The Problems with Objective Morality

Post Reply New Topic

This can be very true (sadly) but it can also go the other way. Whatever our failings, we also have good qualities and I think we should try to use these for alturistic purposes.

A rather thorough article on the basis of morality can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magaz ... ref=slogin

Objective morality is simple. If God says it's wrong, then it's wrong. If God says it's good, then it's good. The liberal belief that everything is relative is simply not true. It is twisting the truth to offend God. The only question is determining the will of God in each particular situation.

God's e-mail address would be really helpful to me.

hi, can i sell you some air?

1. There is no God

2. Divine Command Theory is just "it's wrong because I said so" BS, it keeps people's moral reasoning in an undeveloped, infantile state and so protects authoritarian power structures.

First off, objectivity is something we strive towards in science never fully achieving. Mostly because none of us have the all-seeing perspective needed, nor the ability to predict what the future may bring. All we can do is work towards improving the results by working to remove known subjective elements and see what happens as time allows. To conceive the idea of Objectivity as a capital-O thing, where something either is perfectly objective or else it is not, it to ask for the quality of perfection and perfect perspective itself in ourselves. We don't have the perspective to know any absolutely True thing -- something that is immune to evidence, because it is perfectly known for all time. So its a process, a path we try to walk as better we may, objectivity. But not a product or result of that walk.

Second, understanding morality and how it develops in human culture can be pursued along more objective lines, though I don't in any way believe it is simple to do. I think morality evolves like many other memes do, through successful self-preservation by the usual natural model: replication, mutation, and selection in a human environment itself linearized through negative feedback mechanisms and stabilized around critical, self-organizing "folds" and "cusps" in our evolved natures and cultures.

Morals evolve. As an example of this, one can examine the history and evolution of ideas about morality with regards to the treatment of animals. What is interesting about that one, in particular, is that our better human morals there did NOT get handed down in modern form. The neat thing about this example is that it's not that hard to actually track the evolution of these ideas and see that it wasn't handed down to us on religious tablets.

That's not simple, but simplistic -- and one relying solely upon your superstitions.

Strawman. There is no "liberal belief," per se. You set this up and knock it down, but it doesn't bear the least bit upon your earlier or later comments, which must stand on their own -- not upon some feigned group's idea being true or false.

Sliding past what you might imagine as 'truth' here, if someone doesn't believe in your God why would they care about offending him? Another misdirection, really. What you may mean, though you can correct me here, is that some folks might be motivated to OFFEND YOU! That would be an entirely different story. And perhaps true with some folks who know you enough to care about doing that.

But certainly no one not already accepting your superstitions would care to offend some fictional being only your superstition embraces. That would be silly.

Which, of course, somehow presupposes that all of your superstitions in this regard are taken in whole and granted in the first place and then interpreted just as you do.

Jon

I tend to consider the end of understanding moral reasoning to be understanding the fact that morality is arbitrary, thus I consider the divine command theorists to have one of the best systems of moral reasoning for recognizing this arbitrariness.

It absolutely cannot without changing the definition. You speak of "moral" behavior, not of morality itself. Frankly, moral behavior is no more exciting or important than understanding sexual behavior as genetic and from a species perspective. To take on the philosophical perspective demands subjective interpretations, and is much more fruitful as a matter of inquiry. The findings of the science you speak of are useless. Seriously, when is the last time you used them outside of arguing morality? The other understanding relates to our own moral understandings and thus can be applied to our actual conceptions of the world.

Well, I'm not sure where to go with that. I tend to imagine that people have internal states of mind, some of which inform their behaviors and some of which may not. Some of those internal states have to do with morality, but really only insofar as they do or may sometime in the future impact behaviors. Behavior is observable.

Where science has a chance proceeding forward, I tend to prefer ideas that show some promise of understanding things through theory and result. I'm not particularly interested in "answers" that either embrace ignorance over knowledge or otherwise prefer superstition.

Well, frankly, I consider moral behavior VERY interesting. And I also think it is even more exciting that there are some potential lines I can readily see that may help this area yield to research with a good chance, with the right inspired imagination, to arrive at explanatory and predictive theory.

At this point, it's only a tiny bit of light I see at the end of a tunnel, so please don't imagine that I'm suggesting I know what the future will bring us in this area. But I can clearly see some potential lines of research and I don't believe there is any need to cave in and accept that morality cannot be approached as a matter of scientific scrutiny. In fact, I think it is likely that the better future for humans will be had when good theory arrives.

Now, if you read what I write above you may very well decide that I have ignored your distinctions between morality and moral behavior. I haven't actually ignored them, but I can't say I understand why I should care about them. You certainly haven't convinced me they are more fruitful or more interesting. In fact, if anything, perhaps helped me realize all the more the divide that separates us.

I believe there is great potential in analyzing human social systems and in predicting the spread of successful moral ideas through cultures and if these may yet lead to new points of local stability (equilibrium states) in cultures.

That's just me. What interests you is entirely your choice.

Jon

Agreed.

How hard is it? To consider the position of others as equal (but not better either, calling to the lefties out there, not worse, calling to the right), to put your ego aside for a moment, to gather the facts, honestly, unbias facts, and come up with a solution that is fair for everyone? Compromise?
If you wouldn't want someone to do something bad to you, then don't do bad things to them. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, as they say. People today are heartless and ignorant and careless in how they treat one another. It's always "me, me, me, me, me". And they fall back on all these games to pretend ignorance and selfishness are "normal", that borg mentality is "normal", it's a bunch of garbage. I can look at a situation and gather the facts and make a decision based on facts, not gender, race, religion, political labels, nationality, sexual orientation, not on any of those things, but on the basic facts, people have no appreciation for the value of life and happiness beyond themselves.

Last edited by snake321 on 12 Jan 2008, 11:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Truth is most people do not even know themselves, they are a product of their indoctrinations. Most people listen to an idea and their ultimate way of deciding if it holds credibility is if everyone else is doing/thinking the same thing. It's quite stupid really. I mean, your given a brain, use it, think for yourself I say.

I know that, but the easier question is not necessarily the one we are curious about. To attempt to answer an existential question with a scientific answer is like answering a question on food flavor with a technical analysis of the genetic codes of potential spices used in food products.

I am not putting forward a scientific question though. You are simply asserting that you don't want certain questions because you know that you cannot come up with a good answer for them because your framework is an attempt to systematically destroy an entire element of human experience. I am not saying that it is wrong on the workings of the world, but it knows nothing of how to deal with human beings as human.

Yet it has little utility to most.


That is not what I am suggesting at all, and to suggest that is either misreading or purposeful deception. I have nothing wrong with science, but not all questions are scientific, and I am trying to get at a non-scientific question because frankly, the scientific explanations for this matter do not yield as much utility as an existential answer, which technically, every person by merely choosing to exist must develop.


Because you aren't a robot and possess self-awareness. I think really, all this is reflecting is not a divide but a self-imposed blindness on your part.


Ok? So? These answers are meaningless without answers for the existential questions. People don't kill themselves over biological data, but they certainly do over their inability to decipher what the world means to them as a person. Without a normative science, positive science is just a curious venture and nothing more.

Well, I prefer to get to the human root of the issue rather than dabble around in data that only holds subjective meaning. Especially given that the original question really seemed to deal more with metaphysics and existence than biological data in the first place.