Objective Morality.

[Zinthaniel]

Your "sources" are blogs that do not link to any credible science sources.

Dominance and Dog Training
http://www.4pawsu.com/alphawolf.pdf

note the links and citations to scientists and scientific paper, and compare that to the lack of those in the links you posted.

Social behavior | College of Biological Sciences
Lion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kicked Out of the Pride - National Geographic Education

Wolf Haven International | Working For Wolf Conservation <--- In actualy sanctuarty that specializes in wolfs.
http://www.graywolfconservation.com/Information/behavior.htm<--- Wildlife Biologist.
A Fresh Look at Comparing the Social Conflict Behavior of Domesticated Dogs to that of ‘Wolf-Packs’ - Helping Pets Behave - Animal Behaviorist and Dog Training in Gaithersburg, MD <--- Entirely Sourced.
Gray wolf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You are wrong. Every source disagrees with you. Pack animals do have social structure.

We aren't discussing if wanting to live and survive is rational. We're talking about whether morality is objective and whether wanting to live and survive is objectively good.

Morality is based off of rationalization. I've explained to you extensively why morality is based off of our survival. I have also pointed out that it exists in other animals, further proving that it has a place in nature.

Why do pack animal share food instead of run off with it?
Why do they ban together?

Yes, it is natural to act in one's own interests and that is the result of evolution. However, that does not address the question of whether it is objectively good for humans to live and survive.

Morality that is relevant to humans dictates that our survival is it's main motivation. Morals keep us all alive.

And BTW, the reason why evolution has bred the desire to live into us is for one reason, and one reason alone - to increase the frequency of our genes. That is the sole motivating force behind evolution, and there's nothing special about human DNA from the point of view of evolution. Therefore, there is nothing inherently or objectively good from the point of view of evolution.

I never said that. I have only said that Humans as a living entity, like all other animals, have an innate desire to live. This is natural. And thus our moral stem from protecting our best survival conditions. Harmony among us increases our optimal living conditions.

If our actions are immoral, and are destroying planet (and orchestrating the demise of all life, not just our own) then what is objectively good about anything that allows us to survive (and continue to destroy the planet)?

We are currently trying to correct our errors and save our planet. Pointing out the mistakes we have made in our ignorance of how things work does not destroy my position.

 

[Fearandloathing]

I don't believe this proves subjective morality, what I believe is it demonstrates a false set up for what morality encompasses. The notion that objective morality is absolute on any given action is false, Objective morality is nuanced and varies objectively not upon actions but upon circumstances.

The bold said it all.

To the subjective I ask, what is morality?

If you start with the starving man premise, you have to add a qualifier....how starving? Was he just hungry? or, was he in danger of dying?

The distinction is great....

so I say to the moralist generally, who is the judge? Shall it be you, the moralist, or the man who believes he is starving? Perhaps the fruit stand owner, whom wew have forgotten in this debate.

What about the case of the fruit stand owner who's wife needs medication for her Fibramyalga and the thefts from his stand prevent him from making enough money to afford those drugs....?

Everything is relative, one man's sin is another man's salvation.

 

[Zinthaniel]

Yes, for humans....and for nothing else.

This isn't absolute reality. We are changing and trying to protect not only this planet as a whole but the creatures that live on it. Ignorance is rampant and we are tying to educate ourselves and stop the destruction.

And Humans are not entirely a plague. Earth for the first time has a defense mechanism for many things because we are intelligent enough to combat things that previous species did not have the intellect to combat or even acknowledge. For the first time in the history of this planet an asteroid can be deflected. Disease can be cured. And chaos can be regulated. We are learning as we go.

And maybe, humans are not good for humans, or for any other form of life. While you may claim that we're becoming more aware and combating the "bad apples", there is a wealth of evidence to the contrary.

Please provide this wealth of evidence. Because studies show a higher awareness and a growing movement towards green living.

Basically, you are "begging the question". You claim that you can prove that there is such a thing as an "objective good" by claiming that the survival of humans is an "objective good".

I never said that. You are misinterpreting my responses. I have only said that relevant to the interests of our own species and it's survival our morals are dictated by that. Independently of the sake of other animals. Because we are an intelligent species we are realizing that our survival also depends on a healthy ecosystem so we are fighting to correct our errors.

When all is said and done humans may in fact be the ultimate natural protection any planet has ever developed.

That human life is an objective good is just as much an "unknown" as the existence of objective good is.

Our survival is objective. That is all I have ever argued. Maintaining harmony among ourselves is where morals stem.

When you boil it down, your argument is "Objective good must exist because the survival of humans is an objective good"

No that's not my argument. Morals are relative to the species survival and to them only. You seem to be conflating that with the notion that I think that our survival is good for everything. I never claimed that.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

When the whole thread just boils down to people arguing their opinions without any proof of anything, that's the definition of subjective. I mean, maybe morality is objective, but no one in this thread has proven it and to my knowledge no one in the history of mankind has...or even knows how to.

 

[sangha]

Social behavior | College of Biological Sciences
Lion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kicked Out of the Pride - National Geographic Education

None of those three links state that lions have a strict hierarchy or that a group has a pack leader. They even agree with what I said about individuals playing both dominant and submissive roles depending on the circumstance.


Wolf Haven International | Working For Wolf Conservation <--- In actualy sanctuarty that specializes in wolfs. [/quote]

That page says nothing about the wolf's social behavior

http://www.graywolfconservation.com/Information/behavior.htm<--- Wildlife Biologist.

Another blog with no scientific citations to support it

A Fresh Look at Comparing the Social Conflict Behavior of Domesticated Dogs to that of ‘Wolf-Packs’ - Helping Pets Behave - Animal Behaviorist and Dog Training in Gaithersburg, MD <--- Entirely Sourced.

WHy yes, it is sourced!! Did you read it?

This link agrees with me and contradicts your claims:

What’s unfortunate is that most of these conclusions about wolf social behavior is based on studies of captive wolf packs. One such study by Zimen (1975) witnessed violent and bloody fights with injuries sustained to all involved. He listed numerous factors that contribute to aggression, the most important being rank. Basically the higher the animal ranked, the greater the aggressive display. Somehow these ideas, oversimplified as they are, were directly applied to dogs.

It goes on to note:

Twenty-four years later Mech (1999) published research on the social behavior of wild wolf packs that totally contradicted Zimen (1975)’s work. He found that wolf packs consist of a breeding pair and their offspring. The offspring leave after reaching sexual maturity to breed with other roaming wolves, starting a new pack. In his 13 years of studying wolf packs, he never saw dominance displays like those of Zimen (1975). Instead the wolves exhibited very ritualized postural displays to avoid conflict.

Since Mech (1999)’s work suggests that the idea of ‘pack theory’ doesn’t even apply to wolf social structure, it should be impossible to apply it to domesticated dogs. Yet somehow the myth survives.

I don't know why you think the idea of "pack theory" applies to wolves when even your own link says it does not.


Gray wolf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This link describes the breeding pair as the "alphas" but does not support that with scientific evidence. I suggest you read the link you posted that has sceintific sourcing. Read it carefully.

You are wrong. Every source disagrees with you. Pack animals do have social structure.

No, the one credible and sourced link you posted agreed with me.

Morality is based off of rationalization. I've explained to you extensively why morality is based off of our survival. I have also pointed out that it exists in other animals, further proving that it has a place in nature.

No, you haven't explained it. You have merely claimed that it is based on our survival.

And other animals don't have morality; They merely have a drive to survive which I explained was bred into them by evolution. Evolution is only about increasing the frequency of one's genes. it has nothing to do with a species well-being. There is nothing moral about evolution

Why do pack animal share food instead of run off with it?
Why do they ban together?

Because it increases the chances that they will be able to increase the frequency of their genetic material. Not because they are moral.

Morality that is relevant to humans dictates that our survival is it's main motivation. Morals keep us all alive.

"Relevant to humans"????

If it is an "objective morality" then why is it relevant only to humans?

I never said that. I have only said that Humans as a living entity, like all other animals, have an innate desire to live. This is natural. And thus our moral stem from protecting our best survival conditions. Harmony among us increases our optimal living conditions.

But you haven't shown that "optimal living conditions" for humans is an objective good. All you've done is argue that "Objective good must exist because optimal living conditions for humans is an objective good"

We are currently trying to correct our errors and save our planet. Pointing out the mistakes we have made in our ignorance of how things work does not destroy my position.

We? You got a mouse in your pocket?

The facts are the we are pumping out more carbon than ever, our use of fossil fuels is increasing (so much that we know how to squeeze it out of rocks (ie fracking) when use to be able to just punch a hole in the ground and get oil), forests are being destroyed, species are passing into extinction at a historically high rate, and groundwater is being used up or polluted.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Well then we simply disagree. I believe that killing an infant for ****s and giggles qualifies for an objectively morally wrong action that everyone, who is rational, can agree on, even you. That is why I included intellectual honesty in my op.

You see it that way. I see it that way. But I guarantee you that the militant Islamic fanatic sees himself just as rational as you and I do, and would see killing that infant, an infidel and enemy in the eyes of Allah, as not only moral but as a moraly imperative act. There have been many cultures in the history of mankind who would take that view.

So are you pro life? Would see an abortion for convenience as morally wrong? A late term abortion? A partial birth abortion? Or allowing a baby who survived an abortion to die? What is it in our culture that would make the newborn infant any different from the infant minutes before it is born? Some among us, all believing themselves to be entirely rational, would not see the abortion at some or all stages as immoral but would not see killing the newborn as a morally correct option.

So you see? I am not arguing whether killing an infant is moral. Of course it is not. I can't imagine a mindset that would see it as okay. And yet such peole exist. They always have.

So all I am saying is that morality is not something that can be rationally determined. It comes from something else. And it is not the same for everybody.

 

[sangha]

This isn't absolute reality.

Huh?

We're talking about "objective morality", and you think it's not about reality?

PS - I don't know what the difference is between "absolute reality" and "reality". Things are either real, or they're not. Nothing is more real than any other real thing.

We are changing and trying to protect not only this planet as a whole but the creatures that live on it. Ignorance is rampant and we are tying to educate ourselves and stop the destruction.

No, "we" are not. Some people are, but as a whole, "we" are destroying the planet. And the irony of it is that "we" are doing it for the benefit of humanity

And Humans are not entirely a plague. Earth for the first time has a defense mechanism for many things because we are intelligent enough to combat things that previous species did not have the intellect to combat or even acknowledge. For the first time in the history of this planet an asteroid can be deflected. Disease can be cured. And chaos can be regulated. We are learning as we go.

The evidence strongly suggests the opposite.

Please provide this wealth of evidence. Because studies show a higher awareness and a growing movement towards green living.

Yet in spite of this growing awareness, environmental destruction not only continues, but is accelerating.

I never said that. You are misinterpreting my responses. I have only said that relevant to the interests of our own species and it's survival our morals are dictated by that. Independently of the sake of other animals. Because we are an intelligent species we are realizing that our survival also depends on a healthy ecosystem so we are fighting to correct our errors.

When all is said and done humans may in fact be the ultimate natural protection any planet has ever developed.

If I have misinterpreted anything you've said, it was not intentional. I'm doing my best. I can do no more than that.

But if this "obective good" can only be relevant to humans, then it is not "objective".

Objective - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

: based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings

philosophy : existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world

grammar : relating to nouns, noun phrases, or pronouns that are the objects of verbs or prepositions

Our survival is objective. That is all I have ever argued. Maintaining harmony among ourselves is where morals stem.

Our survival is objective. Our morals...not so much

No that's not my argument. Morals are relative to the species survival and to them only. You seem to be conflating that with the notion that I think that our survival is good for everything. I never claimed that.

If morals are only relative to humans, then they are not objective

: based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings

philosophy : existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world

grammar : relating to nouns, noun phrases, or pronouns that are the objects of verbs or prepositions

 

[OldWorldOrder]

If morals are only relative to humans, then they are not objective

I want to quote this because it bears repeating. You can't say something is relative to a certain group and then in the very next breath claim it's objective. That's 100% contradictory, you're simply not using one of the words correctly.

 

[the_recruit]

Rogue Wink* Wink* :lol:
I believe Morality is Objective.

Many poster ask for proof of this. Typically these discussions start with a bait and switch.
Subjective Moralist will say - "Ok, you believe morality is objective? So is stealing wrong?"
The objective Moralist will say - "yes"
And then the SM will say - "What about a starving men and the brink of death standing before an unattended fruit stand?"
And then they segue into a discussion on how this proves subjective morality.

As you allude to, this is an example regarding the difference between absolutism and non-absolutism. Not the difference between objective and subjective.

 

[Zinthaniel]

None of those three links state that lions have a strict hierarchy or that a group has a pack leader. They even agree with what I said about individuals playing both dominant and submissive roles depending on the circumstance.

The description suggest an order. For instance Male lions typically eat first. Even if it is one lion in the midst of a group of lioness, the lioness will allow the Male lion first dibs on the hunt. Why? They could easily over power him. They could eat him along with their hunt, but they don't.

That page says nothing about the wolf's social behavior

Wrong link - Wolf Haven International | Park Structure

Another blog with no scientific citations to support it
WHy yes, it is sourced!! Did you read it?

I admit I didn't realize that was an opinion piece. I skimmed though it and assumed it was echoing the information in my other sources.

This link describes the breeding pair as the "alphas" but does not support that with scientific evidence. I suggest you read the link you posted that has scientific sourcing. Read it carefully.

The whole behavior section coincides with the fact that there is a social structure. Loose as it may be. And my point is that the simple fact that these animals ban together and work in a sort of tandem suggest much like humans, they act in favor of their own species for survival purpose.

No, the one credible and sourced link you posted agreed with me.

Yes an opinion piece, that you would have otherwise dismissed if it had said what I thought it was saying. Touche. However, recant using that source and admit that I didn't read it. It doesn't dismiss that every other source describes social structure within pack animals, including wolves.

No, you haven't explained it. You have merely claimed that it is based on our survival.

I have explained that morality stems from the natural desire to survive. It's evident. Morals keep us from resorting to savage chaos, which decreases survival.

And other animals don't have morality; They merely have a drive to survive which I explained was bred into them by evolution. Evolution is only about increasing the frequency of one's genes. it has nothing to do with a species well-being. There is nothing moral about evolution

I never said evolution has anything to do with moral. I have said that survival does. Morals stem from a species, social species, desire to survive. When animals live in packs there is a primitive order that can be observed even if not entirely organized or consistent.

Because it increases the chances that they will be able to increase the frequency of their genetic material. Not because they are moral.

I believe morality stems from the innate desire to survive and spread the genetic material. Moral helps, at least for social animals.

And the science community is conflicted on whether or not animals are moral.
Do Animas Know Right From Wrong? | LiveScience
Finding Morality in Animals | Greater Good
Animal Morality Research Suggests We All Have Complex Emotions

"Relevant to humans"????

If it is an "objective morality" then why is it relevant only to humans?

The objectivity of a moral is defined by whether or not it ultimately promotes survival. The moral system within the human social structure is relevant to only humans. The morality within a chimpanzee social structure is relevant to them. Etc. It's species survival thing.

But you haven't shown that "optimal living conditions" for humans is an objective good. All you've done is argue that "Objective good must exist because optimal living conditions for humans is an objective good"

yes. I have. I have argued that on a scientific understanding of all animals, abstracts dismissed, we all desire to survive. We act in favor of survival. Objectively an optimal living condition is naturally objectively good.

We? You got a mouse in your pocket?

The facts are the we are pumping out more carbon than ever, our use of fossil fuels is increasing (so much that we know how to squeeze it out of rocks (ie fracking) when use to be able to just punch a hole in the ground and get oil), forests are being destroyed, species are passing into extinction at a historically high rate, and groundwater is being used up or polluted.

Ok. This is what is happening currently. And we are currently trying to mediate and fix these issues.

 

[the_recruit]

The only way to show that morality (or as the preceding implies, ethics) are objective is to show that ethics are somehow inextricably a part of the natural world and not an invention of the human mind.

Not at all. In fact one subset of objective morality is non-naturalism.

 

[Zinthaniel]

I want to quote this because it bears repeating. You can't say something is relative to a certain group and then in the very next breath claim it's objective. That's 100% contradictory, you're simply not using one of the words correctly.

I don't think so. My point is that morals are formed objectively in favor of the said species. Other social animals, like ourselves, ban together and have their own little structures with rules etc. those within the pack must play by the pack rules or be punished. I believe that those actions, the following of pack traditions, is synonymous with what we humans call morals.

So specifically speaking about humans. I believe our morals stem from a deep and innate desire to maintain a society they keeps peace and thus maintains survival. From there we have an objective foundation to judge the morality of actions based on how they effect our pack/society.

 

[Zinthaniel]

Huh?

We're talking about "objective morality", and you think it's not about reality?

PS - I don't know what the difference is between "absolute reality" and "reality". Things are either real, or they're not. Nothing is more real than any other real thing.

Sorry poor choice of words. What I mean is that you are describing our poor choices and blatant ignorance on how our actions effect this planet as if it is not subject to change. We use to kill animals without any legal backlash. We still kill animals but the legal backlash is growing and punishment more severe.

Africa has various militarized anti - poaching law enforcement.
British army joins fight against elephant and rhino poaching | Environment | theguardian.com

No, "we" are not. Some people are, but as a whole, "we" are destroying the planet.

Again you speak as if you know change will never come. That's an opinion that I don't agree with.

And the irony of it is that "we" are doing it for the benefit of humanity

Yes, we have tied ourselves to traditions that started out of ignore of how the planet works. We are trying to fix that.

The evidence strongly suggests the opposite.

I disagree. Entirely.

Yet in spite of this growing awareness, environmental destruction not only continues, but is accelerating.

I think the glass is half full.
There are solutions and methods to circumvent our current trajectory. I believe that we will succeed in changing out current destructive tendencies.

If I have misinterpreted anything you've said, it was not intentional. I'm doing my best. I can do no more than that.

Your persistence is enduring and keeping me on my toes on this otherwise boring and hot day.

But if this "obective good" can only be relevant to humans, then it is not "objective".

It is objective in accordance to human to human relations. And the interest of our species survival.

Our survival is objective. Our morals...not so much

I believe survival and morals are hand and hand thus making them both objective.

 

[Zinthaniel]

You see it that way. I see it that way. But I guarantee you that the militant Islamic fanatic sees himself just as rational as you and I do, and would see killing that infant, an infidel and enemy in the eyes of Allah, as not only moral but as a moraly imperative act. There have been many cultures in the history of mankind who would take that view.

I am aware. And I believe I addressed this in a previous post, though vaguely. Even in societies that deem immoral acts as moral I do not believe the actual morality of the action changes. Theocracy is based off of entirely scientifically illiterate text. I do not believe that is a rational reference to base morality. So yes there are Countries who torment their people because their holy books say they can, but I do not believe they are acting on objective morality. In this case they are ignoring morality in favor of biased unfounded information.

As I said I believe morality stems from the actual consequence of actions. There is distress and turbulence in the countries that undermine human right in favor of their religion.

So are you pro life? Would see an abortion for convenience as morally wrong? A late term abortion? A partial birth abortion? Or allowing a baby who survived an abortion to die? What is it in our culture that would make the newborn infant any different from the infant minutes before it is born? Some among us, all believing themselves to be entirely rational, would not see the abortion at some or all stages as immoral but would not see killing the newborn as a morally correct option.

My opinion on abortion is not really formed. However, it would be entirely based off of the science of a fetus. When is it scientifically considered human? I do however believe a consensus can eventually be formed, objectively - if we strip away all the sentimentality that we attach to a fetus and approach the issue from a scientific stand point.

So you see? I am not arguing whether killing an infant is moral. Of course it is not. I can't imagine a mindset that would see it as okay. And yet such peole exist. They always have.

Again I believe those who do are irrational. There has to be a rational explanation for condoning it. And no, religion, is not a rational counter argument to "You Shouldn't kill for frivolous reasons". Religion has no scientific backing.

So all I am saying is that morality is not something that can be rationally determined. It comes from something else. And it is not the same for everybody.

I still disagree. Sorry.

 

[sangha]

Sorry poor choice of words. What I mean is that you are describing our poor choices and blatant ignorance on how our actions effect this planet as if it is not subject to change. We use to kill animals without any legal backlash. We still kill animals but the legal backlash is growing and punishment more severe.

Africa has various militarized anti - poaching law enforcement.
British army joins fight against elephant and rhino poaching | Environment | theguardian.com





Again you speak as if you know change will never come. That's an opinion that I don't agree with.

I wasn't speaking of the future. I was merely characterizing current and past behavior, which you described as moral and beneficial to humanity.

Yes, we have tied ourselves to traditions that started out of ignore of how the planet works. We are trying to fix that.

,
I think it's the opposite. The behaviors that most threaten the planet, and our survival are modern.

I think the glass is half full.
There are solutions and methods to circumvent our current trajectory. I believe that we will succeed in changing out current destructive tendencies.

Now you're the one trying to predict the future.

Let's stick to the here and now, as well as looking at the past. Those are things which can be determined objectively, as facts. The facts are that the threats to our existence are increasing. It might change, but neither of us can know if it will. But we can both look at the facts as they are, and not as they might be, and see that what I'm saying here is true.

Your persistence is enduring and keeping me on my toes on this otherwise boring and hot day.

Glad I can be of some value

It is objective in accordance to human to human relations. And the interest of our species survival.

I agree about the former, but that is completely different than saying that it's proof of objective morality.

I believe survival and morals are hand and hand thus making them both objective.

The issue isn't what you believe. I'm sure you do believe that.

The issue is whether it is true that morals are objective. So far, you haven't described an objective basis for determining what is good. All you have offered are things like "helps humans survive", "helps reduce human suffering", etc but you haven't explained how those things are objectively good. You have only explained why humans believe they are good.

 

[Cephus]

op·ti·mal
ˈäptəməl/Submit
adjective
best or most favorable; optimum.

This can be determined objectively.

The word you're supposed to be looking up is "objective", not "optimal". Try again.

 

[Zinthaniel]

I wasn't speaking of the future. I was merely characterizing current and past behavior, which you described as moral and beneficial to humanity.

When? When did I say that? When did my argument turn into a defense for human ignorance? I think never. I have only ever argued that objective morality stems from survival. I never said that we are saints and that we have only ever acted in our best interests. Never. Not once.

I think it's the opposite. The behaviors that most threaten the planet, and our survival are modern.

Why? Deforestation, hunting, fishing, pollution are habits we started long ago before we knew what the hell we where doing to this thing we call earth.

Now you're the one trying to predict the future.

Let's stick to the here and now, as well as looking at the past. Those are things which can be determined objectively, as facts. The facts are that the threats to our existence are increasing. It might change, but neither of us can know if it will. But we can both look at the facts as they are, and not as they might be, and see that what I'm saying here is true.

The facts are that humanity is one becoming increasingly aware of it's effect on this planet.
Two. How that will, in turn, effect humanity.
and three. Is increasingly creating methods to combat this.

Those are also facts. For every current crisis we are currently experiencing I can provide you with numerous groups and government incentives geared towards addressing those issues.

I agree about the former, but that is completely different than saying that it's proof of objective morality.

It's proof that morality is tied with out desire to survive and survival can be determined objectively and actions that promote or undermine survival can be, when analyzed, objectively determined.

The issue isn't what you believe. I'm sure you do believe that.

The issue is whether it is true that morals are objective. So far, you haven't described an objective basis for determining what is good. All you have offered are things like "helps humans survive", "helps reduce human suffering", etc but you haven't explained how those things are objectively good. You have only explained why humans believe they are good.

I have defined a foundation for discerning why an action can be objectively determined as wrong or right.
It's domino effect that always leads back to our innate desire to survive.

 

[Zinthaniel]

The word you're supposed to be looking up is "objective", not "optimal". Try again.

No what I said makes perfect sense.

 

[the_recruit]

It's proof that morality is tied with out desire to survive and survival can be determined objectively and actions that promote or undermine survival can be, when analyzed, objectively determined.

No it's not. How do you know that survival is good? What proof is there that survival isn't bad?

Evolution is an explanation for how certain genotypes come to be more common than others. Evolution doesn't say anything at all, and certainly doesn't prove, as to whether survival is good, whether suffering is bad, etc. It explains why genotypes that produce phenotypes that have an effect of successfully replicating themselves come to dominate over time.

The is-ought problem has not been solved.

 

[sangha]

When? When did I say that? When did my argument turn into a defense for human ignorance? I think never. I have only ever argued that objective morality stems from survival. I never said that we are saints and that we have only ever acted in our best interests. Never. Not once.

And i never said you defended human ignorance. I was referring to your comments that we are reducing that harm we're doing to the planet, and to ourselves. Maybe i'm wrong, but I think you've made it clear that reducing that harm is morally good.

Why? Deforestation, hunting, fishing, pollution are habits we started long ago before we knew what the hell we where doing to this thing we call earth.

Untrue. Those are things that have only begun with the Industrial Revolution, which is relatively recent. However, it is true that we did engage in deforestation in some localities (after there's reason why it was called the Fertile Crescent even though it's no longer fertile) but those were limited in scope and did not cause a net loss in forests.

The facts are that humanity is one becoming increasingly aware of it's effect on this planet.
Two. How that will, in turn, effect humanity.
and three. Is increasingly creating methods to combat this.

One, increasing awareness doesn't change our actions. Changing our actions changes our actions
Two, no one knows how, or even if it will, have any effect
Three, we are also increasing the methods that exacerbate the problems. Fracking, for example, is relatively recent and it's increasing, not decreasing.

Those are also facts. For every current crisis we are currently experiencing I can provide you with numerous groups and government incentives geared towards addressing those issues.

And yet, those problems are increasing. More land is being deforested than reforested, more water is being used and polluted than refreshed, etc

It's proof that morality is tied with out desire to survive and survival can be determined objectively and actions that promote or undermine survival can be, when analyzed, objectively determined.

No, it's not proof of objective morality. It's proof that we're as selfish as every other creature and virus on the planet.

I have defined a foundation for discerning why an action can be objectively determined as wrong or right.
It's domino effect that always leads back to our innate desire to survive.

No, you have merely stated that your method determines what is objectively moral. There is a difference between making a claim, and proving that it's true.

 

[the_recruit]

The issue is whether it is true that morals are objective. So far, you haven't described an objective basis for determining what is good. All you have offered are things like "helps humans survive", "helps reduce human suffering", etc but you haven't explained how those things are objectively good.

But that's not a problem unique to moral realism. Moral realism (objective morality) doesn't require that moral truths be derivable. Neither does subjectivism for that matter.

The terms 'objective' and 'subjective' are often misused in discussions of metaethics. In the context of metaethical philosophy those two terms have very specific meanings. Moral realism (what laymen refer to as 'objective morality') holds that

1) Moral statements are truth apt
2) Some moral statements are true
3) The truth or falsity of these statements is attitude-independent.

Subjectivist anti-realism holds that

1) Moral statements are truth apt
2) Some moral statements are true
3) The truth of falsity of these statements is attitude-dependent

Moral Realism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[AGENT J]

10 pages so far and there ZERO support to claim morals are objective and not subjective.

 

[Zinthaniel]

10 pages so far and there ZERO support to claim morals are objective and not subjective.

Eh. I think I made a good attempt to plead my case. Successful or not I'm satisfied with the debate that took place.

 

[AGENT J]

Eh. I think I made a good attempt to plead my case. Successful or not I'm satisfied with the debate that took place.

I didnt say you didnt make a good attemptor should you be unhappy. It wasnt offensive. I was just pointing out nothing changed. Before your thread there was no support for morals to be objective and there still isnt.
They will always factually be subjective, nature and history proves that fact and the final nail in the coffin is what ever a person calls morals is simple MADE UP. There was not real debate to take place the answer was already certain.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

I don't think so. My point is that morals are formed objectively in favor of the said species. Other social animals, like ourselves, ban together and have their own little structures with rules etc. those within the pack must play by the pack rules or be punished. I believe that those actions, the following of pack traditions, is synonymous with what we humans call morals.

So specifically speaking about humans. I believe our morals stem from a deep and innate desire to maintain a society they keeps peace and thus maintains survival. From there we have an objective foundation to judge the morality of actions based on how they effect our pack/society.

If things are different for different groups, they're not objective.