Ah, so you want to help me. Very well, Skepdick. What are these core beliefs I have that even your caring constructive criticism will cause me too much distress to change?Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 11:52 amI'm thinking it's exactly the other way.Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 11:50 amIt is a product of one of your character flaws that you think constructive criticism should be hurtful.
Re-working one's core beliefs is always a PITA and causes much distress/cognitive dissonance.
Which is why you (and other creatures of comfort) don't do it.
Is morality objective or subjective?
-
- Posts: 624
- Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2022 2:17 pm
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Thinking is an act.
All is an act.
Even abstractions are representations in the mid - neurological matrices.
A thought is a neural pulse moving through these neural matrices, triggering images, sensations, feelings, etc.
Even an atom is not a thing ....but a pattern moving in unison.
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Who knows? Are there any you can change without any distress?Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 12:14 pm Ah, so you want to help me. Very well, Skepdick. What are these core beliefs I have that even your caring constructive criticism will cause me too much distress to change?
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Why do you keep saying this instead of acting it out?Lorikeet wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 12:42 pmThinking is an act.
All is an act.
Even abstractions are representations in the mid - neurological matrices.
A thought is a neural pulse moving through these neural matrices, triggering images, sensations, feelings, etc.
Even an atom is not a thing ....but a pattern moving in unison.
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
To communicate the mind must reduce action to a representation, to first transmit it to the brain where it is processed and then to transmit it, via semiotics, to another brain.
In fact, I am "acting it out".
Every part of it is an action.
Communicaiton is an action. Thinking is an action.
Communicating is an action.
Living is an action.
Existence is action.
In fact, I am "acting it out".
Every part of it is an action.
Communicaiton is an action. Thinking is an action.
Communicating is an action.
Living is an action.
Existence is action.
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Lorikeet wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 12:46 pm To communicate the mind must reduce action to a representation, to first transmit it to the brain where it is processed and then to transmit it, via semiotics, to another brain.
In fact, I am "acting it out".
Every part of it is an action.
Communicaiton is an action. Thinking is an action.
Communicating is an action.
Living is an action.
Existence is action.
-
- Posts: 624
- Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2022 2:17 pm
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
So you make a diagnosis without any symptoms.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 12:43 pmWho knows?Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 12:14 pm Ah, so you want to help me. Very well, Skepdick. What are these core beliefs I have that even your caring constructive criticism will cause me too much distress to change?
You could try my unshakeable belief that far from being a computer scientist, policeman, firearm trainer and clearly not a doctor, you are a gibbering, rage fuelled train wreck.
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
It's precisely the lack of symptoms that leads to the diagnosis.
It seems to be one of your character flaws to think constructive criticism shouldn't cause even a modicum of distress to someone's feelings.
I doubt I can get you to reason yourself out of a belief you didn't reason yourself into.Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 1:20 pm You could try my unshakeable belief that far from being a computer scientist, policeman, firearm trainer and clearly not a doctor, you are a gibbering, rage fuelled train wreck.
But hey, if you are using the word "rage" you must feel some kind of thing about me....
I guess that's a modicum of distress.
-
- Posts: 624
- Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2022 2:17 pm
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
That's odd.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22776
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
We are not told. But I see no justification in presupposing any pre-existent state of the soul, in Pantheist fashion or any other way.Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 8:41 am From your reading, when do you imagine souls are created?
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
I see no justification for supposing any existent state of the soul.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 2:54 pmWe are not told. But I see no justification in presupposing any pre-existent state of the soul.Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 8:41 am From your reading, when do you imagine souls are created?
A soul has never been seen, measured or detected in any way whatsoever, yet so many people are convinced there is such a thing, but with absolutely no justification.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22776
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Kant didn't think so. He thought it was about the process of making the decision. Aristotle didn't think so: he thought it was about the habitual character of the actor. And that's the two major opponents of what you're seeming to plug for, which is utilitarianism of some kind.Lorikeet wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 10:33 amMorality, like free-will, is about the act.....Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 2:51 pm I'm sorry -- I don't understand this claim. It might be right, in some sense, but it's too vague. Can you clear it up for me?
"Behaviour" is the act. But "loving" is an emotion or a motivation. "Compassion" is a feeling, but not an intellectual one. And "tolerance" is not a universal good: one can be guilty of "tolerating" evil. So again, this seems far from clear sailing as a case.Moral behaviour: loving behaviour, compassion, tolerance etc.
How could that be so?Even god is pragmatic.Then they aren't moral at all...merely pragmatic. And since they "evolve," why couldn't a moral imperative against abortion, or for war, or making prostitution and slavery "moral," also "evolve" out of them in the future? How do we know where this haphazard process of "moral evolution" is leading us, before we get there?
Then it isn't "moral." It's only a "natural process." Nobody calls earthquakes, floods and fires "moral." Likewise, "evolution" is supposed to be just a natural process...and you can be quite sure it has no opinions at all about how morality should go.Moral evolution, like evolution itself, is guided by natural processes.
They're not moral. If they were, they'd have a moral code of some kind. They don't. All they have is instinct. We may foolishly project our own feelings onto them sometimes, but when a lion kills a gazelle, it's not because lions are immoral. It's just what lions do, and what they have to do.What?So...your theory is that a prohibition which almosts all ancient societies have, and is as near to universal as can be, is actually driven by the primitive native's awareness that it will produce birth defects? How would all these ancient societies even know about genetics?
Do animals have to know about genetics to act in the manner that distinguishes them?
Well, then, does nothing make war immoral? If "nature" or "natural processes," as you said before, lead us to make war, then how can there be anything wrong with war at all -- whether on the international scale or within small groups?Inter-group violence is destabilizing.Then why is war one of the most persistent facts of history? That theory would suggest it would be the first thing to "evolve out" of our moral beliefs. But clearly, not only did that not happen, but it isn't even happening today...at least, not in Ukraine, Israel, Iran...
Violence towards other groups is not.
War is natural.
Well, you may think that army ants or wasps do, but they really don't. We can't call what they do "war," because war is the deliberate organizing of means to occasion the destruction of a rival population, and only humans really do that. What army ants do is just instinct, again.Not only human go to war.
Other species do, as well.
You're speaking like a Social Darwinist, now: applying survival-of-the-fittest to human beings. There's nothing moral about that, obviously, either way.This is also part of natural selection.
We have no moral duty to perpetuation "the flux of existence," and "objective reality" is quite able to take care of itself. So we can't derive any moral duty from either.Objective reality.If it's founded on no objective reality, then it IS arbitrary, by definition. But you also said that they are "not fabricated by men, nor socially engineered." So where do they come from, and why are we obligated to follow them?
The flux of existence.
Then "morality" is not an element in it, beyond a delusion that one kind of creature, humans, happens to experience.The world has no cares, no interests, not ends.
Oh, I see: you meant "on" and you wrote "no." That was confusing.Isn't that what I've done?Aren't you saying that "evolution" is an "objective reality," and that morality is founded on some sort of evolutionary imperative? In that case, you have to be arguing that morality is founded on the objective reality of evolution, don't you?
But it can't provide any justification for morality. Even if we take it for a fact that human cognition is "evolving" in some particular direction, we have no way of judging whether that direction is "moral" or not. It might be merely pragmatic. It might lead us to do something evil that was still "useful" to us in some way. It might actually be leading us to extinction, too. We'd never know where it was leading us. To know that, we'd need a meta-moral system, something above the particular "morality" we happened to be believing in, something objective that would enable us to assess whether our "moral" beliefs were genuinely moral at all, or amoral, or immoral, or even morally suicidal. And what would that meta-moral basis for that judgment be?Evolutionary psychology goes a long way into explaining why humans and all life, acts as it does.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22776
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Sure you do. You have one yourself. It's the locus of your intelligence and personality. And you have a fair bit of both.Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 3:11 pmI see no justification for supposing any existent state of the soul.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 2:54 pmWe are not told. But I see no justification in presupposing any pre-existent state of the soul.Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 8:41 am From your reading, when do you imagine souls are created?
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Thank you, but seriously, why is there any reason to think there is any more than just brain plus consciousness? Not that I actually know what consciousness really is.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 3:24 pmSure you do. You have one yourself. It's the locus of your intelligence and personality. And you have a fair bit of both.Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 3:11 pmI see no justification for supposing any existent state of the soul.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 2:54 pm
We are not told. But I see no justification in presupposing any pre-existent state of the soul.