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
RCSaunders
Posts: 2082
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by RCSaunders »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 12:07 pm And if we've learned anything from COVID-19 is that we can distribute accurate information across the globe in seconds (previously days), and we can coordinate a global response to a global threat in days or weeks (previously months). This level of coordination/sophistication/reaction to threat was impossible just 100 years ago.

Humanity has developed an auto-immune system!
Autoimmune is a defect, not a virtue. Autoimmune is a form of disease that is self-destructive.

It is, however, an excellent analogy of the ability to disseminate irrational paranoid fears around the word, setting in motion political, "cures," for non-existent problems--cures that actually do kill people.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2082
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Question (to anyone)...

Post by RCSaunders »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 7:36 am We can do to and with reality whatever the fuck we, humans, please.
So, instead of complaining about reality:
Skepdick wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 7:08 pm I don't like the way nature is. It mostly sucks. Majority of the universe is uninhabitable.
...why don't you make reality what you would like it to be.
Skepdick
Posts: 4778
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Question (to anyone)...

Post by Skepdick »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 2:00 pm ...why don't you make reality what you would like it to be.
What do you think society/civilisation is about?
Skepdick
Posts: 4778
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 1:54 pm Autoimmune is a defect, not a virtue. Autoimmune is a form of disease that is self-destructive.

It is, however, an excellent analogy of the ability to disseminate irrational paranoid fears around the word, setting in motion political, "cures," for non-existent problems--cures that actually do kill people.
Suffice to say - the short name for people who think like you is "idiots"

Or Philosophers. Same thing.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2082
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by RCSaunders »

Belinda wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 9:20 am Power is what nature v. human will is all about.
Do you think nature and human beings are in some kind of conflict?
Skepdick
Posts: 4778
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 2:05 pm Do you think nature and human beings are in some kind of conflict?
Yes! 99.99% of all species that ever lived on Earth are now extinct!
Most of the Cosmos is uninhabitable.

Nature is NOT a habitable fucking place.

Humans are David - Nature is the Goliath.
Belinda
Posts: 3845
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 12:07 pm
Belinda wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 9:20 am Power is what nature v. human will is all about. Power is what keeps all life forms ticking over. When power is gone comes entropy.
Entropy is ever-present and always increasing. It's wha allows us to tell time - past from future.

Belinda wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 9:20 am True, among men possession of power socially is a continuum. But best guess about absolute power is there is no Free Will and each man is a facet of that very nature against which he contends to keep himself alive.
I believe in free will - my brain cells made me say it. What choice did I have?

As an empirical notion Free Will is meaningless. It's just what we say.
Belinda wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 9:20 am That dynamic tension is dealt with in various ways according to different cultures of belief. An attractive belief is the narrative about harmonising as far as possible with nature.
Sure. Harmonising/exploiting - not much difference if we don't kill ourselves in the process.
Belinda wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 9:20 am That particular belief, since the advent of coronavirus , demonstrates nature's imperative over our little efforts at control.
Of course, but that's not the extent of our control. There's much wisdom in the saying "expect the unexpected".

We humans are perfectly capable planning for the eventuality that our own understanding/knowledge is wrong. Is the simple idea of redundancy.

And if we've learned anything from COVID-19 is that we can distribute accurate information across the globe in seconds (previously days), and we can coordinate a global response to a global threat in days or weeks (previously months). This level of coordination/sophistication/reaction to threat was impossible just 100 years ago.

Humanity has developed an auto-immune system!
Maybe you extrapolate too much. As you yourself said, "expect the unexpected".
Harmony becomes exploitation only when the predator lacks care for the prey. Natural selection
sees to harmony among most species, but our species that survives not by natural selection but by culture must deliberately and thoughtfully give and take, or perish.
Belinda
Posts: 3845
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 2:05 pm
Belinda wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 9:20 am Power is what nature v. human will is all about.
Do you think nature and human beings are in some kind of conflict?

As Skepdick rightly said "nature sucks : most of the universe is uninhabitable". Eventually the universe will be entropy. All the living inhabitants of the universe(UNIVERSE=NATURE) have to contend with each other and with other forces which will destroy them.

Unless you believe in divine Providence you must in reason be a pessimist about the sooner or later demise of humanity. Skepdick is cheerful which is okay but is maybe a little too optimistic about the power of human culture to hold its own against death and entropy.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2082
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by RCSaunders »

Belinda wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 3:09 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 2:05 pm
Belinda wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 9:20 am Power is what nature v. human will is all about.
Do you think nature and human beings are in some kind of conflict?

As Skepdick rightly said "nature sucks : most of the universe is uninhabitable". Eventually the universe will be entropy. All the living inhabitants of the universe(UNIVERSE=NATURE) have to contend with each other and with other forces which will destroy them.

Unless you believe in divine Providence you must in reason be a pessimist about the sooner or later demise of humanity. Skepdick is cheerful which is okay but is maybe a little too optimistic about the power of human culture to hold its own against death and entropy.
I must admit this is a new kind of dualism, even worse than those that divide reality into the natural and superatural. Since there is no supernatural, if human beings aren't natural, what are they--subnatural? There is something to be said for the man who wrote, "those who believe the world is not good enough for them find themselves shoulder to shoulder with those who are not good enough for the world."

There is only existence, alternately called, reality, nature, or the universe, and human beings are part of that reality. It's too bad you don't like reality, but it's all you have. I know you don't like it, because it's not, "nice." It is, in fact, ruthless and implacable:
  • The real world is a very difficult place to live.
  • There are no shortcuts to life, success or happiness.
  • You must earn everything by your own effort.
  • Anything less than your best is failure.
  • You cannot do wrong and get away with it.
  • There is no forgiveness.
  • There is no mercy.
  • Neither your feelings nor your desires matter.
  • Reality is all there is, the way it is.
Does that make reality sound harsh? Well, it is. The proper name for that harshness is justice.

Reality is neither cruel or kind, reality is just what is. It is neither malevolent nor benevolent, but it is the means to all that is worth living for and the source of all that is possible. That possibility includes the fact that every individual is provided with all they need to live successfully and happily and to be all they can be as a human being. It means, your every shortcoming and failure is the result of your own choices and actions. It means, if you are not happy, it is your own fault. Reality provides you the means to all good things, but you cannot achieve either success or happiness if you defy reality, or refuse to even learn what it is.

The problem is people do not like reality because it is demanding and the real world is a hard place to live and it is very dangerous.

As ruthless and implacable as reality is, however, it is also the source of infinite possibility. No success is possible in defiance of reality, but knowing what reality is and ordering one's life by the principles that describe it makes the achievement of anything possible. Most people are just not willing to do the work necessary to learn how to live in this world, and earn their way in it, because it is too hard.

Well, it is hard, very hard, but nothing worthwhile is easy, and nothing much can be gained without risk. It is easier to complain, "the whole world is against me," and blame everything from nature to others for one's own miserable life.

I have no interest in what happens to the mass of ignorant, superstitious, herds of individuals called, "humanity," or, "mankind," who suffer and die, because they despise reality, because reality requires them to be responsible for their own lives.
Belinda
Posts: 3845
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 7:44 pm
Belinda wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 3:09 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 2:05 pm
Do you think nature and human beings are in some kind of conflict?

As Skepdick rightly said "nature sucks : most of the universe is uninhabitable". Eventually the universe will be entropy. All the living inhabitants of the universe(UNIVERSE=NATURE) have to contend with each other and with other forces which will destroy them.

Unless you believe in divine Providence you must in reason be a pessimist about the sooner or later demise of humanity. Skepdick is cheerful which is okay but is maybe a little too optimistic about the power of human culture to hold its own against death and entropy.
I must admit this is a new kind of dualism, even worse than those that divide reality into the natural and superatural. Since there is no supernatural, if human beings aren't natural, what are they--subnatural? There is something to be said for the man who wrote, "those who believe the world is not good enough for them find themselves shoulder to shoulder with those who are not good enough for the world."

There is only existence, alternately called, reality, nature, or the universe, and human beings are part of that reality. It's too bad you don't like reality, but it's all you have. I know you don't like it, because it's not, "nice." It is, in fact, ruthless and implacable:
  • The real world is a very difficult place to live.
  • There are no shortcuts to life, success or happiness.
  • You must earn everything by your own effort.
  • Anything less than your best is failure.
  • You cannot do wrong and get away with it.
  • There is no forgiveness.
  • There is no mercy.
  • Neither your feelings nor your desires matter.
  • Reality is all there is, the way it is.
Does that make reality sound harsh? Well, it is. The proper name for that harshness is justice.

Reality is neither cruel or kind, reality is just what is. It is neither malevolent nor benevolent, but it is the means to all that is worth living for and the source of all that is possible. That possibility includes the fact that every individual is provided with all they need to live successfully and happily and to be all they can be as a human being. It means, your every shortcoming and failure is the result of your own choices and actions. It means, if you are not happy, it is your own fault. Reality provides you the means to all good things, but you cannot achieve either success or happiness if you defy reality, or refuse to even learn what it is.

The problem is people do not like reality because it is demanding and the real world is a hard place to live and it is very dangerous.

As ruthless and implacable as reality is, however, it is also the source of infinite possibility. No success is possible in defiance of reality, but knowing what reality is and ordering one's life by the principles that describe it makes the achievement of anything possible. Most people are just not willing to do the work necessary to learn how to live in this world, and earn their way in it, because it is too hard.

Well, it is hard, very hard, but nothing worthwhile is easy, and nothing much can be gained without risk. It is easier to complain, "the whole world is against me," and blame everything from nature to others for one's own miserable life.

I have no interest in what happens to the mass of ignorant, superstitious, herds of individuals called, "humanity," or, "mankind," who suffer and die, because they despise reality, because reality requires them to be responsible for their own lives.
You misunderstand. There is nothing ontologically dualistic about sketching in the difference between men and other animals. Let me try again if you will.

Human beings are as natural as other animals. Human beings depend for their learning upon great stores of culture passed down through the generations. Other animals do have cultures, the more brainy among, them learn from their mothers while they are young cubs. However other animals' cultures such as they are don't define the animals as their cultures define humans. Other animals are defined by natural selection whereas we abandoned naturally selecting ourselves ages ago, if we ever did.

I have said nothing about not liking reality.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2082
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by RCSaunders »

Belinda wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 9:23 pm You misunderstand. There is nothing ontologically dualistic about sketching in the difference between men and other animals. Let me try again if you will.
...

I have said nothing about not liking reality.
You could have fooled me. What does ...
Belinda wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 9:23 pm As Skepdick rightly said "nature sucks ...

mean? It's not the way I talk about what I like.
Belinda
Posts: 3845
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda »

Skepdick was as explicit as it's possible to be. Are you unfamiliar with current slang or what?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2082
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by RCSaunders »

Belinda wrote: Sat Jun 13, 2020 11:55 am Skepdick was as explicit as it's possible to be. Are you unfamiliar with current slang or what?
Yes, I am, but apparently you are not. When someone says, "this place sucks," they mean they do not like it. When someone says it about existence itself, it means they do not like reality.

If I believed what you and Skepdick believe, I wouldn't like it. If all one can see is, "All the living inhabitants of the universe(UNIVERSE=NATURE) have to contend with each other and with other forces which will destroy them," I wouldn't like it either. I cannot imagine what you think life is supposed to be, since you apparently find your actual life so discouraging that all you can see is that it isn't easy and that one must earn ("contend with ... forces which will destroy them") in order live.

That's what life is. Life is doing and achieving. We are given life and the means to maintain it, and it is neither easy or always pleasant. For most human beings, it is worth the effort, because one's own life is the source and means to all there is to be, have, and enjoy in this world. Living successfully is excruciatingly difficult but there is nothing more valuable than one's own life.

If the price of life is too high, if it's fraught with endless difficulties and challenge, if all you can see is the pointlessness of life that is not eternal and trouble free (like the theist's dream of heaven), or consider your own life a mote in the sea of ignorant vicious humanity doomed to extinction, why not give it up? What are you living for?
Belinda
Posts: 3845
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda »

RCSaunders, I am a little more optimistic than Skepdick about reality/nature/universe. I can well understand why Skepdick claims men are in constant tension with reality/nature/the universe. But I claim there is hope men can and do harmonise pleasantly to some extent with it.

This hope is religious I admit, as there is no evidence for this pleasant harmony.

However it's impossible nature/reality/the universe has any intentions of any sort towards us or any other modes of existence. Whatever men do that is good and right men do from reason and the judgement that comes from experience. I want to make my own decisions and I try to.

What am I living for? How do I rationalise my own existence? RCS, my curiosity feels good and I must investigate; I live because I have to.
Skepdick
Posts: 4778
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Jun 13, 2020 1:57 pm Yes, I am, but apparently you are not. When someone says, "this place sucks," they mean they do not like it. When someone says it about existence itself, it means they do not like reality. If I believed what you and Skepdick believe, I wouldn't like it.
Do you like reality, RCSaunders? Do you you like reality EXACTLY the way reality is?

If you do, then why do you keep trying to change anything?

Why do you keep trying to improve yourself?
Why do you keep trying to improve anything?

What's wrong with the status quo? Why do you keep resisting the status quo?

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Jun 13, 2020 1:57 pm If all one can see is, "All the living inhabitants of the universe(UNIVERSE=NATURE) have to contend with each other and with other forces which will destroy them," I wouldn't like it either. I cannot imagine what you think life is supposed to be, since you apparently find your actual life so discouraging that all you can see is that it isn't easy and that one must earn ("contend with ... forces which will destroy them") in order live.
Where in my language did you hear discouragement? Which part of "fuck reality! Dying is conforming - living is defiance!" do you hear discouragement exactly?

Where in "Fuck reality's rules - break them!" do you hear discouragement exactly?
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Jun 13, 2020 1:57 pm That's what life is. Life is doing and achieving.
Why do you need to do and achieve anything? Don't you like yourself EXACTLY the way nature made you?

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Jun 13, 2020 1:57 pm We are given life and the means to maintain it, and it is neither easy or always pleasant.
Do you even know the difference between "maintaining' and "improving" life?
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Jun 13, 2020 1:57 pm For most human beings, it is worth the effort, because one's own life is the source and means to all there is to be, have, and enjoy in this world. Living successfully is excruciatingly difficult but there is nothing more valuable than one's own life.

If the price of life is too high, if it's fraught with endless difficulties and challenge, if all you can see is the pointlessness of life that is not eternal and trouble free (like the theist's dream of heaven), or consider your own life a mote in the sea of ignorant vicious humanity doomed to extinction, why not give it up? What are you living for?
You are one confused moron.

If nature/reality/life is great/good EXACTLY the way it is, why are you suffering? Too true to Dostoevsky's stereotype perhaps? You are in love with the idea of your own suffering. You love the idea of struggling more than the struggle itself.

Your philosophical idiocy is so strong you are actually looking to disagree where no room for disagreement has been left available to you.
Last edited by Skepdick on Sat Jun 13, 2020 5:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Post Reply