Is morality objective or subjective?

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
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Dontaskme »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 3:54 am
Reason should tell you that when people have a theory and are desperately trying to find evidence to make it work -- and cannot -- and fabricate some, and then it fails -- and they just revise the theory and persist, that these are desperate people, and that their motivation is not science and their method is not reason.
Reason tells reasonable people there are no absolute truths available to humanity.

However, beliefs and theories are many, authors are abundant in appearance as and through the human mind which is a natural born story teller.

Reality beyond the caverns of the human mind is far more clear, here, there is a clarity abound and is blaringly obvious, reality has no story, reality is totally mute, there is no reality, all but for a few shrieks, squeaks and whistles.
Will Bouwman
Posts: 523
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2022 2:17 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Will Bouwman »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2023 4:43 pm...Piltdown was only the first discovered failure of the monkey-to-man theory, as others were to follow. "Nebraska man" turned out to be built out of a peccary tooth. "Java Man" turned out to be a gibbon monkey. "Ramapithecus" was an orangutan. And the famous "Neanderthal Man" turned out to be a normal guy with a rickets-type disease...
Will Bouwman wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2023 11:30 amWho is feeding you this nonsense?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2023 4:43 pmWhy do you call it "nonsense," since you go on to list all of what I say about it as true? :shock:
That is demonstrably nonsense. I think you need to revisit my response:
Will Bouwman wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2023 11:30 amPiltdown Man was never universally accepted and definitively exposed as a fraud in 1953. Nebraska man was a misclassification, an honest mistake. Java man was described by its finder as like a giant gibbon, but to this day is considered an example of Homo erectus placing it firmly in the human evolutionary tree. Ramapithecus is no longer widely thought to be part of human ancestry, being part of the heritage that split from the other great apes: chimpanzees, gorillas and ourselves, about 14 million years ago and became, as you say, orangutans. Neanderthal Man turned out to be a different species that only went extinct about 40 thousand years back, and not because of rickets. Then there are the many remains of hominids that, along with "monkey-like beings" and Java Man, do appear to be part of a lineage that resulted in modern humans.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2023 4:43 pmThe point is simple: these frauds were all, at one time or another, produced and promoted by what posed as "science," but was really Evolutionist ideology desperately seeking validation.
Look above: only one of those claims was fraudulent. Even if all the above cases were deliberate frauds, you have failed to acknowledge the final sentence. You are right insofar as novel scientific theories are examined and further corroboration is sought, and while there are sometimes bad actors who deliberately distort their findings, in the case of hominids, there is a wealth of evidence for the evolution of creatures that became increasingly human like. You are not theologically troubled by evolution in other organisms:
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Nov 28, 2023 6:19 pmLet all other organisms have been "evolved," and man not, and it seems there are no implications for theology that are of any importance.
Therefore, you should not be theologically challenged by the evolution of creatures that are not modern humans. Instead of making a complete twat of yourself by denying what everyone else can see, you could argue that yeah, these creatures might look like us, but humans didn't come on the scene until God either created them afresh, or he put a human soul into the current model.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2023 4:43 pm
What makes you think that Nietzsche is an authority on contemporary evolutionary theory?
You're inadvertently mixing two things: one is understanding the minute particulars of modern Evolutionary theory (which Nietzsche clearly could not have done) and understanding the logical implications of the Godless worldview that theory presents -- which Nietzsche clearly could, and did.

Whether the "common ancestor" is assumed to be a chimp or some protozoa back in the primordial ooze, the philosophical and ethical implications are exactly the same: rise by "survival of the fittest," no morality, no teleology, no rules, Devil take the weak..."will to power" is all.

Nietzsche got that...and the timorousness of modern Atheists to recognize the inevitable implications of their own worldview does not commend them as it does the forthrightness of Nietzsche.
Nietzsche didn't understand evolution any better than you. 'Survival of the fittest' doesn't mean 'most able to kick the tripe out of rivals'; gazelles don't defy leopards by beating them up, they run faster. In some cases timorousness is an evolutionary advantage. Forthright gazelles get eaten.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 4853
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

IC wrote: Nietzsche got that...and the timorousness of modern Atheists to recognize the inevitable implications of their own worldview does not commend them as it does the forthrightness of Nietzsche.
It seems to me that what Nietzsche proposes, and which IC paraphrases as:
Whether the "common ancestor" is assumed to be a chimp or some protozoa back in the primordial ooze, the philosophical and ethical implications are exactly the same: rise by "survival of the fittest," no morality, no teleology, no rules, Devil take the weak..."will to power" is all.
Is beyond all doubt a realistic understanding of the way things work in ecological systems and on this planet. The world of biological nature is exactly as described.

So, those who see nature as it really is see realistically and maturely when compared to any romantic or mythological view.

There is certainly no morality in nature because there is no thought, no self-debate, and no choice. Beings only act within the parameters established by the ecological systems. That entire world is determined by the rules established by the natural system.

Humankind developed within those systems. We rise up out of the same world. And we operate within vestiges of that world. So the recognition of that truth — clear seeing, facing the facts — is an indication of a mature stance. Conversely, to pretend that this is not so is self-deluding.

The only way I can conceive to “rescue” what is at the essence of all religious views, based as they are on mythic tales, is to zero-in on the metaphysical concepts that men — only man — can entertain. If we order our lives through metaphysical concepts, these are potentially universal.

They are indeed universal to men in our world but what about other worlds? Would intelligent being in other planets who also evolved biologically and entered into a state of conscious awareness also conceive of comparable morality realized through an encounter with ideas that are metaphysical to biological determinism?

Are metaphysical concepts real or unreal? They do not exist physically yet they determine so much (everything almost) in our human world.

One can drop the mythological picture and story that IC is so conceptually wedded to. It does not actually serve even his ultimate metaphysical purposes. Rather it dis-serves the moral processes in which humankind is deeply involved.

The real picture is much more demanding really. It is the difference between a Family Bible lithograph depicting a child’s means of understanding, versus a realistic, grounded, maturely stable effort to see things as they really are and still make the best choices (i.e. moral choices).
Will Bouwman
Posts: 523
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2022 2:17 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Will Bouwman »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 12:10 pmSo, those who see nature as it really is see realistically and maturely when compared to any romantic or mythological view.
Gus, just because you are nasty, brutish and short, it doesn't mean all of nature is similarly hobbled.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9861
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by attofishpi »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 12:10 pm
IC wrote: Nietzsche got that...and the timorousness of modern Atheists to recognize the inevitable implications of their own worldview does not commend them as it does the forthrightness of Nietzsche.
It seems to me that what Nietzsche proposes, and which IC paraphrases as:
Whether the "common ancestor" is assumed to be a chimp or some protozoa back in the primordial ooze, the philosophical and ethical implications are exactly the same: rise by "survival of the fittest," no morality, no teleology, no rules, Devil take the weak..."will to power" is all.
Is beyond all doubt a realistic understanding of the way things work in ecological systems and on this planet. The world of biological nature is exactly as described.

So, those who see nature as it really is see realistically and maturely when compared to any romantic or mythological view.

There is certainly no morality in nature because there is no thought, no self-debate, and no choice. Beings only act within the parameters established by the ecological systems. That entire world is determined by the rules established by the natural system.

Humankind developed within those systems. We rise up out of the same world. And we operate within vestiges of that world. So the recognition of that truth — clear seeing, facing the facts — is an indication of a mature stance. Conversely, to pretend that this is not so is self-deluding.

The only way I can conceive to “rescue” what is at the essence of all religious views, based as they are on mythic tales, is to zero-in on the metaphysical concepts that men — only man — can entertain. If we order our lives through metaphysical concepts, these are potentially universal.

They are indeed universal to men in our world but what about other worlds? Would intelligent being in other planets who also evolved biologically and entered into a state of conscious awareness also conceive of comparable morality realized through an encounter with ideas that are metaphysical to biological determinism?

Are metaphysical concepts real or unreal? They do not exist physically yet they determine so much (everything almost) in our human world.

One can drop the mythological picture and story that IC is so conceptually wedded to. It does not actually serve even his ultimate metaphysical purposes. Rather it dis-serves the moral processes in which humankind is deeply involved.

The real picture is much more demanding really. It is the difference between a Family Bible lithograph depicting a child’s means of understanding, versus a realistic, grounded, maturely stable effort to see things as they really are and still make the best choices (i.e. moral choices).
..well said. Yet if what is being posted regarding Nietsche is accurate to what he stated, he failed in any comprehension of morality within other species such as chimps, however short in the standards we may set. Social structures within apes and other intelligent species appear to show a certain level of their morality. Of course that doesn't help the thing that lurks beneath the skin of IC...an entity watching his every move or else the primordial beast will take forth.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22029
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dubious wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 7:36 am The complex operations of evolution on a microscale is already evident in a petri dish. It's also no-longer the theory of evolution but evolution as fact...there's nothing "metaphysical" about it.
Well, the broader discussion is uninteresting, either way, from a philosophical perspective. It has no impact on the theological issues. What does is human evolution. So what's your evidence for that, given that scientists freely confess that we have no "common ancestor" evidence, and all the "transitional forms" people seem to want to foist on us also seem to turn out to be fakes? :shock:
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9261
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Harbal »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 5:16 pm
Well, the broader discussion is uninteresting, either way, from a philosophical perspective. It has no impact on the theological issues. What does is human evolution. So what's your evidence for that, given that scientists freely confess that we have no "common ancestor" evidence, and all the "transitional forms" people seem to want to foist on us also seem to turn out to be fakes? :shock:
Where can we find evidence of the scientists making this free confession?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22029
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Will Bouwman wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 11:32 am Even if all the above cases were deliberate frauds,
"Deliberate"? No, I wouldn't be sure of that. But I do think that they reflect an obvious desperate attempt to "plug in" data to a thesis that was generated when there was no sufficient data to "plug in," and that subsequent suggestions have a remarkable tendency to be misguided. I think their enthusiasm overcame their judgment.
you have failed to acknowledge the final sentence.
It doesn't really help; that's why.

If Piltdown, Nebraska, Neanderthal, etc. turn out to be frauds or errors, then what's impressive about saying, "Yeah, well, we still have one of those we don't know for sure is a fraud, yet?" :shock: What we've still got are massive gaps in a narrative constructed without the evidence to warrant the narrative. And we've got a so-called "scientific" authority desperate to see a failing theory propped up. That ought at least to give us pause until sufficient evidence appears...though we have no reason to think it will.
...there is a wealth of evidence for the evolution of creatures that became increasingly human like.

Let's see that "wealth," then.
You are not theologically troubled by evolution in other organisms:
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Nov 28, 2023 6:19 pmLet all other organisms have been "evolved," and man not, and it seems there are no implications for theology that are of any importance.
Therefore, you should not be theologically challenged by the evolution of creatures that are not modern humans.
Well, the human case is quite different. If human beings are a mere product of time-plus-chance, or "random mutation," with no God involved, then mankind is not at all special, metaphysicalloy speaking. Then, they're just another accident of randomness. And like all the lower animals, human beings have zero duty to morality, zero duty to each other, zero assurance they live in a rational universe rather than a random one (goodbye, science), zero duty to the environment, and zero claim on any right to survive, since lower species go extinct all the time.

Nietzsche saw this. He reasoned it out. Then he embraced it. But then, he was one dark little man, and we know he came to a very bad end. Modern Atheists, though, clearly fear to tread the logical path he laid out, based on the hypothesis of the "death of God."
Nietzsche didn't understand evolution any better than you.

You're missing the point.

One does not have to understand the minutae of the theory -- which, in Nietzsche's day, was very clearly premised on early frauds and errors anyway, as the "scientific" now frankly recognize, and you also know -- in order to understand the logical implications for philosophy that flow inevitably out of such a worldview. Nietzsche understood that better than the scientists of the day did. They were still debating the philosophical, theological and ethical implications of Evolutionism for the next century; but Nietzsche saw to the answer from the start. It's just that most people lack the nerve to accept it.
'Survival of the fittest' doesn't mean 'most able to kick the tripe out of rivals'; gazelles don't defy leopards by beating them up, they run faster.
And when they do, the leopards take the hindmost, and gazelles die. Nietzsche, and subsequently, the Social Darwinists and the eugenicists, ask why we shouldn't apply that to humans. After all, if humans are the late products of time-plus-chance, risen from protozoa and monkey-beings, and taken to this point by the power of "survival-of-the-fittest," then what absurd imagining suggests to us that we can jump off the Evolutionary "train" at this station, and say, "Well, even though in our earlier stages we had no rights, moral duties or care for the weak, now that we're evolved to this stage, suddenly we do?" :shock:

So those who regard themselves as strong group with the strong. Those who are weak huddle with the weak. And the devouring maw of History consumes the tail end of the "herd," making it possible for the strong at the front to reproduce, control society, eliminate failures, and progress the whole race onto the next stage of evolution. Killing and leaving-to-die become, in some strained sense, meritorious actions, as they were for Hitler...he saw himself as the generative spirit of the Third Reich, and as the saviour of the trajectory of human evolution. And, of course, as a case of Nietzsche's ubermensch.

It all makes such simple, clear, inescapable and diabolical sense...if Evolutionism were true.
In some cases timorousness is an evolutionary advantage. Forthright gazelles get eaten.
Yes, that's also true. Good point. The "survival of the fittest" story is too simple...simplistic, even. It assumes the right gazelle always wins...or wins often enough to "progress" the herd. But that sometimes doesn't happen...and species even go extinct because even the front runners lack the means to adapt to things like environmental destruction by humans.

But then, because humans are only animals, why would we feel any concern about that? Animals do what animals do. Humans do what animals do. And things die all the time...as this world is bound to to, given enough time. And when it does, will there be any entity left to care? There will, in fact, no longer be a "place" for such an entity at all -- just the homgeneous, eternal quietness of equally-distributed energy, with no possibility of alteration, for all time. Heat death.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Lacewing »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 12:10 pm One can drop the mythological picture and story that IC is so conceptually wedded to. It does not actually serve even his ultimate metaphysical purposes. Rather it dis-serves the moral processes in which humankind is deeply involved.

The real picture is much more demanding really. It is the difference between a Family Bible lithograph depicting a child’s means of understanding, versus a realistic, grounded, maturely stable effort to see things as they really are and still make the best choices (i.e. moral choices).
Good stuff!

We human beings are capable of all the greatest good and worst bad we see regardless of any claims for having any particular belief systems. It is a big irresponsible and childish fantasy/lie to pretend that we must believe or look to or be saved by anything outside of ourselves.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 5880
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Harbal wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 5:21 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 5:16 pm
Well, the broader discussion is uninteresting, either way, from a philosophical perspective. It has no impact on the theological issues. What does is human evolution. So what's your evidence for that, given that scientists freely confess that we have no "common ancestor" evidence, and all the "transitional forms" people seem to want to foist on us also seem to turn out to be fakes? :shock:
Where can we find evidence of the scientists making this free confession?
And if somebody does fill in the gaps in the record, would that mean that IC was confounded and he would surrender all his religious claims, maybe quite the relgious life altogether? Of course not, he would No True Scotsman the fuck out of that and say that it accounted for the evolution of the human body, but True Humanity is the extra bit tacked on by God that does all the spiritual stuff.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9261
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Harbal »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 6:26 pm
Harbal wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 5:21 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 5:16 pm
Well, the broader discussion is uninteresting, either way, from a philosophical perspective. It has no impact on the theological issues. What does is human evolution. So what's your evidence for that, given that scientists freely confess that we have no "common ancestor" evidence, and all the "transitional forms" people seem to want to foist on us also seem to turn out to be fakes? :shock:
Where can we find evidence of the scientists making this free confession?
And if somebody does fill in the gaps in the record, would that mean that IC was confounded and he would surrender all his religious claims, maybe quite the relgious life altogether? Of course not, he would No True Scotsman the fuck out of that and say that it accounted for the evolution of the human body, but True Humanity is the extra bit tacked on by God that does all the spiritual stuff.
Well he really needs to bite the bullet and reconcile evolution with the Bible, because he must realise that this denial of his is an absolutely futile exercise.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22029
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Immanuel Can »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 6:26 pm And if somebody does fill in the gaps in the record,...
Call me when it's done. 😂
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22029
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Harbal wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 5:21 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 5:16 pm
Well, the broader discussion is uninteresting, either way, from a philosophical perspective. It has no impact on the theological issues. What does is human evolution. So what's your evidence for that, given that scientists freely confess that we have no "common ancestor" evidence, and all the "transitional forms" people seem to want to foist on us also seem to turn out to be fakes? :shock:
Where can we find evidence of the scientists making this free confession?
I quoted it a page or so back.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9261
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Harbal »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 7:34 pm
Harbal wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 5:21 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 5:16 pm
Well, the broader discussion is uninteresting, either way, from a philosophical perspective. It has no impact on the theological issues. What does is human evolution. So what's your evidence for that, given that scientists freely confess that we have no "common ancestor" evidence, and all the "transitional forms" people seem to want to foist on us also seem to turn out to be fakes? :shock:
Where can we find evidence of the scientists making this free confession?
I quoted it a page or so back.
Lost in the mists of time, then. :(
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22029
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Harbal wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 7:39 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 7:34 pm
Harbal wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 5:21 pm

Where can we find evidence of the scientists making this free confession?
I quoted it a page or so back.
Lost in the mists of time, then. :(
Indeed. Like all those alleged "missing links," those sadly lost "progenitors" of ours. :wink:
Post Reply