What could make morality objective?

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

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

henry quirk wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 1:00 am
A woman owns anything in her body, just as you own anything in yours.
A woman belongs to herself;

the baby in her womb belongs to himself.
Nope, WRONG DUMB-ASS!! The baby is sucking the life out of his mother, care for kippersnacks, pickles and icecream? All together pureed. Be careful in the delivery room because she'll punch your fucking lights out. And she could die, especially the way allopathic doctors conduct the proceedings.

Neither, without just cause, has a claim on the other.
I'll say it real slow for the mentally challenged: sshhee iiss hhaavviinngg tthhee bbaabbyy, tthhee bbaabbyy iiss nnoott hhaavviinngg hheerr. Using other terms: SShhee iiss ggiivviinngg lliiffee ttoo tthhee bbaabbyy, tthhee bbaabbyy iiss nnoott ggiivviinngg lliiffeee ttoo hheerr. SShhee iiss tthhee vveesseell, tthhee bbaabbyy iiss nnoott tthhee vveesseellee, iitt iiss ttoo bbee tthhee pprrooggeennyy. So it's her CHOICE FIRST!!! But that doesn't mean we shouldn't council her on the possible psychological implications that her future may hold, maybe tomorrow. And how she's here to make her choice because her mother decided to have her. (Hopefully her mother was a good one, else that may backfire, and be the reason for her choice to abort.)
So fuck you and your sexist hypocrisy.
Eat shit, you dumb, whipped motherfucker.
You surely know dumb, I'm sure you were the primary example in the book on dumb!
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 3:51 am
henry quirk wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 1:00 am
A woman owns anything in her body, just as you own anything in yours.
A woman belongs to herself; the baby in her womb belongs to himself.
Neither, without just cause, has a claim on the other.
You are right in principle with the above but I would not agree with your views and 'approach' to abortion.

Morally, no woman ought to abort the 'potential' human, period!
At the moment of conception there emerge a 'potential' human and no one should be permitted to 'kill' such a potential-human.
This a verified and justified moral fact within a credible moral FSK BUT it can only be used as a STANDARD & guide and NEVER to be imposed on any woman. [1]

Given the current psychological state of the majority driven by naturally driven sexual lusts and lack of impulse control and such wide variety of circumstances, it is optimal that abortion of early-fetus can be permitted. [2]

But then, the existence of 1 and 2 will generate a moral gap which is only natural for any rational moral person to narrow the moral gap.
To reduce the moral gap, the most rational approach is to facilitate all humans or the majority for the start to develop self-control and modulate their animal-like sexual lusts plus the ability to practice efficient contraception.

The achievement of sexual self control will not happen at this present phase of human evolution, thus the banning of abortion is not an effective approach.
What humanity need is to cultivate is sexual self-control and this can only be improved gradually [if we start now] from the present till some future time [>50, 100, or more years].

In the meantime, abortion can be legalized and permitted but with the awareness we are way off the objective moral standard with a large moral gap. At the same time, humanity must take steps to develop sexual self-control and other impulse control to avoid unplanned conception. I am optimistic this can be done in the future [not now].

As such, with the above practical approach, abortion is permitted in cases of rapes, and other cases where it is optimally warranted. However, humanity must track the root causes of this problems and solved them at the root level, e.g. in the future no one will have the drive to rape anyone.

Fundamentally, re humans, the core trend is the 'good' will always prevails over 'evil'.
Could you sound any more like an automaton? I, ROBOT, SPEAKING!
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by henry quirk »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 3:56 pm
henry quirk wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 2:29 pm
For that thing to be objective requires mind independence.
Is a mind independent of itself?

Is a person independent of himself?
I don't understand the purpose or meaning of those questions.
Well, you're objective, you exist, you're real, and you are whether I know it or not.

But, you are not independent of yourself: your self-awareness is part & parcel of you. You, as real, are utterly dependent on you. This kinda makes you unique, yeah?

No other existing thing depends on bein' aware of itself to be.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 7:59 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 5:47 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 1:29 pm

Thanks, Flash. Sort of. Rosy and flowery? If we want equal well-being for everyone - and I think we should - we have to overcome the things that get in the way - including the supposed need for economic inequality - which is just capitalist ideology at work: there must be richer and poorer people, and we all get what we deserve in life. Which is patent bollocks.

I think all the other shit we're indoctrinated with - religion, sexism, nationalism and racism - is designed to divide and rule us, so that the rich and powerful can keep their wealth and power. Conservatism is, roughly, wanting to keep things as they are. So if things are unjust and unequal - which they are - conservatives want to maintain injustice and inequality. And that's immoral. And I think we need to call it out.

I'm not rosy about it. But yes, it's about real democracy - not the sham that keeps things as they are - and persuasion.
You went off tangent rather than address my counter,
viewtopic.php?p=572952#p572952
that you are rudderless with regard to dealing with morality.
You stated "I think we should .." "should" on what grounds?

Here is the point again;

Only in your dreams!
How can you achieve the above if you have not set or verify and justify any objective moral standards within a credible moral FSK [near credibility to the scientific FSK].
You are steering a ship in a storm near the shore full of rocks without any reference to a lighthouse.

In the above everyone and every group will insist their moral standard is the objective one and everyone else must comply with their moral objective.
Do you ever think - pari-passu - theists especially like Muslim [or even Christians] (4 billion of them and more with others of the likes) will ever give up their 'moral' standard for yours or any others?

Explain your methodology and strategies how are you going to achieve your dreams and wishful thinking?

OTOH,
I am referring to objective moral facts as the fact of the matter or the matter of fact with reference to the precise physical referent in terms of neural correlates of moral potentials in the brain.
Where my moral facts can be verified, justified, tested with repeated results, it will facilitate acceptance and conversion to my moral principles and practices.

You are ignorant of the following;
As present we are on a positive trend of exponential expansion of knowledge and technology [especially re neurosciences, etc.] that we will have the potential IN FUTURE to expedite the activeness of the moral potential [matter of fact] to facilitate the moral progress of every individuals thus that of humanity.
It is already very evident there is the positive TREND of moral potential of the average person has gradually unfold and is activated since 10,000 years ago to the present.

You must get rid of the constipated shit within you that morality is merely about subjective moral opinions and beliefs.
You merely repeat the same mistake over and over again.

You say it's a fact that humans are 'programmed' (with the potential) to do X and not to do Y. And you now deny that you're saying this means X is morally right and Y is morally wrong. You deny that that's your conclusion - that our 'programming' has any moral implication. And yet you call our programming a moral fact. And that's a contradiction. I'll set this out below.

1 If we're 'programmed' (with the potential) to behave in certain ways - to do X and not do Y - then that's a fact about human nature.

2 A factual premise can't entail a moral conclusion. So the 'programming' premise can't entail a moral conclusion, such as 'therefore, X is morally right and Y is morally wrong'. That conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. It's a non sequitur fallacy.

3 Merely calling the 'programming' premise a moral fact proves nothing and begs the question. What makes it a moral fact?

Since there are no moral facts - since the very expression 'moral fact' is incoherent - we're left with our moral beliefs, judgements or opinions, which can be individual or collective. We can and do cite facts to explain or justify our moral opinions - perhaps to persuade others - but they remain opinions.

And moaning about the non-existence of a 'foundation' for our opinions is pointless. It's like saying there's no such thing as absolute truth, so there's no such thing as what we call truth. The existence of exactly what is being denied?
This is not really directed at Peter...
...mainly to the argument at hand in it's entirety.

Well it is a fact that we're programed, but the problems are who the programmers are. In fact there are
some moral codes that are accepted by a majority, but that doesn't mean they're correct, the mob can never be allowed to rule, save a dictatorship. Then say goodby to the limited freedom that some of us share. Which is why freedom of speech is so important. The morals in the minority should not be overlooked just because they are so. Instead we must dissect all perspectives, as within them, as being a product of all of humanity, there are valid premises, we just have to understand the psychological cause and effect, what were the ramifications, what are the implications.

The truth is that programming begins in the eyes of the parents, then friends (peers), and of course teachers, and lets not forget the governments, and the religious freaks, take a religion, please pick one. I had an acquaintance whose father was a priest, apparently his father wasn't a very good father, because in his particular case, he revolted and became a skinhead, not a priest, as many might expect!

NO PARTICULAR MORAL CODE IS/ARE NECESSARILY PROGRAMMED IN EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL, THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN US ARE FAR MORE COMPLEX. IT STARTS FROM THE MOMENT WE'RE BORN, AND I'M TELLING YOU THAT A JUST BORN INFANT THAT'S SMACKED ON THE ASS, AND/OR, CIRCUMCISED WILL BECOME PSYCHOLOGICALLY DIFFERENT THAN THOSE THAT WEREN'T. WE ARE THE CULMINATION OF ALL THE EVER VARYING ENVIRONMENTALS THAT WE EXPERIENCE, AND IT CAN GO EITHER WAY MUCH LIKE A CPU WITH HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS (<-- I'm being conservative here) OF TRANSISTORS EITHER ON OR OFF IN HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS (<--conservative again) OF PERMUTATIONS. AND I'M TALKING ABOUT A QUANTUM COMPUTER PROCESSOR (<--if they can finally perfect one). THE INPUTS ARE COMING AT US OMNIDIRECTIONALLY. ADDITIONALLY EVER VARYING PREREQUISITES EXPERIENCED OR NOT ARE TRAJECTORY CHANGING, AND THE PARTICULAR EVER VARYING INTENSITY OF THE EXPERIENCES ARE LIKEWISE.

PEOPLE: Just because externally we look 'relatively' the same, doesn't mean that we're not 'relatively' different inside. (<--What? I really had to say that?)

SUCH THAT MORAL CODES ARE JUST AS EVER VARYING! Oh, we can agree on some, for the most part...
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

promethean75 wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 6:48 pm "Sorry - I should have said up to Tormato, which I thought was mostly shite"

Shit I like Tormato too.

I don't think it's gonna work out between us, Peter, and I really think we should start talking to other people.
To me the stand out on that album is On the Silent Wings of Freedom. But then Release, Release is kinda cool. And I really love the Circus of Heaven, primarily due to the display of Jon's son's innocence.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 6:58 pm
promethean75 wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 6:48 pm "Sorry - I should have said up to Tormato, which I thought was mostly shite"

Shit I like Tormato too.

I don't think it's gonna work out between us, Peter, and I really think we should start talking to other people.
Okay.
It surely was a jest! At my expense?? Either way it really wouldn't matter...
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Sculptor wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 7:36 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 7:01 pm
promethean75 wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 12:57 am "and still doing it until Going for the One."

I actually quite like that album. Have you heard Relayer?
I own every Yes Studio album, and every Rush Studio album, and many of their live albums too. In my heart, I've always been a Progressive Rocker! And I always will be, it's where much of my interest in philosophy was born, along with a little mind expanding help, :wink: :wink: Music, philosophy and psychology, my core!
I'm sure you know for a fact that Close to the Edge and The Yes Album are far better than Any of the later efforts by Yes. And that Drama is a low point.
Would you accept, though, that a Buggles fan hearing Yes for the first time because of Drama, thought that this was Yes's best Album of all time? He finds Close the the Edge too difficult to listen to.
And is this not a perfect example of why morality cannot be objective.
You just don't get it. While saying that any particular music is the best, and is in fact subjective, saying that all music is the best, even that which you don't like at all, is in fact objective, because we're talking about all of humanity, such that it's all inclusive. In terms of puny humans with their puny minds, with all the tendencies of selfishness, self righteousness, me first, I'm right and you're not (like right here, right now in this very forum), exclusivity is subjective, and all inclusivity is objective. Because all we're talking about are the sphere of puny humans as self limiting as they usually are. I'm opening the doors of perception, while you're still trying to close them.

It would surely seem that you and your ilk are in fact the problem.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Skepdick wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 8:48 pm
Sculptor wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 4:47 pm Okay.
let's unpack it.
If morality is independent then where is it?
I don't understand what you are asking.

Lets unpack gravity.

Gravity is independent. Where is it?

Unpacking stuff is reductionism. That's a misguided approach for emergent phenomena.

Where is climate?
On our planet!
Where is life?
On our planet!
Where is taste?
In the mouths of the life on our planet, dependent upon the climate!
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Advocate »

[quote=SpheresOfBalance post_id=575009 time=1653678465 user_id=6407]
[quote=Advocate post_id=573017 time=1652642819 user_id=15238]
[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=573015 time=1652639209 user_id=15099]

Nope. A woman owns anything in her body, just as you own anything in yours. And it's for her to decide what happens, just as it's for you to decide what happens to you. So fuck you and your sexist hypocrisy.
[/quote]

You may as well say the fetus owns anything surrounding its body. And a charge of being sexist in a scenario that might just as easily have included a female fetus is entirely disingenuous.
[/quote]
So you're another dipshit that hides behind a wall of flesh that you create hiding behind your smoke screen, swinging your double edged sword, with your wolf in sheep's clothing tactic, you fucking coward! We should send you and all your kind to the "front" where you'll learn your lesson! Oh, you'll "finally" learn it alright!!! Finally!!! Better to use you for cannon fodder, instead of poor, unwanted babies! You fucking freak!

As Jethro Tull sang:

...I don't believe you, you had the whole damned thing all wrong, he's not the kind you have to wind up, on Sunday's...

Can you say hypocrite?

Advocate = one of those that know, "The Bravery of Being Out of Range"(<--Roger Waters (formally of Pink Floyd))
[/quote]

What you just said doesn't seem to add anything to what i said.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 8:56 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 3:51 am
henry quirk wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 1:00 am
A woman belongs to herself; the baby in her womb belongs to himself.
Neither, without just cause, has a claim on the other.
You are right in principle with the above but I would not agree with your views and 'approach' to abortion.

Morally, no woman ought to abort the 'potential' human, period!
At the moment of conception there emerge a 'potential' human and no one should be permitted to 'kill' such a potential-human.
This a verified and justified moral fact within a credible moral FSK BUT it can only be used as a STANDARD & guide and NEVER to be imposed on any woman. [1]

Given the current psychological state of the majority driven by naturally driven sexual lusts and lack of impulse control and such wide variety of circumstances, it is optimal that abortion of early-fetus can be permitted. [2]

But then, the existence of 1 and 2 will generate a moral gap which is only natural for any rational moral person to narrow the moral gap.
To reduce the moral gap, the most rational approach is to facilitate all humans or the majority for the start to develop self-control and modulate their animal-like sexual lusts plus the ability to practice efficient contraception.

The achievement of sexual self control will not happen at this present phase of human evolution, thus the banning of abortion is not an effective approach.
What humanity need is to cultivate is sexual self-control and this can only be improved gradually [if we start now] from the present till some future time [>50, 100, or more years].

In the meantime, abortion can be legalized and permitted but with the awareness we are way off the objective moral standard with a large moral gap. At the same time, humanity must take steps to develop sexual self-control and other impulse control to avoid unplanned conception. I am optimistic this can be done in the future [not now].

As such, with the above practical approach, abortion is permitted in cases of rapes, and other cases where it is optimally warranted. However, humanity must track the root causes of this problems and solved them at the root level, e.g. in the future no one will have the drive to rape anyone.

Fundamentally, re humans, the core trend is the 'good' will always prevails over 'evil'.
Could you sound any more like an automaton? I, ROBOT, SPEAKING!
Yours sounds like arising from ignorance.

Show me one of my point which is not rational, practical and humane?

5,000 [appx 3000 BCE] years ago, if anyone had the foresight [based on wisdom, trends and rationality] that chattel-slavery will be banned in all sovereign nations by 2022AD, he would be tagged as stupid [relatively "I, ROBOT, SPEAKING!" ] as talking about the impossible by people like you [then].

Continuing from the above above trend, I predict in the next 300 years, no normal person will have the drive to enslave any other human, or in 500 years no normal person will have the drive to rape anyone. [earlier if we implement effective moral systems & strategies]

Even in the case of Abortion, there had been an increasing effectiveness trend in the methods of contraception to reduce unplanned births. This is driven by an underlying moral potential. In the future there will be more effective contraceptive methods and a wane in animal sexual lusts within humans with an increased efficiency in impulse controls.

You will condemn my views as "I, ROBOT, SPEAKING!" but that is because you are ignorant of the evident trends of moral progress plus all other trends in terms of IQ, exponential expansion of knowledge and technology, etc.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Sculptor »

Skepdick wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 8:48 pm
Sculptor wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 4:47 pm Okay.
let's unpack it.
If morality is independent then where is it?
I don't understand what you are asking.
Indeed you do not.
And that is why you should stay out of this debate.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Sculptor »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 10:17 pm
Sculptor wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 7:36 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 7:01 pm

I own every Yes Studio album, and every Rush Studio album, and many of their live albums too. In my heart, I've always been a Progressive Rocker! And I always will be, it's where much of my interest in philosophy was born, along with a little mind expanding help, :wink: :wink: Music, philosophy and psychology, my core!
I'm sure you know for a fact that Close to the Edge and The Yes Album are far better than Any of the later efforts by Yes. And that Drama is a low point.
Would you accept, though, that a Buggles fan hearing Yes for the first time because of Drama, thought that this was Yes's best Album of all time? He finds Close the the Edge too difficult to listen to.
And is this not a perfect example of why morality cannot be objective.
You just don't get it.
No. YOU don't get it.
While saying that any particular music is the best, and is in fact subjective, saying that all music is the best, even that which you don't like at all, is in fact objective,
No. Because that is also nothing more than an opinion. Music is not best. Food is better.
...because we're talking about all of humanity, such that it's all inclusive.
Gibberish.
In terms of puny humans with their puny minds, with all the tendencies of selfishness, self righteousness, me first, I'm right and you're not (like right here, right now in this very forum), exclusivity is subjective, and all inclusivity is objective. Because all we're talking about are the sphere of puny humans as self limiting as they usually are. I'm opening the doors of perception, while you're still trying to close them.
Puny humans cannot pretend their opinions are the objects of the universe.

It would surely seem that you and your ilk are in fact the problem.
You have not stated a problem.
I do not have an ilk, and as usual you are doing nothing more that expressing an opinion.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6269
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

henry quirk wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 9:30 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 3:56 pm
henry quirk wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 2:29 pm

Is a mind independent of itself?

Is a person independent of himself?
I don't understand the purpose or meaning of those questions.
Well, you're objective, you exist, you're real, and you are whether I know it or not.

But, you are not independent of yourself: your self-awareness is part & parcel of you. You, as real, are utterly dependent on you. This kinda makes you unique, yeah?

No other existing thing depends on bein' aware of itself to be.
I'm pretty sure I have a mind independent existence in some form, and that objective facts about me such as my shoe size are included. I don't see how the non mind independent parts of me such as my shoe preferences are objective, nor would it be meaningful to try to manufacture an objective fact of which is the best shoe.

My completely mind-dependent favourite colour would be far from objective. So we are getting into relatively weird territory whenever we try to discover mind-dependent objective facts unless they correlate to a measurable something. The distinction between facts and values is there because of this stuff. Moral realists keep trying to not see any gap between facts and values, but it's not working for you all.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Sculptor wrote: Sat May 28, 2022 11:00 am Indeed you do not.
And that is why you should stay out of this debate.
You should explain what you are asking if you want to enter this debate.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 28, 2022 11:07 am I'm pretty sure I have a mind independent existence in some form, and that objective facts about me such as my shoe size are included. I don't see how the non mind independent parts of me such as my shoe preferences are objective, nor would it be meaningful to try to manufacture an objective fact of which is the best shoe.

My completely mind-dependent favourite colour would be far from objective. So we are getting into relatively weird territory whenever we try to discover mind-dependent objective facts unless they correlate to a measurable something.
I've explained this to the slow kid over and over. Either he's incapable of understanding; or it just doesn't suit him to understand.

Is your shoe size 10? If we can correctly answer this with a yes/no an objective measurement of your shoe size was taken.
Is your favourite color blue? If we can correctly answer this with a yes/no an objective measurement of your color preference was taken.

1 bit of information was measured

If your color preference is measurable by other people then your color preference is independent from the measurers' minds. Therefore your color preference is objective to the person measuring it.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 28, 2022 11:07 am The distinction between facts and values is there because of this stuff. Moral realists keep trying to not see any gap between facts and values, but it's not working for you all.
What gap? Facts and values are subcategories of the objective stuff.

Facts about your shoe size are objective.
Facts about your values are objetive.

Are you trying to tell us that your favourite color isn't your favourite color? Sure sounds like it.
Post Reply