Ojective Morality

  • 37 Replies
  • 3770 Views
*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12106
Re: Ojective Morality
« Reply #30 on: March 17, 2011, 09:24:03 AM »
Then why are you here, posting?

Self-interest.


In which case you value yourself and your continued existence. Once you have values and act to promote them, you have morality. It sounds like you're talking about ethical egoism (or some other form of egoism):


http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egoism/


Living, breathing etc.?

Biological imperative.


The biological imperative offers us an explanation of where we derive our values, but it does not and cannot replace morality. At the very least we clearly make decisions and value judgements about how best to satisfy the biological imperative.


You are neither wrong nor right.


Care to expand on that answer?
« Last Edit: March 17, 2011, 09:27:24 AM by Lord Wilmore »
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

Mr Pseudonym

  • Official Member
  • 5448
Re: Ojective Morality
« Reply #31 on: March 17, 2011, 04:15:07 PM »
You are neither wrong nor right.
Care to expand on that answer?
I can try but I don't believe a word that I say, or you say or anyone says for that matter, nor care for that matter.  However a smart person would realise that nihilism hold values no matter the case.  If you believe in nothing you believe in disbelief.  This opens the door to a whole new set of values for a nihilist.  Of course I don't believe what I am writing though.
Why do we fall back to earth? Because our weight pushes us down, no laws, no gravity pulling us. It is the law of intelligence.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Ojective Morality
« Reply #32 on: March 17, 2011, 06:41:52 PM »
In which case you value yourself and your continued existence. Once you have values and act to promote them, you have morality.

Everyone has morality, depending on the definition you're using. It is still subjective though.

The biological imperative offers us an explanation of where we derive our values, but it does not and cannot replace morality. At the very least we clearly make decisions and value judgements about how best to satisfy the biological imperative.

How much is conscious would then be a point of contention. Still relative and subjective.

Although, we seem to have agreement above, so I'm not sure if you were just expanding on what I said vs. contesting.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12106
Re: Ojective Morality
« Reply #33 on: March 18, 2011, 02:37:50 AM »
In which case you value yourself and your continued existence. Once you have values and act to promote them, you have morality.

Everyone has morality, depending on the definition you're using. It is still subjective though.

The biological imperative offers us an explanation of where we derive our values, but it does not and cannot replace morality. At the very least we clearly make decisions and value judgements about how best to satisfy the biological imperative.

How much is conscious would then be a point of contention. Still relative and subjective.

Although, we seem to have agreement above, so I'm not sure if you were just expanding on what I said vs. contesting.


Well, originally you said morality does not exist, and that it is a social construct. Whilst I have never seen such descriptions as really devaluing morality (after, everything from universities to governments are essentially social constructs), my point was that morality is part of the human condition, and so to say it doesn't exist seems much too strong a statement, even if we assume that morality is purely a social construct.


Moreover, I'm not so sure we can argue that morality is simply a social construct or entirely subjective. Let's put aside solipsistic arguments for the moment and assume that reality is as it appears. If morality is part of the human condition, it must therefore have some kind of objective basis, if only in our biological predispositions. Moreover, almost all of the values we hold have some basis in the objective world; even self-interest is usually directed towards objective ends. Furthermore, at a basic level we can say that as humans, we have similar/identical needs, and thus similar/identical values which we try to promote.


To be clear, I don't think there are universal moral laws or inherent values 'out there' in the objective world. However, I do think that we necessarily value certain things in the objective world as a consequence of our biological make-up, which is itself objective. For that reason I would be of the opinion that morality has at least a partial claim to objectivity.


Of course, there are those who would argue that those values which are not necessary are predicated on those values that are necessary, and that morality is thus essentially objective. Whatever the exact position, I don't see how we can argue that morality is totally subjective.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

Benocrates

  • 3077
  • Canadian Philosopher
Re: Ojective Morality
« Reply #34 on: March 18, 2011, 07:12:43 AM »
I can try but I don't believe a word that I say, or you say or anyone says for that matter, nor care for that matter.  However a smart person would realise that nihilism hold values no matter the case.  If you believe in nothing you believe in disbelief.  This opens the door to a whole new set of values for a nihilist.  Of course I don't believe what I am writing though.



hahahahahahaha, wut nao?
Quote from: President Barack Obama
Pot had helped
Get the fuck over it.

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12682
Re: Ojective Morality
« Reply #35 on: March 18, 2011, 07:18:55 AM »
I think Wilmore has a point, morality may be a human construct but that doesn't necessarily make it subjective. A school is a human construct but it has objective reality (so far as anything is 'reality') as a place of learning.

By the same token, morality is an objective human construct to reduce the overall suffering of the group. (As I've said before, the only difference is what you consider 'the group' to be so a sociopath would consider his morality group to include only himself)

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Ojective Morality
« Reply #36 on: March 18, 2011, 03:56:27 PM »
Ontologically, morality exists, just as much as a two-headed clock dragon exists.

But the aim I tend to associate with morality concerns the underlying ethical portions that are attached to it; the good and the bad. Good and bad, in their essence, are classifications that are applied subjectively. Given that good, bad, right, and wrong are applied in this manner, the talking point (morality) that deals with these classifications is also subject to the same thing.

Now, the premise that biological imperative somehow implies an objective morality is, I think, a bit inaccurate, as your biological imperative dictates different things to different people. This variation among the populous, in the absence of universal moral laws, is relative and subjective as the words imply.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2011, 11:40:58 AM by divito the truthist »
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12106
Re: Ojective Morality
« Reply #37 on: March 21, 2011, 02:45:33 AM »
Ontologically, morality exists, just as much as a two-headed clock dragon exists.

But the aim I tend to associate with morality concerns the underlying ethical portions that are attached to it; the good and the bad. Good and bad, in their essence, are classifications that are applied subjectively. Given that good, bad, right, and wrong are applied in this manner, the talking point (morality) that deals with these classifications is also subject to the same thing.

Now, the premise that biological imperative somehow implies an objective morality is, I think, a bit inaccurate, as your biological imperative dictates different things to different people. This variation among the populous, in the absence of universal moral laws, is relative and subjective as the words imply.


Hold on, relative != subjective. If morality has any objective basis, then it is not entirely subjective. Sure, it can be relative - your biological imperative vs. my biological imperative for example - but that does not make it subjective or non-existent. Our two goods may be different, but that doesn't mean they're subjective or not real. It's important not to confuse universal moral laws with an objective basis for morality.


Moreover, you seem to assume that just because people have different views of what is good or bad, good, bad and morality in general are therefore subjective. As above, this is not necessarily the case (they can be relative terms without being subjective terms), but moreover it doesn't even follow that there is no universal objective good just because people apply the term good differently. Simply put, many of them could be wrong. After all, you can have several different views about how the universe works (e.g. scientific theories), but it does not therefore follow that no objective universe exists, or that all these theories are right.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord