A Critique on Objective Morality

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

RWStanding
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2016 12:23 pm

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by RWStanding » Sat Oct 15, 2016 8:38 am

Carrying on what I said previously
Freedom is a term which is employed more as a slogan for political purposes, governmental and personal, with little regard for anything other than opposition to outright tyranny. But there is the freedom of the autonomous person, of the elite, of many or all. Freedom of corporate bodies, in commerce, or communities both social and religious, and countries or states. However, to directly qualify freedom in these practical applications, invites nothing but confusion and conflict. As indeed we have today.
Freedom as a value has to be considered in conjunction with other values that combine to provide end-values. And indeed those other simple values will relate in other pairings to provide more end-values, within a holistic whole.
As is widely realized, freedom is also consonant with such a value as equality. On the basis that whatever subjects the freedom applies to can have freedom in so far as they are equal, but the opposite if they are not. But since we are dealing with values, the particular subjects and people that this freedom applies to must exhibit the values equally. Anything they do that conflicts is not equal in that particular and must be treated accordingly.
As stated freedom must be paired with other simple values. In which case another value freedom pairs with will be consonant with a value that pairs with equality. In other words, a set of values and end values relating to freedom, will be consonant with a set of values and end values relating to equality. Anything else will be erroneous and probably the product of political sophistry.

RWStanding
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2016 12:23 pm

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by RWStanding » Sat Oct 15, 2016 12:19 pm

I notice the usual comment that ethics or morality derives from God.
If the underlying question is, Do you believe in God. This almost certainly denotes a prior belief in the identity of God that brooks no debate. The end of this is acrimony and violence as seen everywhere today.
There is no need to debate existence, only the identity of God.
An atheist is a person who does not believe in a particular set of bigoted ideas about God.
The only question that is not arid is, as to the identity or nature of God.
That is, if what is implied by all such belief is that God is that which explains, or is the basis of all existence.
Rational debate agrees to disagree over God being a definable being.
In fact the debate about God is almost certainly at heart a debate about the undoubted existence of the sapient mind as evinced in human beings - I hope.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8363
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sat Oct 15, 2016 12:29 pm

Walker wrote:
Terrapin Station wrote:
Walker wrote:No. Objective morality means survival of the fittest, by any means necessary. You omitted any means necessary.
My last comment was about "morality" not making sense as a substitution for "objective." It wasn't about the semantic content of that sentence as a whole. "Morality morality" is enough to show that there's a problem. I just quoted a bit more than "Morality morality" because you might not have any idea why I'm putting the same word repeated two times in quotation marks otherwise.
Look up the meaning of the word objective, and don't pick the one that least applies.
The whole point of me making this comment to you this in the first place: "In context, there, it wouldn't be at all clear to me what you're using 'objective' to refer to" is that you don't appear to be using the term "objective" in anything like any conventional sense of it. So looking it up in a dictionary isn't going to do any good, because that will just give the conventional senses that I'm already familiar with, that your usage doesn't resemble. (Well, unless you're not at all using it in the philosophical context, but why the hell would you be doing that? The philosophical context is what this thread is clearly about, and you're on a philosophy message board.)
:lol:

That’s pathetic.
Sadly you have shown yourself in capable of articulating why you feel that way. SO we are led to the conclusion that you have read something for which you have no counter argument.

You need to go further than simply look up the meaning of objective. You have to pursue the thought as to whether or not such a concept is viable and examine the methods by which such a thing as "objective knowledge", or "objective morality" could be produced or recognised.
And when you boil it down it looks pretty thin, except for the most bland materialist observations.

Walker
Posts: 6814
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Walker » Sat Oct 15, 2016 1:36 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Walker wrote:
Terrapin Station wrote:My last comment was about "morality" not making sense as a substitution for "objective." It wasn't about the semantic content of that sentence as a whole. "Morality morality" is enough to show that there's a problem. I just quoted a bit more than "Morality morality" because you might not have any idea why I'm putting the same word repeated two times in quotation marks otherwise.The whole point of me making this comment to you this in the first place: "In context, there, it wouldn't be at all clear to me what you're using 'objective' to refer to" is that you don't appear to be using the term "objective" in anything like any conventional sense of it. So looking it up in a dictionary isn't going to do any good, because that will just give the conventional senses that I'm already familiar with, that your usage doesn't resemble. (Well, unless you're not at all using it in the philosophical context, but why the hell would you be doing that? The philosophical context is what this thread is clearly about, and you're on a philosophy message board.)
:lol:

That’s pathetic.
Sadly you have shown yourself in capable of articulating why you feel that way. SO we are led to the conclusion that you have read something for which you have no counter argument.

You need to go further than simply look up the meaning of objective. You have to pursue the thought as to whether or not such a concept is viable and examine the methods by which such a thing as "objective knowledge", or "objective morality" could be produced or recognised.
And when you boil it down it looks pretty thin, except for the most bland materialist observations.
Tag-team jerking.

You need to deal with the material rather than the sadness in your noggin.

Objective morality is nothing more than survival of the fittest, by any means necessary. Subjective morality mitigates objective morality to create a societal structure that allows for specialization and extended individual lives, which benefits the species. This makes harmonious cooperation among individuals a defining characteristic of survival for modern man. Thus, the manifestation of objective morality may change from savage individualism to big and little good cogs in the machine, but the underlying principle, survival of the fittest, does not change. Life is the basis for objective morality: no survival, no life, no morality. How are you gonna prove that? Just look around. What you see is what you get. Only the physical exists whether or not human senses and mind can spot all physicalities as such. Objective morality becomes action according to conditions that promote either solitary mountain man at icy altitudes, or co-op man under a warm valley blanket. This means the same underlying principle of objective morality underlies the different actions of each man, whether or not either is cognizant of the principle in its conceptual form of physicality.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8363
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sat Oct 15, 2016 5:15 pm

Walker wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Walker wrote:
:lol:

That’s pathetic.
Sadly you have shown yourself in capable of articulating why you feel that way. SO we are led to the conclusion that you have read something for which you have no counter argument.

You need to go further than simply look up the meaning of objective. You have to pursue the thought as to whether or not such a concept is viable and examine the methods by which such a thing as "objective knowledge", or "objective morality" could be produced or recognised.
And when you boil it down it looks pretty thin, except for the most bland materialist observations.
Tag-team jerking.

You need to deal with the material rather than the sadness in your noggin.

Objective morality is nothing more than survival of the fittest, by any means necessary.
Like I said twice now, you are missing the point, and failing to counter any arguments.

Walker
Posts: 6814
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Walker » Sat Oct 15, 2016 6:44 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Like I said twice now, you are missing the point, and failing to counter any arguments.
Say it twice more and you still haven’t addressed the material, through argument or any other way. You’re a time-waster, Hobbes. Plain and simple.

Objective morality is nothing more than survival of the fittest, by any means necessary. Subjective morality mitigates objective morality to create a societal structure that allows for specialization and extended individual lives, which benefits the species. This makes harmonious cooperation among individuals a defining characteristic of survival for modern man. Thus, the manifestation of objective morality may change from savage individualism to big and little good cogs in the machine, but the underlying principle, survival of the fittest, does not change. Life is the basis for objective morality: no survival, no life, no morality. How are you gonna prove that? Just look around. What you see is what you get. Only the physical exists whether or not human senses and mind can spot all physicalities as such. Objective morality becomes action according to conditions that promote either solitary mountain man at icy altitudes, or co-op man under a warm valley blanket. This means the same underlying principle of objective morality underlies the different actions of each man, whether or not either is cognizant of the principle in its conceptual form of physicality.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8363
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sat Oct 15, 2016 7:03 pm

Walker wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Like I said twice now, you are missing the point, and failing to counter any arguments.
Say it twice more and you still haven’t addressed the material, through argument or any other way. You’re a time-waster, Hobbes. Plain and simple.
.
Let me ask you this then. 1) What do you mean by "objective" and how is that achieved?

2) In what way do you consider Natural Selection to be "moral".

Walker
Posts: 6814
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Walker » Sat Oct 15, 2016 7:41 pm

You're rather slow.

Your requirement for discussion was to evidence comprehension of material.

You failed.

Shan't waste a moment more.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5978
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat Oct 15, 2016 8:17 pm

RWStanding wrote:An atheist is a person who does not believe in a particular set of bigoted ideas about God.
I doubt many Atheists would like that description. It would rather seem to be an apt description of some kind of Agnostic with Theistic leanings...hardly what an Atheist hopes to be.

I think an Atheist, by definition, has to reject the possibility of the existence of any God, no matter what set of ideas, "bigoted" or not, one asserts about Him.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8363
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sat Oct 15, 2016 8:27 pm

Walker wrote:You're rather slow.

Your requirement for discussion was to evidence comprehension of material.

You failed.

Shan't waste a moment more.
Are you too scared to answer or too stupid?

1) What do you mean by "objective" and how is that achieved?

2) In what way do you consider Natural Selection to be "moral".

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8363
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sat Oct 15, 2016 8:28 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
RWStanding wrote:An atheist is a person who does not believe in a particular set of bigoted ideas about God.
I doubt many Atheists would like that description. It would rather seem to be an apt description of some kind of Agnostic with Theistic leanings...hardly what an Atheist hopes to be.

I think an Atheist, by definition, has to reject the possibility of the existence of any God, no matter what set of ideas, "bigoted" or not, one asserts about Him.
I've told you before about your cognitive problem with this issue.

An atheist is a person without a belief in any god or gods. It requires no specific rejection.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 1488
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Terrapin Station » Sat Oct 15, 2016 9:53 pm

Walker wrote:
Terrapin Station wrote:
Walker wrote:No. Objective morality means survival of the fittest, by any means necessary. You omitted any means necessary.
My last comment was about "morality" not making sense as a substitution for "objective." It wasn't about the semantic content of that sentence as a whole. "Morality morality" is enough to show that there's a problem. I just quoted a bit more than "Morality morality" because you might not have any idea why I'm putting the same word repeated two times in quotation marks otherwise.
Look up the meaning of the word objective, and don't pick the one that least applies.
The whole point of me making this comment to you this in the first place: "In context, there, it wouldn't be at all clear to me what you're using 'objective' to refer to" is that you don't appear to be using the term "objective" in anything like any conventional sense of it. So looking it up in a dictionary isn't going to do any good, because that will just give the conventional senses that I'm already familiar with, that your usage doesn't resemble. (Well, unless you're not at all using it in the philosophical context, but why the hell would you be doing that? The philosophical context is what this thread is clearly about, and you're on a philosophy message board.)
:lol:

That’s pathetic.
Solid comment. I can see why you're so regularly published in peer-reviewed journals such as Spinger's Journal of Ethics.

Walker
Posts: 6814
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Walker » Sun Oct 16, 2016 2:24 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Walker wrote:You're rather slow.

Your requirement for discussion was to evidence comprehension of material.

You failed.

Shan't waste a moment more.
Are you too scared to answer or too stupid?

1) What do you mean by "objective" and how is that achieved?

2) In what way do you consider Natural Selection to be "moral".
Neither. I’d need a hefty incentive to enter the world of one hell-bent on shaping reality to fit hare-brained concepts, and deconstructing ignorance by journeying back to square one under the resistance of deliberate obtuseness doesn’t fit that bill. You haven't asked a question that hasn't been answered.

Run along.

RWStanding
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2016 12:23 pm

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by RWStanding » Sun Oct 16, 2016 6:52 am

The question of god, is the question of sapient life - fundamentally. And sapience implies life. But it is an absurdity to speak of god creating sapience. It is absurd to speak of god creating himself. Therefore sapient life and god are as one. The ultimate question is that of sapience.

RWStanding
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2016 12:23 pm

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by RWStanding » Sun Oct 16, 2016 7:35 am

Returning to the ethics described diagrammatically.
The present popular linear arrangement of social ethics, or politics, and of virtue and vice is very poor. Indeed it is often simply an arrangement of theories that are mixes of values, rather than the values themselves.
The simplest construct that can be managed, and probably the one that fits, is in three dimensions. Social values are obviously opposed to society in chaos and war or destroyed by outright criminality against the social order. Indeed that opposition fits the bill for describing elementary virtue and vice, while leaving open the question of whether virtue has its alternatives.
Social order is required in order that the real questions about how we live can be asked.
The only manageable arrangement for social order is two dimensional, with three generalised end-values, and three generalised dimensions for the simple values. Triangular.
Freedom is not a definable condition of society. It is a question about how we employ that value in conjunction with other values. It is opposed to tyranny or absolutism as an end-value, which may exist in great or lesser degree.
Anarchism is an end-value of egalitarian freedom, which provides maximum autonomy to individuals. It stands opposed to social responsibility beyond what is minimal for social stability.
Altruism or altruistic democracy is the other alternative of freedom, and stands opposed to the outright ego of either the state or individual.
On that theoretical basis there is no condition that is not qualified by other values.
But any practical definition of altruism - for instance -is not a subject for fashionable thought, as it is today, but must be defined in opposition to both tyranny and anarchism - and of course social chaos. The outcome of that may not be fashionable.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest