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

[Terrapin Station]

Exactly. The species survives, so the point of a morality in the brain is the continued life of the species.

No. There's no "point" to it. It happened because it could. And then it stuck around because it didn't make it less likely for the species to survive to procreate. These aren't "points." They're simply descriptive facts.

Only people thinking about things have "points." There is no purpose/point/etc. outside of that.

That's the objective,

"Objective" in that sense is the same as "goal." Again, only people have goals, insofar as they think about something in terms of a goal they have. Different people have different goals. And many people do not think about things in terms of goals. "Things themselves," if they do not have minds, do not have goals, purposes, points, etc.

And when the vote was taken as to whether life was worthy of pursuit, none of them raised their hand to vote no.

A lot of people wind up saying no. Some of those people kill themselves. Plenty of them have killed themselves after they've had kids.

[Marvin_Edwards]

Exactly. The species survives, so the point of a morality in the brain is the continued life of the species.

No. There's no "point" to it. It happened because it could. And then it stuck around because it didn't make it less likely for the species to survive to procreate. These aren't "points." They're simply descriptive facts.

Only people thinking about things have "points." There is no purpose/point/etc. outside of that.

Exactly. And we are people assigning meaning to suit our purpose, which is to understand objective reality in a way that enhances our survival and that of our species.

[Belindi]

No. There's no "point" to it. It happened because it could. And then it stuck around because it didn't make it less likely for the species to survive to procreate. These aren't "points." They're simply descriptive facts.

Only people thinking about things have "points." There is no purpose/point/etc. outside of that.

Exactly. And we are people assigning meaning to suit our purpose, which is to understand objective reality in a way that enhances our survival and that of our species.

'Objective reality' is not what we use for assigning meaning so we might survive. What we use for assigning meaning is induction. Induction is the sort of logic that all animals that can learn use for predicting probabilities.

Objective reality, if it exists at all, is not available for anybody to know.

[Sculptor1]

No. There's no "point" to it. It happened because it could. And then it stuck around because it didn't make it less likely for the species to survive to procreate. These aren't "points." They're simply descriptive facts.

Only people thinking about things have "points." There is no purpose/point/etc. outside of that.

Exactly. And we are people assigning meaning to suit our purpose, which is to understand objective reality in a way that enhances our survival and that of our species.

But no part of objective reality can admit a specific moral code.
Morality is formed in the cauldron of history and culture, ever changing.

[Marvin_Edwards]

But no part of objective reality can admit a specific moral code.
Morality is formed in the cauldron of history and culture, ever changing.

Yes. I'm an optimist though, and I like to believe that our moral codes are progressing forward. Even though it sometimes seems we take two step forward and one back (or even vice versa).

[Marvin_Edwards]

'Objective reality' is not what we use for assigning meaning so we might survive. What we use for assigning meaning is induction. Induction is the sort of logic that all animals that can learn use for predicting probabilities.

Objective reality, if it exists at all, is not available for anybody to know.

Right. But our induction assumes that the reality we observe is real. The brain organizes sensory input into a model of reality consisting of objects and events. When the model is accurate enough to be useful, as when we navigate our bodies through a doorway, we call it "reality", because the model is our only access to it. And when it is inaccurate enough to create problems, like when we walk into a glass door thinking it is open, then we call that an "illusion".

[Sculptor1]

But no part of objective reality can admit a specific moral code.
Morality is formed in the cauldron of history and culture, ever changing.

Yes. I'm an optimist though, and I like to believe that our moral codes are progressing forward. Even though it sometimes seems we take two step forward and one back (or even vice versa).

You can be as optimistic as you want, but this does not make morals objective in any sense.
Since you mention optimism, I think optimism is misplaced.
Regard less of high words and the UDHR there are more slaves on earth than at any time in history. Police kill a 1000 people a year in the USA, a disproportionate number of ethnic minorities; where despite claiming the be the richest country in the world has some of the worst poverty in the developed world; where democracy has been reduced to a choice between one vulture capitialist and another. Where there are more big cats in captivity than there are in the wild
We live in a world where greed and avarice are deleting the world's resources, polluting the sea and rivers, poisoning the air and leading to ecological catastrophe.
And you are optimistic?? Why?

[Belindi]

'Objective reality' is not what we use for assigning meaning so we might survive. What we use for assigning meaning is induction. Induction is the sort of logic that all animals that can learn use for predicting probabilities.

Objective reality, if it exists at all, is not available for anybody to know.

Right. But our induction assumes that the reality we observe is real. The brain organizes sensory input into a model of reality consisting of objects and events. When the model is accurate enough to be useful, as when we navigate our bodies through a doorway, we call it "reality", because the model is our only access to it. And when it is inaccurate enough to create problems, like when we walk into a glass door thinking it is open, then we call that an "illusion".

Yes, but during a philosophy discussion 'objective reality' means something different from subjective reality, or social reality, or the reality of a fiction when we suspend disbelief .

[Marvin_Edwards]

Yes. I'm an optimist though, and I like to believe that our moral codes are progressing forward. Even though it sometimes seems we take two step forward and one back (or even vice versa).

You can be as optimistic as you want, but this does not make morals objective in any sense.
Since you mention optimism, I think optimism is misplaced.
Regard less of high words and the UDHR there are more slaves on earth than at any time in history. Police kill a 1000 people a year in the USA, a disproportionate number of ethnic minorities; where despite claiming the be the richest country in the world has some of the worst poverty in the developed world; where democracy has been reduced to a choice between one vulture capitialist and another. Where there are more big cats in captivity than there are in the wild
We live in a world where greed and avarice are deleting the world's resources, polluting the sea and rivers, poisoning the air and leading to ecological catastrophe.
And you are optimistic?? Why?

Because Trump will be out of office after the 2020 elections.

[Marvin_Edwards]

Right. But our induction assumes that the reality we observe is real. The brain organizes sensory input into a model of reality consisting of objects and events. When the model is accurate enough to be useful, as when we navigate our bodies through a doorway, we call it "reality", because the model is our only access to it. And when it is inaccurate enough to create problems, like when we walk into a glass door thinking it is open, then we call that an "illusion".

Yes, but during a philosophy discussion 'objective reality' means something different from subjective reality, or social reality, or the reality of a fiction when we suspend disbelief .

I understand. But our only access to objective reality is subjective. So, functionally, objective reality is our empirical experience confirmed by science.

[Sculptor1]

You can be as optimistic as you want, but this does not make morals objective in any sense.
Since you mention optimism, I think optimism is misplaced.
Regard less of high words and the UDHR there are more slaves on earth than at any time in history. Police kill a 1000 people a year in the USA, a disproportionate number of ethnic minorities; where despite claiming the be the richest country in the world has some of the worst poverty in the developed world; where democracy has been reduced to a choice between one vulture capitialist and another. Where there are more big cats in captivity than there are in the wild
We live in a world where greed and avarice are deleting the world's resources, polluting the sea and rivers, poisoning the air and leading to ecological catastrophe.
And you are optimistic?? Why?

Because Trump will be out of office after the 2020 elections.

Well we can always hope.
May I invite you to consider the paucity of Biden?
Given the excellence of Obama but his resultant impotence to address any of the problems I have outlined above, do you really thing that the election of Biden is cause for optimism?

[Sculptor1]

Yes, but during a philosophy discussion 'objective reality' means something different from subjective reality, or social reality, or the reality of a fiction when we suspend disbelief .

I understand. But our only access to objective reality is subjective. So, functionally, objective reality is our empirical experience confirmed by science.

Yep, I think that is as close as we can get.
This wholly discludes matters of morality - would you agree?

[Terrapin Station]

Exactly. And we are people assigning meaning to suit our purpose, which is to understand objective reality in a way that enhances our survival and that of our species.

It depends on who you ask. Different people have different purposes in mind. Many people have no purpose in mind.

[Marvin_Edwards]

Because Trump will be out of office after the 2020 elections.

Well we can always hope.
May I invite you to consider the paucity of Biden?
Given the excellence of Obama but his resultant impotence to address any of the problems I have outlined above, do you really thing that the election of Biden is cause for optimism?

At the beginning that last thing that I wanted was another old white man. I only donated to the women candidates. But now I donate to Biden. He has a good heart. Probably better than his head. Personally, I'd have liked to see Jennifer Granholm run.

[Sculptor1]

Well we can always hope.
May I invite you to consider the paucity of Biden?
Given the excellence of Obama but his resultant impotence to address any of the problems I have outlined above, do you really thing that the election of Biden is cause for optimism?

At the beginning that last thing that I wanted was another old white man. I only donated to the women candidates. But now I donate to Biden. He has a good heart. Probably better than his head. Personally, I'd have liked to see Jennifer Granholm run.

Skin tone, age, or gender is not relevant, It is this sort of perspective that clouds the real issues of inequality, homelessness, poor policing, poor schooling and a bad health service provision.