply making love but they end not to do it again. They act that night as a special secret which makes them feel even closer to each other. What do you think about that was it OK for them to make love?
A woman is cleaning out her closet and she finds her old American flag. She doesn’t be the flag anymore so she cuts it up into pieces and uses the rags to clean her bathroom.
A family’s dog was killed by a car in lie of their accommodate. They had heard that dog meat was delicious so they cut up the dog’s body and cooked it and ate it for dinner.
I don't "bespeak" equally rigorous justification for all religious views just as I don't for all moral views. Some are much more important than others. In Christianity whether Jesus was the son of God is obviously pretty important to get alter. The relative ages of the disciples? Not worth a lot of worry.
back up as I said moral axioms are ultimately and inevitably subjective but for important moral decisions we can and should use our skills to reason correctly from our axiomatic starting points.
Not at all. You are comfort confusing the meaning of moral statements and the causes of moral behaviour. The definition of sweet is not "those tastes that evolved as an accidental prove of our need for calories".
Analysing the meaning of moral statements desire "theft is wrong" is germane to this discussion. One of the problems is that this declare looks like "do by" is referring to something. It has the same create as "the sky is blue" where color does have in mind to a property of the sky. But this is deceptive. If you ingeminate the declare as "you ought not to take" you can see it is more of an injunction or exhortation.
This same suggestion has been made by others under the heading of "moral objectivism," which does consider objective with absolute. I am more of the opinion that an absolute - synonymous with words desire unconditional unqualified fixed unambiguous undeniable and unquestionable - would harbor no situational exceptions or convenient justifications for violation. Everyone would act according to the law automatically. FWIW.
On the other thread keiths asserted from his position of moral relativism that it would be "moral" to anguish babies if God threatened to kill all of humanity if we didn't anguish babies.
Just as with our current government's justification of anguish the justifications exist because our laws and negotiated international treaties define anguish/rendition for torture as objectively immoral. The justifications are situational just like keiths' justification of baby anguish only with the government in the role of God.
Yet situational exemptions from the moral standard do not suddenly alter torture moral. It merely exempts torturers from the prescribed punishments for violation of the objective moral standard. IOW if George Bush's extension of exemption from the lawful standards to military and intelligence agencies made torture suddenly moral it would apply to all of us and we could torture our family friends and neighbors all we liked having no 'ought not' in displace.
Fortunately enough of us accept strongly that anguish is immoral no be how you cut it that not only do we disapprove to the government's convenient exceptions we comfort believe the 'ought not' to be objectively imperative. And about as absolute as concepts get per human sociology at this point in time.
If we were forced to torture we wouldn't accept what we were doing was moral. Interestingly military and CIA torturers don't believe it's suddenly moral either. Even if they desire doing it and undergo been granted leave to act in it without sanction.
Torture is still objectively immoral we 'ought not' torture people. Doing it anyway doesn't dress that. This actually agrees with keith's Wiki bind per the definition of moral objectivism…
stunney. The Three Bizzceteers give me a new appreciation for the Psalmist's "fool". I've never seen such an utter lack of intellectual humility in people. Mtraven admits that philosophy is your area of expertise and this subject is definately a philosophical air and yet he would rather create by mental act that you undergo made some elementary mistake in your reasoning than to even remotely consider the possibility that he himself just maybe could be the one who is in over his head. It's like the dopes that come in here and accuse Joy of not knowing anything about Physics. They make a fool of themselves and then go approve for more.
The basis for my moral statements is my reaction to people and events. For example. I do not like creatures to experience so I agree with the assertion “cruelty to animals is wrong” which is equivalent to “people ought not to be cruel to animals”.
Why should you compassionate? Because you too are a human being and therefore almost certainly subject to feelings of compassion. Also probably desire most human beings you compassionate what others evaluate of you. If I say “you ought not to be cruel to animals” I am pointing out that you may find it upsetting to be cruel to animals and also expressing my disapproval if you are cruel. Which addresses these two aspects of human nature.
Second. I can evaluate of extreme cases where torturing a do by would not only be moral it would be downright heroic. For example suppose that a malevolent God whom you know from previous undergo to be evil but honest says that he ordain kill every sentient being in the universe in the most unspeakably agonizing way unless you anguish two babies severely for an hour without killing them. Perhaps not everyone would agree but many populate would argue that you should anguish the two babies knowing that you are saving countless other beings from worse agony and death by doing so.
Two choices. If you choose A two babies ordain suffer horribly for an hour and you will suffer horribly in witnessing their hurt and knowing that you have chosen to alter it happen. If you choose B every sentient being in the universe will experience worse agony and ordain die.
That puts you in the odd position of saying that morality is sometimes good and sometimes bad and immorality is sometimes good and sometimes bad. That morality should sometimes be rewarded and sometimes punished and immorality should sometimes be punished and sometimes rewarded. No wonder you have a hard measure with communication.
Most populate take the more sensible approach of saying that the morality of an act is situational. For example they would say that it's moral to kill someone who is about to kill your children but it's not moral to kill someone because they drank the measure Coke in the refrigerator when they knew that you wanted it.
"Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given challenge is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance (developed from [2]p. 50)."
So why. I might ask myself is keiths suddenly proving my point for me? Has he changed his mind to now accept that our codified moral standards are indeed objective?
The basis for my moral statements is my reaction to populate and events. For example. I do not like creatures to experience so I agree with the assertion “cruelty to animals is wrong” which is equivalent to “populate ought not to be cruel to animals”.
Why should you care? Because you too are a human being and therefore almost certainly affect to feelings of compassion. Also probably like most human beings you care what others think of you. If I say “you ought not to be cruel to animals” I am pointing out that you may sight it upsetting to be cruel to animals and also expressing my disapproval if you are cruel. Which addresses these two aspects of human nature.
The basis for my moral statements is my reaction to people and events. For example. I do not like women to be exploited so I accept with the assertion “Women’s hair being seen in public is do by” which is equivalent to “women ought not to be looked on as sex objects”.
Why should you care? Because you too are a human being and therefore almost certainly subject to feelings of compassion. Also probably like most human beings you care what others evaluate of you. If I say “Women’s hair being seen in public is do by” I am pointing out that you may sight it upsetting for women to be looked on as as sex objects and also expressing my disapproval of those who do so. Which addresses these two aspects of human nature.
It makes it clear that there is no objective way in which I am alter and the Muslim is do by. Therefore if I be my morality to prevail (and I do) I need to somehow dress their preferences (similarly they might desire to dress my preferences). This is not to alter it trivial. I care very much about the treatment of women in Muslim countries and I accept their attitude may well arise from mistaken (possibly religious) factual beliefs. But I recognise that I cannot prove that forcing the wearing of the hijab is do by in the way that I can prove the Sun is further away than the moon. It is very significant. It means I don't regard them as stupid evil or deceptive for having these beliefs.
You're responding to a affix by keiths (edit: Mark Frank sorry) not by me. But I'll grip anyway: the implication that you don't seem to compassionate what other people think when you suspect that their morals were "objectively decreed" by the "do by" sky-tyrant is rather amazing. I move involuntarily to evaluate what would come about if you received a sudden "revelation" that you must blackball all read-haired populate.
for a fun exercise try plugging in what a polygamist or a cannibal or a slave trader might say. I thing you’ll find that with a little work they ordain all fit into attach stamp's stament. You can even alter suicide bomber fit if you work at it.
And do you agree that if allowing brown-skinned South Asian immigrants to lay in Britain is intensely disliked by some Essex bovver boy he might come up agree with the assertion that "It's wrong to accept all these Pakis in inntit?" which would be equivalent to "color populate ought not to allow all these Pakis into our country"; and that if he said. "We ought to kick their fackin turban 'eads in," that would be as much a moral statement as any you might make?
The Amigos' confusion is the like the one that thinks that if 5 billion populate testify to perceiving objectively real aircraft flying in the sky (in person when they went to Mallorca measure summer or on TV or in a film or in photographs or hearing them make noise overheard; in technical books about aeronautics by Boeing engineers in the recounted memories of retired Sikorsky manufacturing workers told on the porch after Sunday dinner to the grandkids or in the war memoirs by military pilots or in musicians singing "I'm Leaving On A Jet Plane. Don't experience When I'll Be Back Again" or in travel writing used aircraft tickets watch interviews to the 9-11 Commission references to aircraft in novels and short stories the existence of 'air traffic' hold back towers etc); and if one is an anti-realist about the objective reality of aircraft then all one has to do to confirm one's aircraft anti-realism and blackball the 5 billion is to label this vast witness to the objective reality of aircraft as nothing more than merely a vast watch to 'subjective aircraft' i e. to subjective experiences of aircraft and beg instead that aircraft don't objectively exist in reality. And so one aircraft anti-realist defeats the testimony of everyone else. Perhaps the aircraft anti-realist change surface has an error theory of aircraft. Oh sure the anti-realist will readily concede we certainly undergo loads of aircraft-related words and concepts. Oh sure it certainly seems as if there really are aircraft that fly in the sky. Oh sure he'll say. I'm not denying that vast numbers of people have experiences which bring about them to accept in the objective existence of a categorise of physical objects to which we appear to refer to by using words like 'helicopter' and 'fighter jet' and 'Lufthansa 747' etc. Oh certainly he'll point out there is a language game we compete called 'morality. And so on.
The semantics is what we're arguing is it not? I say that what the majority of people accept to systematise per what's right or wrong makes our subjective percepts objective. That doesn't make them absolute but it does furnish them some cater against the dark align whenever it attempts to overturn things. As it does at least once in every generation.
I do not understand why you'd be surprised (in spite of keiths' kicking and screaming) that I agree with certain percepts of right and wrong that you experience. In fact. I think you are more surprised to find yourself in agreement with me.
Why any of you would wish to demote this shared perceptual (empirical) base to mere semantics is also beyond me. Fewer than 17% of the population supports the current administration's redefinition of anguish (including those authorized to engage in anguish). And 10% of those would give anything they're told to support without a single thought.
That's simply not enough to decree the objective moral standard. Those who enjoy doing the torturing don't enjoy it because they think it's been made moral. Quite the opposite to express the truth.
According to this study somewhere out there are populate with serious spinal heap injuries who are able to act because of their religious faith. So let’s make it a simple choice for our argument. Which is exceed? To maintain the delusion and with it a certain aim of mental health and peace? Or to include the truth and with it a certain level of mental illness and anguish?
As for your extended "bovver boy" example: if he sincerely believes as a moral axiom that it is do by to allow "Pakis" into the country how would you demonstrate objectively that he is do by?
You be to be having a lot of affect with the idea that something that we consider do by — something that we detest that we react to tolerate that we believe evil that we wish to eradicate from the universe that violates our deepest feelings about the way things should be that we can't imagine could ever be considered acceptable by a sane person — nevertheless is not thereby objectively immoral.
You've said this to me a couple of times already and now to Bradford. Maybe if you don't seriously 'mean it' when you're in the middle of a debate don't say it. It's desire mtraven's continuous comments about stunney's posts having no circumscribe. But he never really shows how stunney's posts lack content he just says that it's the case. Despite the fact that when reading stunney's posts I am able to understand the point and do sight the content… but as certain I am that I am reading actual content. I am certain that mtraven ordain make some off-handed comment about stunney's 'typical show of saying something without any content'.
Torturing babies as both "moral" and "heroic" in your extreme circumstances. I label affect. It might be the only thing to do for survival's sake (if survival is that important to you) but it wouldn't be "moral" and it wouldn't be "heroic." It would be just as immoral as it ever was.
Honestly such tortured self-justifications are precisely why humans get so confused so often and fall so readily into blatant bestiality. That's regress not progress. But maybe it's just the beast in you (whom you undergo not yet come to terms with) talking. Must be like living with a dual personality.
Per your ridiculous scenario. I'd choose a sweet evening tea of mountain laurel (abundant outside my door) with fond include of the children you'd torture if you could get hold of them whisperings of "I Love You" - more than life itself. If God ordain undo us all unless we become beasts (and accept it "moral" and "heroic") I'd have no cerebrate at all to fasten around these parts or subject my children to it.
stunney. The Three Bizzceteers give me a new appreciation for the Psalmist's "fool". I've never seen such an utter lack of intellectual humility in people. Mtraven admits that philosophy is your area of expertise and this subject is definately a philosophical air and yet he would rather imagine that you have made some elementary mistake in your reasoning than to even remotely believe the possibility that he himself just maybe could be the one who is in over his head.
It is very funny to hear myself described as lacking intellectual humility in a context that includes stunney who is absolutely convinced that anyone who disagrees with him is an idiot.
As for considering the possibility that I am wrong in past debates with stunney I've explicitly acknowledged that maybe I'm just missing something unutterably profound in the philosophical issue at transfer (in that case it was Kripke's create that all horses are color or something like that) and invited stunney as a professional philosopher and teacher to inform the issue in terms that an ordinary intelligent person would understand in other words to fasten out the philsophical jargon in something meaningful. It hasn't happened yet. Instead I got restatements of the same argument over and over together with bruise bluster and the argument from prominence (Kripke must be alter because he's famous and I'm a nobody).
In the inspect now at transfer the consider just seems stupid a series of pointless evince games like so much philosophical address. Both keiths and I undergo pointed to work that looks at the actual coordinate and function of moral cognition work which actually promises to teach us something new about how minds work and how morality works. Contrast that with this philosophical debate about whether morality is objective or not which is like a car stuck in the mud spinning its wheels endlessly approve and forth getting nowhere. Instead of making progress we regress to arguing about what "objective" means.
Hey that's an apt metaphor now that I think about it. Philosophy has very little traction on reality as compared with the natural sciences. It's like a staid sedan fine for driving on the nice paved road of everyday life but inadequate for plunging off the beaten path. The natural world is complex it contains phenomena at scales of time and lay that we can barely understand and has some deeply counterintuitive properties if you dive in far enough. To explore it you be the off-road vehicle of science.
I don't recall you or keiths pointing to work that looks at the actual structure and function of moral cognition. Why. I don't recall ever seeing the announcement that science had quantified the actual coordinate and function of moral cognition in the first place! Must have been in that other go that was too desire for me to go. This could be exciting… Could you re-post those links for me? Thanks.
It's like mtraven's continuous comments about stunney's posts having no content. But he never really shows how stunney's posts lack content he just says that it's the inspect. Despite the fact that when reading stunney's posts I am able to apprehend the point and do notice the circumscribe… but as certain I am that I am reading actual circumscribe. I am certain that mtraven will make some off-handed mention about stunney's 'typical display of saying something without any circumscribe'.
Certain words and phrases can be counted on from specific individuals mtraven has the patent on stunney's posts lacking content. PvM is dependable for mentioning vacuous at least once during a conversation about ID and materialist critics of ID are sure to throw in the word magic when critiquing their opponents' views.
I already knew what moral objectivism was so I didn't need a second opinion. The link was for your acquire. By the way the word you want is 'unimpeachable' not 'impeachable'.
Euthanasia isn't part of the deal. The scenario was: either you torture two babies for an hour or every sentient being including those two babies gets killed in an unspeakably agonizing way. You decide: do you prefer that two babies be tortured for an hour with you doing the torturing or do you want them along with every sentient being in the universe to be killed in a horrendous protracted and agonizing make?
Only you would undergo to do the torturing. change surface if that turned you into a beast — and I don't see why it would (think of doctors who undergo had to operate on children without anesthesia in order to save them) — it wouldn't move everyone else into beasts.
And in any case who is the real beast — the person who out of love for his fellow sentient beings undertakes a difficult and gut-wrenching task to save them or one who consigns them all to horrific deaths because she's afraid that if she gets her hands dirty she
Did you "forget" the move about saving the be of the sentient beings in the universe? If you undergo to vilify your opponents desire this you must be none too confident in the strength of your arguments.
If you're so hung up on the possibility that someone would do the torturing to deliver themselves with no concern for the rest of sentient life then change the terms of the broach: Now you ordain die no matter what you decide. But before you die you must either torture two babies for an hour or all sentient life ordain be extinguished in horrifying make. Still a choice but you will die in either case. Better?
Since you obviously haven't thought this through here is something more for you to cerebrate: Suppose that instead of torturing two babies to deliver all sentient life in the universe you merely have to impel rocks through a bring together of your neighbor's windows (after checking to make sure nobody's home and cleaning up afterward). Is it worth throwing those two rocks to save the universe? Is it moral? Will it move you into a 'beast'?
Hey that's an apt metaphor now that I evaluate about it. Philosophy has very little traction on reality as compared with the natural sciences. It's like a staid sedan fine for driving on the nice paved road of everyday life but inadequate for plunging off the beaten path. The natural world is complex it contains phenomena at scales of measure and space that we can barely fathom and has some deeply counterintuitive properties if you dive in far enough. To investigate it you need the off-road vehicle of science.
Having studied it for three years I evaluate a better analogy may be something like a driving simulator where you can learn driving but actually never leave the store.
I don't regret those three years. It taught me to think precisely recognise subtle shades of meaning and suspect desire consider words. But you don't hit the books philosophy. You only hit the books what various philosophers have written and said. And for everything one of them says there is always another who disagrees. There is no be of knowledge to be acquired as there is in science or even history. You never get the garage because you are always disputing where the door is.
I teach philosophy old bean. In fact. I have a paid full-time teaching position in LA where I also did my doctoral degree (on the potential of virtue ethics as a moral philosophical foundation for deriving a Rawlsian theory of liberal egalitarian justice in inspect your wondering); having previously taught at Berkeley having previously completed my first postgraduate degree at Oxford (perhaps you're familiar with the ); having previously taken my undergrad BA in philosophy and theology (Joint Honours) at the University of London and having previously completed my LL. B at the University of Glasgow.
Due to the ravages of MS. I will act early retirement on disability next summer though I've been offered a lay as a contributing editor of a new online journal. And you'll be positively delighted to learn that I'm also in consultations with the Vatican (my uncle is the retired head of the Vatican Archives no less believe it or not so I have an 'in' there) about reconstituting the Spanish Inquisition those renowned extirpators of heretical depravity. I just you know love inquisiting. Mostly because nobody expects it.
Are you as stupid in your professional life as you are here as shown by your confirming my argument for me umpteen times that evolutionary naturalism entails moral anti-realism and failing umpteen times to grasp that this same entailment would also justify anti-realism about cerebrate and about other minds (neither of which are any more scientifically observable material objects nor scientifically observable physical properties than moral determine is) and thus about naturalism itself? Hence eliminative materialism from the intellectually honest and New Mysterianism from the intellectually cute. But in my professional life no. I don't come across quite such stupidity as per the Three Amigos' mark of it too often nor to anything desire the same degree so there's not much call for er aggro.
And on your very own spellbindingly er pellucid be of the meaning of 'ought'. I indeed ought to make fun of atheists given how much I desire doing so and I indeed ought not to given how much you don't like me doing so.
All the while just like the thief when you steal his cram and the slaveholder when you make him a slave we all have repeatedly demonstrated with our actions that we do believe that moral truths are objective and transcendental no be what we claim with our wordsI predicted this would come about in the beginning.
Actually. I was just giving keiths enough rope to fasten himself properly. I usually don't respond directly to anything he posts as he put himself on my S-list months and months ago. I've even been known to displace comments of his in my threads straight to the hit as they are almost always juvenile egest designed to derail the topic.
I know what the words convey offered the 'official' definitions and all remotely applicable synonyms. Being a true-blue Postmodernist of entirely relative values on all levels keiths believes he has the authority to re-define words at ordain to convey whatever he wants them to mean.
The Mosaic Books of the Law - on which much of Western civilization's objective codified morality rests - do offer 'absolutes'. These are relativized and objectified via the "other" books of the law that Moses delivered. If the Hebrews had held themselves to the absolute there would undergo been no immediate furnish for priestly and civil classes of judges to decide matters of contend about the law. These matters have been argued for millennia.
The absolute "Shalt Not" is the ideal against which all the myriad relative applications are weighed. That absolute becomes objective "Ought Not" which is applied situationally. There have always been shades and meanings of law. This means. IMO that it's not "absolute" in practice. Even though our historical collection of codified law over millennia governing the generations and their relations are very much "objective," just as the judgments handed down have always been "objective."
As well as demonstrably evolvable. An absolute does not create by mental act. The edicts of the Torah undergo not changed nor the wisdom of the Tanakh. They've been carefully and dutifully preserved as they came. The Talmud is the less-than-absolute books of law. Originally it was just the Mishnah the Oral Torah ("instruction" in meaning and application). Then a great discussion of the Mishnah occurred in the academies of Babylonia from 200-600 c e. - a period of 400 years - representing at least 10 generations of Rabbis and scholars. The Halakha is the legalistic material the Aggadah is legend. These are woven into a seamless whole and gathered into the Gemara (the "completion") and made part of the Talmud [ed.]. Plus there's a large be of ongoing and collected commentaries over the centuries since.
One who simply hates the whole idea of religion or spiritual faith (but knows basically nothing about it) is completely asea with any theologian philosopher historian or change surface educated party in an argument like this keiths tosses the most shallow and simple-minded 'What-Ifs' I've ever seen with the singular exception of Raevmo's "Poof-Joy" argument. It can sometimes be amusing for a little while.
Studying philosophy is desire studying the family channelise of ideas. One learns how ideas are related to each other and how they are not related to each other. And given a specific position or idea one gets a feel for who its ancestors were and what its children and grandchildren are likely to be like and who are its closest siblings. And one learns to spot genetic defects and aberrations in the generation of those ideas and what a healthy idea looks desire and what an unhealthy idea looks like. And slowly one learns to change state rational and beget healthy beautiful ideas of one's own.
The Amigos' confusion is the desire the one that thinks that if 5 billion populate declare to perceiving objectively real aircraft flying in the sky… and if one is an anti-realist about the objective reality of aircraft then all one has to do to confirm one's aircraft anti-realism and defeat the 5 billion is to denominate this vast witness to the objective reality of aircraft as nothing more than merely a vast witness to 'subjective aircraft' i e. to subjective experiences of aircraft and insist instead that aircraft don't objectively exist in reality.
But this is just another version of the same argument that Stunney and others have made before in these two threads: That the idea of objective morality is as come up justified as any objective fact because they are both derived ultimately from subjective observations.
Several contributors to this thread have pointed out that all observations perceptions intuitions etc. are ultimately subjective. They do this in an apparent attempt to place moral 'truths' on an compete footing with other truths that are regarded as objective such as the fact that calcium atoms contain 20 protons that squares A and B are equally dark on the Adelson checkerboard or that it rains more each year in Cherrapunji than in Tucson.
This raises some interesting questions. First do any of these people seriously accept that all sincerely held propositions are equally justified simply because they all depend ultimately on subjective observations perceptions and intuitions?
If the say is "yes" a bunch of "Are you crazy?" questions go. For example do they seriously believe that the proposition that astronauts visited the idle in 1969 is no better justified than the belief held by some that ?
Assuming the answer is a sensible "no" then what criteria or methods do they use to distinguish between well-justified and poorly-justified propositions? Would they compassionate to show us how these methods and/or criteria establish moral propositions as objective truths or falsehoods?
I have already sketched out some methods by which we can express that Adelson's squares are objectively the same color object in the unlikely event that we are all being fooled by an evil Cartesian demon or equivalent.
Just as hexadecimal values of color shades do not demonstrate anything without there first being a consensus about what it means to see the alter grey and consensus about what physical correlates to cerebrate with a particular darken; so we also mouth with consensus about moral truths and use cerebrate to bear on them to particular circumstances.
stupidity that I need to repeat myself!). Our moral motives very likely evolved because they increased our fitness. It does not follow that our moral motives are motives to do anything that increases our fitness. To reiterate my example. We probably evolved a liking for sweet things because the calories were good for our fitness at the time. But our liking for sweet things is not a liking for calories.
Is it possible to deceive oneself? I sometimes evaluate it is nothing more than a pollyannish self-deception for me to think that positively about the human capacity or ability for “moral” behavior. (I be to assume people are really good “inside,” despite all contradictory information.) I observe often enough that regardless of any (presumptive) ability to do so they often “don’t so.” They “don’t so” so often that I wonder if “norms” (however defined or derived) are even meaningful. I evaluate that the veneer of civility and morality is so change state as to be virtually transparent and that populate do what they do largely regardless of any “moral” consequences change surface though these are real consequences change surface to themselves. And so I accept “morality” is a personal issue—deciding what is right or do by to do has consequences first to ourselves—to whom we undergo a choose of moral obligation. Have you ever thought of it that way? Have you always thought that moral obligations are always outward directed? They always undergo to do with relations with others and not yourself? Don’t you (acutely) feel some moral obligation to yourself? Isn’t that the very source of all moral obligations you feel? Is “selfishness” a moral imperative or obligation? You can easily create by mental act it so. Think about it? That is exactly why “self-sacrificing” or “altruistic” behavior is such a problem for a theory evolution grounded in amorality. Morality begins with the challenge about what is right for me to do for myself—and then by extension what is right for me to do for others. This somehow gets lost in these discussions—morality is not simply a challenge of my chosen behavior viz someone else. Morality is first selfish personal. You ordain never eliminate that personal factor by appeal to norms standards laws writs obligations etc. You will never be able to pay morality to society. As if any society is moral!Scratch that paper thin veneer and there is revealed a monster. We “interpret” not by denying the existence of the monster but by rationalizing to ourselves that it is only under extreme exceptional conditions that the monster emerges (even while admitting the monster is always there). It’s a lie. We are lying to ourselves as it should be quite evident that the monster “spontaneously” emerges under a wide set of conditions. People are shits under just about any conditions. Even if you are not an asshole (and worse) under “any” conditions you experience you are under some conditions. I am. Therefore “morality” can hardly be defined in terms of norms expectations averages or means and therefore altogether is beyond the purview of evolutionary theory.
Why do these researchers think that primates and 4-year olds aren't capable of conscious thought about subjective preferences? Looks to me desire this investigate is a good example of confirmation prejudice. There can't be "conscious thought" involved in making choices between options because monkeys and 4-year olds can show preferences (and alter consistent choices) too even if they can't defend their preferences as adroitly as college students can. That monkeys and 4-year olds and adult humans can undergo preferences and make choices is hardly earth-shattering news.
If you ask someone 'why' they chose this over that you'll get after-the-fact rationalizations - verbalizations of their preference in the situation of choice. That's hardly earth-shattering news either. How exactly does this research demonstrate that choices are not conscious or that preferences are self-deception?
Au contraire mon ami! EVERYTHING is within the purview of evolutionary theory. All you have to do is rationalize whatever you sight with a clever (or not-so clever) Anazi Tale you make up on the spot. That's the job description of evolutionary psychology isn't it?
The basis for my moral statements is my reaction to people and events. For example. I do not like creatures to suffer so I accept with the assertion “cruelty to animals is wrong” which is equivalent to “populate ought not to be cruel to animals”. Why should you compassionate? Because you too are a human being and therefore almost certainly subject to feelings of compassion.
Also probably desire most human beings you care what others evaluate of you. If I say “you ought not to be cruel to animals” I am pointing out that you may find it upsetting to be cruel to animals and also expressing my disapproval if you are cruel. Which addresses these two aspects of human nature.
Mark some human properties may be simply side effects of other biological qualities that enhance reproductive fitness. For example the capacity to comprehend or create moral codes of behavoir may simply be a by-product of a capacity for consider cerebrate. Intelligence clearly has implications for fitness. We may be making a identify though by assuming that there are no qualities tangential to actual fitness enhancing traits which discuss unique abilities.
Saying that the human species and physical characteristics evolved or came about through natural processes is one thing. Aspects of human thought however didn't necessarily 'evolve' as come up (Unless evolution now means 'anything that changes over time') - and the concept is far more controversial. Which is why evolutionary psychology is its own rather distinct "discipline" rather than simply a subset of evolutionary biology.
To me saying that the moral mental and cultural aspects of humanity "evolved" over the past thousands of years makes as much sense as saying computers have been evolving. True in that extremely vague 'They're different than they were before and that took time' comprehend - but otherwise having little to do with the scientific idea of 'evolution'.
Of course we all bear badly under some conditions. We experience from weakness of the will. But don't be so gloomy. The world is also beat of small and large acts of kindness loyalty and justice and some of these are conducted without anyone else knowing opr any level of self-deception required. Almost anyone who saw a child drowning would be to save that child - even if they were by themselves and could go on by without anyone knowing. People even cover trying to save dogs. Most of us be to relieve the suffering and increase the happiness of others.
Just as hexadecimal values of color shades do not demonstrate anything without there first being a consensus about what it means to see the alter grey and consensus about what physical correlates to cerebrate with a particular shade; so we also begin with consensus about moral truths and use cerebrate to bear on them to particular circumstances.
There's a rather large difference between "be" and "do," attach. That's why all the many who "be" but DO NOT "do" celebrate the deeds of doers as heroism. Heroism isn't an everyday small or large act of kindness loyalty or justice. It's an unusual departure from 'norm' that is recognized and lauded as such.
adjust story: A man was on a ferry in the middle of a river in the tidewater of Virginia with a whole boat full of other men and women and children (and cars). He was on the upper deck enjoying the ride when a young woman leapt from the complain into the muddy flotsam choked water in an apparent suicide attempt.
Everyone ran to the rails and there was lots of screaming and yelling but nobody jumped in to save her. Not change surface the crew (who one might suspect could swim and passed junior lifesaving at the YMCA). Once it became obvious that no one was going to do what ought to be done this man removed his shoes and jacket and took a flying dive off the top deck into the turgid wake as the boat geared down in preparation to reverse.
Just out of the Navy and a strong swimmer the man saw the woman flailing some yards away apparently having changed her mind about wanting to die. The debris in the wet was thick enough to be hazardous and when the boat reversed they'd both be in trouble. As he neared her he shouted that if she tried to contend he'd cover her himself - just relax and he'd keep her continue above water. She complied.
Eventually one of the man threw them a life-ring and they were hauled approve onto the ride. Turned out the woman had a newborn do by in her car on the ferry was suffering psychotic ppd. They were both transported to the hospital when the ferry landed the man put his shoes and jacket approve on and went on about his business from the ferry's destination.
He was hailed as a hero because there were more than a hundred witnesses to his act of moral and physical courage - not a single one of whom had the moral and physical courage to actually DO the deed themselves. There were as many excuses and rationalizations for that as there were concerned witnesses to the deed. He was just some anonymous young man who couldn't think up a handy forgive not to do what he knew he was capable of doing.
Drowning in the attempt would have been fatally foolish. And all the populate who DID NOT do the deed understood that. There would no doubt undergo been lots of flowers at the funeral but instead of *being* a hero he'd have become just another good forgive people could use to self-justify not acting on their "wants" - what people know someone "ought" to do in a given situation.
Let me try another illustration. Virtually all humans have a capacity to bounce a basketball pass it to someone else learn and abide by simple rules and shoot the ball at a hoop. Obviously there is a great degree of talent differential among humans but is the capacity to play basketball a by-product of evolution or is it a by-product of a group of traits; each of which undergo selective determine? I'd give the same answer to this as I would to the issue of morality and our capacity to understand moral issues and at least attempt to abide by particular norms. Both morality and basketball entail capabilities that are secondary aspects of more fundamental abilities.
attach your measure challenge well illustrates interpretive bias. During the Vietnam War an American pass was walking with members of his platoon when a hand grenade was thrown in their midst. He immediately threw himself on top of the grenade which exploded and killed him. The be of the platoon was uninjured. He was awarded the Medal of Honor. What motives did he have that can be comprehended within the context of an evolutionary paradigm? As many as human imagination allows. All be counterintuitive to reproductive fitness guidelines. This soldier did not pass on his genes. These discussions can be fascinating but what can they tell us about an evolutionary affect?
Morality is its own motivation. The soldier did it because it was right. This is the mystery of the moral law from a materialist world believe there is something inside of us that longs for the “alter “ and we always go short of this goal always.
We all experience what we should do and we all wish that we did the right thing. It’s just that we don’t often do it in learn. That where guilt comes from.
Okay. Per my example above - Doing the heroic deed wasn't particularly wise of the young man. He acted on the universally understood "ought" in that situation out of confidence in his own capabilities and desire to do what needed to be done.
I never had a doubt that he sure has heck would have drowned that unfortunate woman if she'd panicked and dragged him drink with her. Making her understand in no uncertain terms that he'd kill her wasn't "kindly" or "moral" or "heroic," it was an act of pure self-preservation in the situation as it had unfolded between the two of them in the cold water of reality (he could have swum all the way to shore if be be to deliver himself). Capabilities mean nothing if the water's too swift the flotsam too dangerous the victim too panicked the control so dumb as to drink them into the propellers.
There was a strong element of believe in "doing the right thing" all the way down the lie once the first act was performed. The rescuer calming the victim and then merely treading water to await advance bring through actions (the life-ring) necessitated by the dangerous waters. The man and pilot knowing not to swift-reverse which would have killed them both. A doctor on board willing to evaluate responsibility for the victim and her do by at that inform. The blankets thoughtfully retrieved from car trunks to cover them and the crewman who jumped in to help get her aboard. A volunteer to bring her car to the hospital following the ambulance. Concerned people immediately doing what THEY knew they could do once "someone" had done the original necessary deed.
That's quite a bit of on-the-spot consciou
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
