Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sculptor1]

Anyone who loves their dog knows what you mean.
It takes very little cruelty directed at dogs to get my outrage running.

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/therapy-dog-d ... 10596.html

Most mammals have the same emotional tendencies that cause humans to think about moral behaviour.
Were we lacking in those emotions I doubt we would have any interests in the welfare of others of any kind. In fact I doubt we would have any particular will to live or have purpose.

The purity of the subjectiveness is wrought large when you consider the wide ranging spectrum of which humans or animals are see to deserve moral consideration and to what degree. This varies so much historically, culturally and personally, that any case for objectivity is laughable.

Yes. Humans are self-obsessed. That is how so many humans can posit that a tiny piece of protoplasmic muck (aka a human embryo) is more important than any sentient, intelligent and bonded adult mammal of another species. Thus, those who speak of a "right to life" will typically speak of the sanctity of life while chomping down eat large portions of factory-farmed steak and/or pork every day.

Humans tend to see any moral system that is fair to humans as fair per se. Other sentient beings do not count, being largely treated as a moral null unless they are considered to be loveable, valuable or useful to humans.

Of course, many other social animals are similarly solipsist and ruthlessly bloody-minded, but none of those species claim to be far morally superior to all others.

I have watched toilet paper panic buying in a recent days in response to the smallest hint of a supply shock, with people walking out of shops with months of toilet rolls, ensuring that others will have none. It reminds me that human moral superiority is an illusion and delusion. We are exactly as selfish and immoral as wolves, bears and lions. Only a thin veneer of civilisation providing a sense of security stands between humans and total moral breakdown.

Yes, it seems that with the "higher thinking" functions comes with the ability to deceive. You have to love dogs for their honesty. If they don't like you (or another dog) they do not hesitate to let you know.
I eat meat. I'm not going to apologise for it, but if push came to shove I have no doubt that I would protect my own dog to the detriment of any other being - human or animal if she were in danger.

[creation]

By the way, this is HOW objective morality is discovered, learned, and understood.

So you're claiming that there actually are moral stances that everyone agrees on?

No I am not claiming that there actually are moral 'stances' that everyone agrees on, because the word 'stance' could be seen as and/or implies there already being an unmovable or unchangeable position, and I am yet to find some thing that everyone already agrees on yet, which would be what entails a 'stance'. So, agreement with and by everyone on something in relation to morality would be needed first before a 'moral stance' could be obtained and said to actually already exist.

By the way, what you did above was make a statement or proposition, based on your already held assumption, and then just add a question mark at the end.

Now, if someone instead was, for example, to ask me; Are you claiming that there actually are moral points of views that everyone could agree on? Then, my answer would be, 'Yes', and then I would wait to see if anyone was interested in what one of those moral views could possibly be.

See, moral objectivity, or an absolute moral stance, is extremely simple and easy to obtain, that is: once you know how. I just need to know how some words are being defined first to show how moral objectivity is obtained. If 'agreement by everyone', which obviously would be in a sense 'absolute', is what could make morality objective, then moral objectivity could be 'that' what is agreed with and accepted by 'everyone' as being 'moral'.

Also, you previously asked me two questions, which I responded back to you with two questions also. Do you still wish to not answer these two questions? Because if you did answer them, then that would help me tremendously in knowing better how to interact with you in regards to this topic of 'moral objectivity'.

In what way does that make anything objective?

In order for me to answer this question so that you could understand my answer I will need to know how you define the word 'objective' here?

What work does "objectivity" do if what we mean by "objective" is "everyone agrees"?

What work does "subjectivity" do if what we mean by "subjective" is "individually one agrees"?

[creation]

I'm not much keen about morality only being about humans either. Welfare of other species should be part of any moral equation too, but too often is treated as trivia.

Anyone who loves their dog knows what you mean.
It takes very little cruelty directed at dogs to get my outrage running.

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/therapy-dog-d ... 10596.html

Most mammals have the same emotional tendencies that cause humans to think about moral behaviour.
Were we lacking in those emotions I doubt we would have any interests in the welfare of others of any kind. In fact I doubt we would have any particular will to live or have purpose.

The purity of the subjectiveness is wrought large when you consider the wide ranging spectrum of which humans or animals are see to deserve moral consideration and to what degree. This varies so much historically, culturally and personally, that any case for objectivity is laughable.

The earth revolving around the sun was also once seen as 'laughable'. That was until thee actual Truth of things came to be known.

[creation]

Anyone who loves their dog knows what you mean.
It takes very little cruelty directed at dogs to get my outrage running.

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/therapy-dog-d ... 10596.html

Most mammals have the same emotional tendencies that cause humans to think about moral behaviour.
Were we lacking in those emotions I doubt we would have any interests in the welfare of others of any kind. In fact I doubt we would have any particular will to live or have purpose.

The purity of the subjectiveness is wrought large when you consider the wide ranging spectrum of which humans or animals are see to deserve moral consideration and to what degree. This varies so much historically, culturally and personally, that any case for objectivity is laughable.

Yes. Humans are self-obsessed. That is how so many humans can posit that a tiny piece of protoplasmic muck (aka a human embryo) is more important than any sentient, intelligent and bonded adult mammal of another species. Thus, those who speak of a "right to life" will typically speak of the sanctity of life while chomping down eat large portions of factory-farmed steak and/or pork every day.

Humans tend to see any moral system that is fair to humans as fair per se. Other sentient beings do not count, being largely treated as a moral null unless they are considered to be loveable, valuable or useful to humans.

Of course, many other social animals are similarly solipsist and ruthlessly bloody-minded, but none of those species claim to be far morally superior to all others.

I have watched toilet paper panic buying in a recent days in response to the smallest hint of a supply shock, with people walking out of shops with months of toilet rolls, ensuring that others will have none. It reminds me that human moral superiority is an illusion and delusion. We are exactly as selfish and immoral as wolves, bears and lions. Only a thin veneer of civilisation providing a sense of security stands between humans and total moral breakdown.

To me, adult human beings are far more selfish than wolves, bears, and lions. Also, to me, only human beings are immoral.

[GE Morton]

I conclude it's pointless to refute your argument, because you just ignore or evade the refutation. Thanks for the craic.

"Craic"? You must be Irish.

If you think you have refuted my argument, then you haven't understood it. To refute an argument you need to show one or more of the premises to be false, or that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. For the most part you have ignored the premises of my argument, which I've set forth at some length, and merely repeated your initial claim --- that morality cannot be objective.

Perhaps we can start at the beginning, with some definitions. I take a morality to be a set of principles and rules governing interactions between moral agents in a social setting, with those principles and rules having a certain aim, or goal.

Do you agree with that (very general) definition? Please answer "yes" or "no."

Not just any set of rules governing interactions between moral agents counts as a "morality," however. Traffic rules, football rules, square dance rules, and many other kinds of rules govern interactions between moral agents, but they're not considered moral rules. Do you agree?

So what qualifies a set of rules/principles as "moral" has something to do with the aim, purpose, of those rules/principles. Do you agree?

I've suggested that the aim, purpose, of moral rules/principles is to maximize welfare for all agents in a moral field (a social setting) --- to reduce injuries and losses due to destructive interactions between agents, and to advocate and encourage interactions that improve the welfare of one or more agents. Do you agree that must at least be part of the aim of any set or rules/principles for it to qualify as a "morality"?

Let's stop here. Please answer those questions "yes" or "no," and for any "no" answers, explain why you think the statement is false.

[Sy Borg]

Yes. Humans are self-obsessed. That is how so many humans can posit that a tiny piece of protoplasmic muck (aka a human embryo) is more important than any sentient, intelligent and bonded adult mammal of another species. Thus, those who speak of a "right to life" will typically speak of the sanctity of life while chomping down eat large portions of factory-farmed steak and/or pork every day.

Humans tend to see any moral system that is fair to humans as fair per se. Other sentient beings do not count, being largely treated as a moral null unless they are considered to be loveable, valuable or useful to humans.

Of course, many other social animals are similarly solipsist and ruthlessly bloody-minded, but none of those species claim to be far morally superior to all others.

I have watched toilet paper panic buying in a recent days in response to the smallest hint of a supply shock, with people walking out of shops with months of toilet rolls, ensuring that others will have none. It reminds me that human moral superiority is an illusion and delusion. We are exactly as selfish and immoral as wolves, bears and lions. Only a thin veneer of civilisation providing a sense of security stands between humans and total moral breakdown.

Yes, it seems that with the "higher thinking" functions comes with the ability to deceive. You have to love dogs for their honesty. If they don't like you (or another dog) they do not hesitate to let you know.
I eat meat. I'm not going to apologise for it, but if push came to shove I have no doubt that I would protect my own dog to the detriment of any other being - human or animal if she were in danger.

You may run into bother when GE's political tribe tells you what objective morality is (because he sure as hell isn't). You will be sure to be in contravention.

I wonder if he will dare to be specific about possible "objective morals" before the thread reaches 100 pages? I can't see it happening, personally. Once we move into specifics, the paucity of his claims would become clear. Hence, the hiding.

[GE Morton]

Egads, will you cease with the "interpretation" irrelevancies?

Interpretation is how language necessarily works.

The proposition asserts a specific fact;

The proposition is the meaning of the sentence. Meaning is per individual, it exists in individual's heads as something their brains are doing. And specifically it's the associative act an individual makes re, for example, associating "text marks" (a la pixels on a screen for example) with concepts they have in mind, or with memories, or with something they're looking at, etc.

Propositions assert things to individuals, and what they assert is determined by how an individual thinks about the proposition. Hence why interpretation is a necessary part of the equation.

We've been over this a dozen times. Your conception of meaning results in a reduction ad absurdum --- if meanings are "things in people's heads," and "what they assert is determined by how an individual thinks" then verbal transference of information is impossible, because we have no means of determining what is in anyone else's head. But it obviously is possible. We need know nothing about what is in Alfie's head to know what the word "dog" means to him; we need only observe his behavior when presented with that word. Any speculations as to what may be his head are vacuous and superfluous. So your conception of meaning is non-viable.

[Sy Borg]

Yes. Humans are self-obsessed. That is how so many humans can posit that a tiny piece of protoplasmic muck (aka a human embryo) is more important than any sentient, intelligent and bonded adult mammal of another species. Thus, those who speak of a "right to life" will typically speak of the sanctity of life while chomping down eat large portions of factory-farmed steak and/or pork every day.

Humans tend to see any moral system that is fair to humans as fair per se. Other sentient beings do not count, being largely treated as a moral null unless they are considered to be loveable, valuable or useful to humans.

Of course, many other social animals are similarly solipsist and ruthlessly bloody-minded, but none of those species claim to be far morally superior to all others.

I have watched toilet paper panic buying in a recent days in response to the smallest hint of a supply shock, with people walking out of shops with months of toilet rolls, ensuring that others will have none. It reminds me that human moral superiority is an illusion and delusion. We are exactly as selfish and immoral as wolves, bears and lions. Only a thin veneer of civilisation providing a sense of security stands between humans and total moral breakdown.

To me, adult human beings are far more selfish than wolves, bears, and lions. Also, to me, only human beings are immoral.

There's much exploitation and theft amongst other species too. That's where we got it from, just that we have (as with most things) refined such things into a fine art.

Morality is about agreed rules of engagement in a group. If theft, rape and bullying are accepted in the group (eg. dolphins), then those things are not immoral, so your last point is fair. Still, these groups have different morals, often related to food sharing and mutual grooming.

[Belindi]

Greta wrote:

I have watched toilet paper panic buying in a recent days in response to the smallest hint of a supply shock, with people walking out of shops with months of toilet rolls, ensuring that others will have none. It reminds me that human moral superiority is an illusion and delusion. We are exactly as selfish and immoral as wolves, bears and lions. Only a thin veneer of civilisation providing a sense of security stands between humans and total moral breakdown.

What follows is morality is not objective: we are on Earth not in Heaven.

Unlike other animals(presumably) we can imagine Heaven by way of analogies with whatever we believe is good. Wolves, bears, lions, viruses, and feral humans are good if we view them as necessary beings. How to steer clear of fatalism is to understand human culture evolves according to human long -term intentions. For long term intentions to exist there has to be somebody capable of imagining human living as extending to many others. At one time humans were tribal, now we, most of us, have the opportunity to be universal. What causes panic buying is fear which results in impotence when there is threat to life. Potency includes courage, imagination, reason, and knowledge. I suggest a top candidate for objective morality is universalism.

[Sy Borg]

Greta wrote:

I have watched toilet paper panic buying in a recent days in response to the smallest hint of a supply shock, with people walking out of shops with months of toilet rolls, ensuring that others will have none. It reminds me that human moral superiority is an illusion and delusion. We are exactly as selfish and immoral as wolves, bears and lions. Only a thin veneer of civilisation providing a sense of security stands between humans and total moral breakdown.

What follows is morality is not objective: we are on Earth not in Heaven.

Unlike other animals(presumably) we can imagine Heaven by way of analogies with whatever we believe is good. Wolves, bears, lions, viruses, and feral humans are good if we view them as necessary beings. How to steer clear of fatalism is to understand human culture evolves according to human long -term intentions. For long term intentions to exist there has to be somebody capable of imagining human living as extending to many others. At one time humans were tribal, now we, most of us, have the opportunity to be universal. What causes panic buying is fear which results in impotence when there is threat to life. Potency includes courage, imagination, reason, and knowledge. I suggest a top candidate for objective morality is universalism.

How universal is universalism? How far does the sphere of concern extend? How to determine conflicts of rival goods?

[Terrapin Station]

Are you claiming that there actually are moral points of views that everyone could agree on?

Could agree on or do agree on? If just "could," are you simply saying it would be logically possible?

I will need to know how you define the word 'objective' here?

I didn't see your earlier post. The question I asked you was with respect to however you're using "objective."

Usually people who argue in favor of objective morality want the objectivity of morality to have a normative role. Are you not aiming for that, and you're instead simply naming something "objective" without objectivity having any normative implication?

[Terrapin Station]

We've been over this a dozen times. Your conception of meaning results in a reduction ad absurdum --- if meanings are "things in people's heads," and "what they assert is determined by how an individual thinks" then verbal transference of information is impossible, because we have no means of determining what is in anyone else's head.

Verbal transference of meaning of any other mental-only phenomena is impossible, yes.

But it obviously is possible.

No. This is mistaken.

We need know nothing about what is in Alfie's head to know what the word "dog" means to him;

Meaning is the associative act. So first off you're calling the wrong thing meaning. You're doing this because you appeal to common things to say about everything, but those common things to say reflect serious misconceptions--misconceptions that wind up suggesting untenable ontological scenarios.

You also conflate behavior and mentality. Behaviorism appeals to you, presumably because you've read some behaviorist writers who were influential to you, and probably because you're seduced by the relative certainty that buying into behaviorism seems to bring.

What "dog" means to someone is a matter of what's in their head; it's not a behavioral matter. You refuse to acknowledge that you wind up talking about what's in your head as you interpret behavior to amount to "meaning," as you confuse meaning with things like text strings, gestures and objects.

So yeah, we've talked about this a dozen times and we'll talk about it a few hundred more times, maybe--as long as you keep preaching nonsense about it. Maybe one of these times we can spark a realization or two for you.

[Terrapin Station]

Morality is about agreed rules of engagement in a group. If theft, rape and bullying are accepted in the group (eg. dolphins), then those things are not immoral, so your last point is fair. Still, these groups have different morals, often related to food sharing and mutual grooming.

So on your view no individual could have an idiosyncratic moral objection relative to his socio-cultural group? That is, their objection couldn't be characterized as a moral objection on your view?

[Peter Holmes]

I take a morality to be a set of principles and rules governing interactions between moral agents in a social setting, with those principles and rules having a certain aim, or goal.

Do you agree with that (very general) definition? Please answer "yes" or "no."

No, because the function of 'moral' in 'moral agents' is unclear. Does it mean 'morally responsible humans'? And does that exclude very young children, the mentally incapable, and so on? And are interactions between humans and other animals excluded from moral discourse? And are these facts, or matters of opinion?

And do traffic rules govern behaviour between traffic agents, and football rules behaviour between football agents? If not, why do moral rules govern behaviour between moral agents?

Not just any set of rules governing interactions between moral agents counts as a "morality," however. Traffic rules, football rules, square dance rules, and many other kinds of rules govern interactions between moral agents, but they're not considered moral rules. Do you agree?

Ah, so your expression 'moral agents' has a significance beyond moral discourse. You need to explain that significance. If football had no rules, or no one followed them, there could be no game. Morality and 'moral agency' seem to be irrelevant in this case. Having and following the rules of football has no moral significance, though it has 'football significance'.

So what qualifies a set of rules/principles as "moral" has something to do with the aim, purpose, of those rules/principles. Do you agree?

No more than trivially. The goal of traffic rules is to govern traffic behaviour - to make driving possible. The goal of football rules is to govern football behaviour - to make football possible. And, by analogy, the goal of moral rules is to govern moral behaviour (?) - to make morality possible (?). But what is moral behaviour in this context? Is it something like traffic behaviour and football behaviour? And is making morality possible something like making driving and football possible? Is morality an activity like driving and football? (This is a category error. The analogy collapses. It's a definitional wrong-turn.)

I've suggested that the aim, purpose, of moral rules/principles is to maximize welfare for all agents in a moral field (a social setting) --- to reduce injuries and losses due to destructive interactions between agents, and to advocate and encourage interactions that improve the welfare of one or more agents. Do you agree that must at least be part of the aim of any set or rules/principles for it to qualify as a "morality"?

No. You define morality as 'a set of principles and rules governing interactions between moral agents in a social setting, with those principles and rules having a certain aim, or goal'. So by your own definition, any number of different moral principles, goals and rules can qualify as 'morality'. As I and others have been pointing out to you all along, you're merely assuming your preferred principles, goals and rules are 'right' or 'correct' - that only they qualify as 'morality'. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

[Sy Borg]

Morality is about agreed rules of engagement in a group. If theft, rape and bullying are accepted in the group (eg. dolphins), then those things are not immoral, so your last point is fair. Still, these groups have different morals, often related to food sharing and mutual grooming.

So on your view no individual could have an idiosyncratic moral objection relative to his socio-cultural group? That is, their objection couldn't be characterized as a moral objection on your view?

That's how agreement is reached, after battles between those with different approaches to moral issues.

When it comes to the agreed mores of populations of animals (including human), those who are unusually cooperative will tend to be railroaded by more exploitative individuals. The world's polity today is as good an example of this as any. (Really just a re-run of the old "nice guys finish last" maxim).

It's a hard world. Nature is brutal. Humans, despite their affectations, operate en masse much like any other invasive species. What is morality but a means for a group not to self-destruct? (as per game theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNMkADpvO4w).

Then again, what of morality when there is not enough food (or toilet rolls) and people fight to survive (or enjoy having a clean, dry bottom post-ablution)?