Morality and Atheism

[Cyrylek]

Also, compare deaths by violence throughout history. The long-term trend is consistently down.

Yeah, if you are from Boston or Sidney. I am a Pole who grew up in the bloody freaking USSR. Let's not talk about "death by violence" being "consistently down". Just to keep the conversation all polite and proper. I also advise not to push this point too hard with any Chinese, Koreans, Ethiopians, Cambodians, Romanians, Bosnians, Rwandans........ You may get some pretty uncouth reactions, I regret to say.

There has never been a non-contradictory system, nor can their be. No set of rules has ever completely held up to scrutiny, nor can it..

How do you know, short of a divine revelation?

Ah, yes, so only your side is truly good. :roll:

Or: I am simply doing my best in trying to "choose sides" according to what I see as "truly good". Can you do any better?

And this is where we get into debates about HOW to do things. But most of us start from the same place.

Not exactly. Of course, a (non-authoritarian) "progressive" and a libertarian (classical liberal) will technically find themselves in agreement on many issues - gay rights, immigration, censorship, roving wiretaps, and what-not. But - and excuse me I am extrapolating too freely - in my experience, the "progressives" have no idea why they are opposed to all those things; they have a feeling that these things are wrong - and they have the 'authority' of some Ivy League professors and some Hollywood bimbos to back them up - and that's about it. I am sorry, but you have to have the IDEA. Otherwise, why would anyone who does not share your intuitive inklings should take you seriously?

 

[Harshaw]

Pretty much, apart for sociopaths. But sociopaths are incorrigible under any moral system.

You might not agree with how a given person theorizes how to accomplish that, or even how they define it, but that's ultimately the goal in some way.

No, there are many chaos-bringers throughout history, and not all of them (perhaps not even a majority) were sociopaths.

You make a utilitarian argument, but one could also say that everyone has a vested interest in reproducing themselves. You yourself would be a counterexample to that. (As would I, as it happens.)

In any case, it's all contingent on the point of view that continued human existence, let alone civilization, is a moral good, and there's no basis on which to conclude that.

Do I find it personally preferable? Sure.

 

[Wessexman]

But these are mere instincts. You cannot go by instinct or intuition. This a human society, not a beehive. Without empathy, we are monsters. Going only by empathy, we are often worse monsters - because we negate logic and experience as judges of possible consequences of our 'heart-felt' actions.

I think it is certainly true that morality cannot consist simply of expansive sentiment- we cannot hope that a sincere release of compassion and sympathy will solve all the moral and social problems of a society. However, there is surely an important instinctive, as well as habitual, element of morality. Indeed, I would say the sources of, or supports of and encouragements and to, morality and the moral life are complex. To me our moral sense is something like Cardinal Newman's Illative Sense: a fragmentary and multi-sourced combination of influences, ranging from habits, sentiments, and dogmas inherited from everyday social associations, especially in early life in the family, to imaginative exemplars in arts, literature, education and even the state or government, to discursive thought and moral philosophy, and, finally, to religious tradition.

Morality has to be a set of rules. A non-contradictory, logical system. Not what you feel or sense - what you think.

I'm not sure this is correct. Morality certainly includes precepts and codes of conduct, but morality, our moral sense, has to provide for the ever changing, ever proliferating circumstances of life, public and private. That is one side of morality, its most everyday and mundane. On the other side morality has its roots in the Good, and, especially in terms of ordinary human life, the Good, or full, human life. I would say this was not reducible to discursive, rational codes of conduct alone. Discursive rules have a vital role to play in morality, but I think it would be entirely wrong to reduce morality to them.

 

[Cyrylek]

To me our moral sense is something like Cardinal Newman's Illative Sense: a fragmentary and multi-sourced combination of influences, ranging from habits, sentiments, and dogmas inherited from everyday social associations, especially in early life in the family, to imaginative exemplars in arts, literature, education and even the state or government, to discursive thought and moral philosophy, and, finally, to religious tradition..........I would say this was not reducible to discursive, rational codes of conduct alone. Discursive rules have a vital role to play in morality, but I think it would be entirely wrong to reduce morality to them.

I would say, all the "influences" make a compelling case FOR being moral. They fail to DEFINE morality. That's the job we have to delegate to the "rational codes of conduct", if we want any of it to work.

 

[Wessexman]

I would say, all the "influences" make a compelling case FOR being moral. They fail to DEFINE morality. That's the job we have to delegate to the "rational codes of conduct", if we want any of it to work.

Is it really rational codes of conduct that do this, however? They are partly involved in communicating the nature of morality, no doubt, especially in general terms. But we cannot expect them to cover in detail all circumstances and situations. And do they get to the heart of what the good life is? I suppose it depends upon one's definition of the source of morality, or the Good. But in human terms I, following the traditionalist, Aristotelian perspective, think it is to essentially to be fully human. Rational rules of conduct can capture some of this, but they are an abstraction and limitation as well as an essential support and the essence of true morality is not in the codes themselves, but is in their source - humanity (the Form and not just the average of the existing mass) itself.

 

[Cyrylek]

But we cannot expect them to cover in detail all circumstances and situations.

Of course not. My beloved Freedom of Choice obviously does not have much to say about the gestational limits on abortion, or about the exact age of consent, or about the condition of "retarded" (how "retarded" do you have to be, to make your "retarded" choices null and void?).

However, I daresay, the rational code does cover A LOT of territory, comparing to any "cultural consensus" or religion-based list of taboos. Perhaps, all territory "coverable" in principle.

More to the point: it covers all the territory of "morality". Being "moral" is necessary, but it is not enough. Empathy (Christians would say "love") is just as important. It is just not a part of morality. They have to co-exist and restrain each other.

 

[Wessexman]

Of course not. My beloved Freedom of Choice obviously does not have much to say about the gestational limits on abortion, or about the exact age of consent, or about the condition of "retarded" (how "retarded" do you have to be, to make your "retarded" choices null and void?).

However, I daresay, the rational code does cover A LOT of territory, comparing to any "cultural consensus" or religion-based list of taboos. Perhaps, all territory "coverable" in principle.

More to the point: it covers all the territory of "morality". Being "moral" is necessary, but it not enough. Empathy (Christians would say "love") is just as important. It is just not a part of morality. They have to co-exist and restrain each other.

I would disagree when you say empathy is not covered under morality. To me morality is the pursuit of the good life, the fully human life. This includes ordering our sentiments in the harmonious and correct way. Morality is not reducible to simply external moral actions. Indeed, far more important the extrinsic moral actions is instinct moral qualities that are cultivated, of which our behaviour is only a support and a consequence.

All territory of morality is certainly not cover able in terms of discursive moral codes in the same way the principles of government are not reducible to abstract theory. Moral codes are abstraction, useful and often vital abstractions, but abstractions from human reality nonetheless. To be human is not reducible to a description of what it is like to be human any more than gravity is reducible to the theory of gravity as written down anywhere.

On the more mundane side I do not think your examples quite convey the full complexity of circumstance that covers moral action. In any particular situation we are faced with a myriad of competing duties and precepts, for instance between family and community or country and so on. To navigate this takes the constant use of right or prudential reason dynamically adapting moral principle to current situations. Discursive reason is essential to this, but imagination, habit, dogma, and so on are just as important and may capture just as much of the essence of true morality.

 

[RGacky3]

Which definition of morality includes transcendence?

All of them

Where'd you get that idea from?

Logic ...

False.

Then make a case for it.

One is based on personal preference, the other is based on reason.

Reason requires objective premises ... otherwise it's just personal preferances, every reasoning you can do requires a reality base, you can't base morality off reason unless you have some premises to base it off of based on objective morality.

Your inability to see something does not prevent it form being true.

Well then why WOULD it be different ... explain what the difference is, you can't base morality from reason becasue any moral statement you give and any reasoning you give are based on arbitrary premises that are picked based on personal preferences.

No, that is not the definition of arbitrary.

Let's look at one specific definition of "arbitrary": "depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law".

When a person adopts or develops a morality, what they are really doing is creating "fixed laws" by which to judge things. Those 'laws" do not need to be objective reality, they can certainly be subjective reality.

No they arn't, the law isn't fixed, they can change it at their individual discretion, "laws" are things that more than one person are subject to, infact that definition of arbitrary is basically what morality is, "depending on individual discretion and not fixed by law" you can pick whatever you want.

Shared subjectivity creates the illusion of objective existence.

Take the color green, for example. That does not exist outside of human (and potentially animal) perception. The wavelength of light that we interpret as the color green exists, but the actual color doesn't exist.

To explain, I am color blind, and I cannot perceive certain colors. But I still perceive the wavelengths of light which people call green. If one can perceive the light without perceiving the color, then the color itself is entirely a product of perception, not the light itself.

Except the light waves that create that green sensation ARE objectively real, so you can base it in objective reality, not so with morality.

Who said you cannot personally choose what to believe?

Believing something to be true doesn't mean it is objectively true. An example of a subjective "truth" people choose to believe would be a statement like "I have intrinsic value, all human life has intrinsic value". That's purely subjective, though. The evidence suggests that the Universe does not give a flying **** about anything, let alone individual humans or the human species (an infinitesimally tiny little portion of the universe).

Humans want to create value, so they create value. If I believe something has value, then it has value to me. I do not require that value to be an objective reality, because the subjective reality is enough to make it valuable to me. It seems like circular logic at first glance, but value is, itself, inherently subjective. A thing is only worth the value a person decides to give to it.

Sure, but if you percieve something you should believe it unless you have some defeater for it, what is the defeater for objective morality?

I do say it about aspects of the material world. It cannot be said about all aspects of the material world, but there are plenty of things it can be said about.

I'm saying it could be said about the material world as a whole.

Should and Should not are, by their very nature, opinion statements. They are NOT statements about reality, they are statements about ideals.

Begging the question.

If we were to take your definition of arbitrary to be true, then it doesn't matter if there exists an ambiguous hypothetical objective morality or not, all human morality would be arbitrary, whether or not it was an attempt to approximate the unknowable hypothetical objective morality or it was based entirely on one's own subjective reasoning.

I don't have a definition of arbitrary, I'm using the actual definition.

I have shown that all moral accounts fit your definition of "100% arbitrary" by showing that there is no way to base one's moral account on an ambiguous hypothetical objective morality.

So you agree, moral statements are just as arbitrary and meaningless as "vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate ice cream."

Where did you get that idea from? Are you really saying that if I tell someone else the rules they need to believe it would become "less" arbitrary than if they decided upon their own rules by themselves?

No, if the rules are based on some objective reality and have some objective basis they arn't arbitrary, or if they apply to everyone they are at least somewhat elss arbitrary.

Actually, it does make it less arbitrary. By definition.

No it doesn't, because the reasonings are based on arbitrary premises.

Why do you think things have truly objective meaning?

I don't know if they do or not.

repeating the same false claim ad nauseum doesn't make the claim less false.

Unless you have an argument against it, it stands.

It's actually quite ironic that you use an entirely arbitrary measure to make a point about objective reality (assuming you are using the Fahrenheit scale). Centigrade is at least based on reason.

The only reason that your claim about reality has any meaning is because people have agreed to use the convention. Objectively, 10 degrees means nothing. Hell, it's a subjective decision to use a specific temperature scale.

Fahrenheit is also based on reason, a different reason, but I was using centigrade, Objectively the temperature IS something, we have objective coldness or warmness that exists in nature over which we can make a temperature model, there isn't that with morality, THAT is the difference.

There is a distinct difference between a claim about reality and a claim based on reality.

What's the point?

Where did you get that stupid idea from?

A statement ABOUT reality is not the same thing as a statement BASED on reality. It's BASED on your subjective assessments ABOUT reality.

There is no objective moral reality ... That's what I was saying, so you CANNOT make any reasoning because there is nothing to reason about, there are no premises.

I had tasted a gyro, though. I do not need to taste every onion in order to know that onions taste like ****. I've tasted plenty to determine that opinion of onions.

Yeah .... What's your point?

And that does not exist with morality.

WHich is WHY it's just a arbitrary personal preference, akin go liking different ice cream flavors.

One is based on reason, the other is based on direct perception.

You can't base something on reason without some objective premises, without some reality to reason on, in the end morality is also just direct perception, you see something and check how it makes you feel.

I have.

Not really.

Perception is HOW we experience the outside world. How the **** could be anything BUT experiential?

We experience using language, categories, reason, and other innate ideas and so on.

 

[RGacky3]

Unless you postulate that freedom of choice is at the core of morality. People do not normally choose to be enslaved or slaughtered - they would rather be treated nicely. it is true, of course, that "being treated nicely" means very different things for different people - but that's the point - the common denominator, and the central "objective moral value": the absence of universal preferences makes the very ability to choose freely arch-important.

Oh ... well that's an objective morality, I was talking to those who don't accept any objective morality.

There may or may not be objective morality, but if there isn't you have to be consistant.

 

[Surtr]

Atheism and morality. Because of the lack of a higher "law", can we say that there is an objective morality?

Yes, and it can be summed up in a single word: Empathy.

 

[Tucker Case]

Except the light waves that create that green sensation ARE objectively real, so you can base it in objective reality, not so with morality.

Green has absolutley nothing to do with those light waves objectively, though. It has everything to do with the chemistry and mechanics of our eyes. It is entirely based on something within humans.

Sure, but if you percieve something you should believe it unless you have some defeater for it,

Why do you make that assumption?

Begging the question.

No it isn't.

I don't have a definition of arbitrary, I'm using the actual definition.

I quoted the actual definition. You are just making one up.

So you agree, moral statements are just as arbitrary and meaningless as "vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate ice cream."

No, I point out that your definition of arbitrary applies to morality regardless of whether or not an objective moral reality exists.

No, if the rules are based on some objective reality and have some objective basis they arn't arbitrary, or if they apply to everyone they are at least somewhat elss arbitrary.

Based on still doesn't mean the same thing as about.

No it doesn't, because the reasonings are based on arbitrary premises.

So? How is that any different from your illusion of a objective morality? Just because you pretend something is based on something other than your perosnal tastes doesn't eman it ias actually based on something other than your personal tastes. Saying "Nuh uh" doesn't make your case.

I don't know if they do or not.

Obviously. But I didn't ask what you know. I asked why you think it. You are making the assumption that objective meaning exists. All of your premises display this assumption, regardless of whether or not you are cognizant of this fact. You clearly think that objective meaning must exist. Otherwise the assumptions wouldn't be present.

Morality clearly has subjective meaning. That much is not even debatable. So the only reason to bring up meaning is if you assume that things do have objective meaning. So why do you think that objective meaning must exist? We both know that you have no knowledge of it's existence, only you know why you assume that it exists.

Unless you have an argument against it, it stands.

What a phenomenally stupid position to take in a world where such arguments against it have been presented. Truly mindbooggling in it's asinine nature.

...we have objective coldness or warmness....

Great googly moogly. :doh

Is 10 degrees centigrade "cold" to nitrogen? Is 100 centigrade "warm" to steel?

That's not objective "coldness" or "warmness". Those terms are purely subjective ones. Objectively, 10 degrees centigrade is merely a lower energy state than 100 degrees. Cold, hot, meaningless drivel without humans around to interpret them.

What's the point?

Exactly. One starts from the subjectively derived answer to a "what's the point" question, the other is a personal preference.

There is no objective moral reality ... That's what I was saying, so you CANNOT make any reasoning because there is nothing to reason about, there are no premises.

Where did you get THAT silly idea from? And why the **** did you attribute such nonsense to me in the previous response?

Yeah .... What's your point?

My opinion was in error.

WHich is WHY it's just a arbitrary personal preference, akin go liking different ice cream flavors.

Just because something is an opinion doesn't mean it is the same thing as personal preference of ice cream flavors. Things are not so mindlessly simplistic as black and white.

You can't base something on reason without some objective premises

Nonsense. You've attempted repeatedly to do this by using the word "good" in your premises, and "good" is a purely subjective term. Just because you wish to ignore the truth doesn't mean it is any less true.

, without some reality to reason on, in the end morality is also just direct perception, you see something and check how it makes you feel.

I see the problem. You are still confusing "about" with "based on". Stop doing that. It's not accurate to do so.

Not really.

Your choice to ignore their existence has done nothing to negate the existence of my arguments.

We experience using language, categories, reason, and other innate ideas and so on.

You forgot the final two words of that sentence: Through perception. We experience blah blah blah through perception.

Perception is the HOW, all that other nonsense that is thoroughly usseless in the context of this discussion is the WHAT.

It seems like you have great difficulty differentiating the how and the what actually. Curious.

 

[Cyrylek]

Yes, and it can be summed up in a single word: Empathy.

Empathy cannot be "morality". Empathy is a feeling, an urge. Morality is a set of rules. Okay, I understand we are entering a semantic jungle here, but the originator of the thread clearly is talking about the conceptual, not emotional "morality": "objective vs cultural" does not apply to emotions.

 

[Surtr]

Empathy cannot be "morality". Empathy is a feeling, an urge. Morality is a set of rules. Okay, I understand we are entering a semantic jungle here, but the originator of the thread clearly is talking about the conceptual, not emotional "morality": "objective vs cultural" does not apply to emotions.

Empathy isn't a feeling, it's a mental capacity. It allows others to recognize and understand other people's feelings, needs, and emotional responses. Other than that, morality is fiction.

 

[Cyrylek]

Empathy isn't a feeling, it's a mental capacity. It allows others to recognize and understand other people's feelings, needs, and emotional responses. Other than that, morality is fiction.

In the same way language is fiction. Still, we talk.

 

[Surtr]

In the same way language is fiction. Still, we talk.

Language is tangible. Morality is just a concept.

 

[Cyrylek]

Language is tangible. Morality is just a concept.

Language is a set of rules, just like a moral system.

If anything, morality is more "tangible" because it regulates actual human action, in its universal aspects. The essence of "Do not do onto others that you do not wish to be done onto yourself" does not change whether we say it English, in Latin, or in Tamil.

 

[Surtr]

Language is a set of rules, just like a moral system.

Proper grammar requires a set of rules, but language itself is just a way to convey information from one person to another. It's tangible, we're using it right now. Whether it's crude drawings on a wall, spoken/written words, or even a complex string of binary and coding that's interpreted by software, language is a constant. If it weren't, we wouldn't be communicating right now. We wouldn't even be as advanced as we are as a species without language.

If anything, morality is more "tangible" because it regulates actual human action, in its universal aspects. The essence of "Do not do onto others that you do not wish to be done onto yourself" does not change whether we say it English, in Latin, or in Tamil.

Morality is completely intangible because it is an abstract. Morality is so subjective, that if you go from door to door in any given neighborhood, not one household will value the exact same morals as the next.

 

[Cyrylek]

Morality is so subjective, that if you go from door to door in any given neighborhood, not one household will value the exact same morals as the next.

Sure, there are different "dialects" in the "language" of morality. Yet the abovementioned Golden Rule did occur to the ancient Greeks, Hebrews, Chinese, Indians - in roughly the same form. Morality is NOT subjective. It is a direct, inescapable and universal derivative of human nature. We are sapient, we are in possession of free will, and we are social. We cannot deny either our rational potential or our instinctive urges, be it empathy or aggression, "good" or "bad". We either self-destruct or come up with a set of rules. A set of rules based on the objective features of human nature has better chances of survival than a bunch of disconnected religious taboos, or some fleeting "societal consensus".

 

[RGacky3]

Green has absolutley nothing to do with those light waves objectively, though. It has everything to do with the chemistry and mechanics of our eyes. It is entirely based on something within humans.

Except there is an objevtive reality out there that causes those sensations, that's the difference between that and morality.

Why do you make that assumption?

Because it's common sense.

No, I point out that your definition of arbitrary applies to morality regardless of whether or not an objective moral reality exists.

If objective morality does exist morals could be non arbitrary, if not all morality is arbitrary and meaningless aking to liking one type of ice cream over another.

Based on still doesn't mean the same thing as about.

So what? Either way there is some objective reality there, but laws have nothing to do with morality, legal code isn't "you should or shouldn't" do something, it's the government says you must or must not do something or you'll go to prison.

So? How is that any different from your illusion of a objective morality? Just because you pretend something is based on something other than your perosnal tastes doesn't eman it ias actually based on something other than your personal tastes. Saying "Nuh uh" doesn't make your case.

Doesn't mean that it isn't either ....

Great googly moogly. :doh

Is 10 degrees centigrade "cold" to nitrogen? Is 100 centigrade "warm" to steel?

That's not objective "coldness" or "warmness". Those terms are purely subjective ones. Objectively, 10 degrees centigrade is merely a lower energy state than 100 degrees. Cold, hot, meaningless drivel without humans around to interpret them.

Yes but there is an objective reality, that we measure ... and then interprate as warm or cold .... That is the difference between that and morality.

That is unless your a metaphysical idealist.

Where did you get THAT silly idea from? And why the **** did you attribute such nonsense to me in the previous response?

That idea I got from logic, if there is NO OBJECTIVE FACT OF THE MATTER about any moral question it's impossible to reason out answers to moral questions, because its all 100% subjective, all logic requires premises that are based on some objective reality, you cannot have that with morality.

My opinion was in error.

No, what was in error was the thought that you could have any opinion, if you had said "I like that food" it would have been in error as well, because the true answer would be "I don't know."

Just because something is an opinion doesn't mean it is the same thing as personal preference of ice cream flavors. Things are not so mindlessly simplistic as black and white.

You havn't shown how they are different.

Nonsense. You've attempted repeatedly to do this by using the word "good" in your premises, and "good" is a purely subjective term. Just because you wish to ignore the truth doesn't mean it is any less true.

Yeah, I'm not the one defending 100% subjective morality, you are, and you cannot say morality can be derived from reason, because for reason you'd need objectively measurable premises, which according to you, you cannot have in morality.

I see the problem. You are still confusing "about" with "based on". Stop doing that. It's not accurate to do so.

It doesn't change my argument AT ALL.

Your choice to ignore their existence has done nothing to negate the existence of my arguments.

You don't have an argument, you're only arguemnt is an epistemological one, not an ontological one, and you refuse to accept the logical outcomes of your argument, that morality is 100% arbitrary and as arbitrary as liking ice cream flavors.

You forgot the final two words of that sentence: Through perception. We experience blah blah blah through perception.

Perception is the HOW, all that other nonsense that is thoroughly usseless in the context of this discussion is the WHAT.

It seems like you have great difficulty differentiating the how and the what actually. Curious.

perception is nothing without reason, or categorizing or language and vise versa.

 

[Tucker Case]

Except there is an objevtive reality out there that causes those sensations, that's the difference between that and morality.

The objective reality doesn't cause those sensations. There is nothing, nothing, objective about the color green. that is not an opinion statement, it is a fact.

Because it's common sense.

What an incredibly stupid argument to support your logical position.

Now, for ****s and giggles, do you base your assumption that you possess common sense on common sense as well?

If objective morality does exist morals could be non arbitrary

False. you cannot base your reasoning on something that cannot be perceived or understood.

...all morality is arbitrary and meaningless ...

OK if that's what you want to believe. The response is "so?"

So what?

Your arguments are confusing the two terms by treating them as interchangeable.

Either way there is some objective reality there, but laws have nothing to do with morality, legal code isn't "you should or shouldn't" do something, it's the government says you must or must not do something or you'll go to prison.

Society is saying you "should or should not" do something by granting the government the ability to regulate that behavior. If you ask "why does this law exist" the answer is invariably "Because society believes that such and such behavior should not occur".

Laws exist to prevent or motivate behaviors. If one sees it as important to prevent or motivate a behavior, it means they beleive that the behavior should not or should be engaged in.

Doesn't mean that it isn't either ....

I have clearly indicated that both possibilities exist. It has only been you who has said that only one possibility exists. I'm not the one making an absolute claim.

Yes but there is an objective reality, that we measure ... and then interprate as warm or cold .... That is the difference between that and morality.

That is no different than morality. Morality is our subjective interpretations about objective reality. If I stab someone in the face with a sword, that is the objective reality. People then interpret that behavior as either "good" or "bad", much like how we interpret a temperature as cold or hot.

You do not have any problem with the arbitrary aspects of the temperature scale we utilize, so why do you have a problem with any aspect of morality being arbitrary. Does the fact that a "degree Fahrenheit" is a totally arbitrary measure of thermal energy that is only agreed upon by convention make it a 100% arbitrary measure of thermal energy?

That idea I got from logic

then you are doing it wrong.

if there is NO OBJECTIVE FACT OF THE MATTER about any moral question it's impossible to reason out answers to moral questions, because its all 100% subjective,

Nonsense. You do it everyday.

all logic requires premises that are based on some objective reality, you cannot have that with morality.

Here's an example of a subjective premise "I believe that what is "good" or "bad" is determined by it's effect on overall happiness". (the "I believe" is often left out of these opinion statements to give the illusion that it is objective truth, but that illusion is pure mental masturbation)

That subjective opinion is an objective reality about the individual who holds that opinion. And it is that particular subjective opinion upon which the entire ethical theory of Utilitarianism is based. From there, you make determinations ABOUT reality. The ethical theory is based on a subjective opinion, though.

Once that subjective opinion becomes that individual's objective reality, it becomes the assumed prima facie premise in all of their logical arguments.

The fact that theorists have chosen to exclude the "I believe" portion of their premises has no bearing on the subjective nature of those premises. It is no more based on reality than saying 1 degree of temperature is based on reality. It is something which is either accepted by convention or it is not accepted by convention. (there's the whole "agreed upon by society" thing popping back into play).

No, what was in error was the thought that you could have any opinion...

Nonsense. Objective reality shows us that people formulate opinions upon a foundation of ignorance all the time. I was perfectly capable of having an opinion, as evdienced by the fact that I had an opinion.

Are you now rejecting objective reality in favor of your own opinion that I could not have an opinion? Seems incredibly stupid, given your stance here.

You havn't shown how they are different.

just because you have chosen not to see it does not mean it has not been shown.

...because for reason you'd need objectively measurable premises....

The premise "I believe that what is "good" or "bad" is determined by it's effect on overall happiness" is either true or it is not true in reality. :shrug:

It doesn't change my argument AT ALL.

There's the problem, then. If your goal is to have valid logical arguments, it should make a difference.

You don't have an argument, you're only arguemnt is an epistemological one, not an ontological one, and you refuse to accept the logical outcomes of your argument, that morality is 100% arbitrary and as arbitrary as liking ice cream flavors.

I refuse to accept your absurdly asinine claims about my argument, but that doesn't necessarily mean I refuse to accept the logical outcomes of my argument. I fully accept th elogicaloutcomes of my argument. I also fully accept the fact that you are not competent to determine those outcomes.

perception is nothing without reason, or categorizing or language and vise versa.

False. Just because you can say nonsense like this doesn't mean you should. Think before speaking. In this case, think about the fact that animals that are not capable of reason, or categorizing language and vice versa, are perfectly capable of perception. Even an amoeba is capable of perception. So perception is certainly something without "reason, or categorizing or language and vise versa" and not nothing without them.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Sure, there are different "dialects" in the "language" of morality. Yet the abovementioned Golden Rule did occur to the ancient Greeks, Hebrews, Chinese, Indians - in roughly the same form. Morality is NOT subjective.

Sorry, but it probably is. An objective morality would be very hard-pressed to stem from a non-higher power and well, hopefully you can finish the rest.

It is a direct, inescapable and universal derivative of human nature. We are sapient, we are in possession of free will, and we are social. We cannot deny either our rational potential or our instinctive urges, be it empathy or aggression,

Are you sure about the free will? From what I've kept up with, it's still hotly debated and no one has reached a solid answer. Are you sure you aren't confusing your beliefs with facts?

"good" or "bad".

... don't exist in nature.

We either self-destruct or come up with a set of rules.

What if we come up with a set of rules causing us to self-destruct?

A set of rules based on the objective features of human nature has better chances of survival than a bunch of disconnected religious taboos, or some fleeting "societal consensus".

What objective features?

 

[Cyrylek]

Sorry, but it probably is. An objective morality would be very hard-pressed to stem from a non-higher power and well, hopefully you can finish the rest.

Actually, I cannot. A morality stemming from a "higher power" never could be objective. The "higher power" tells you to do this, and not to do that, or else. No explanations. Pure subjectivity of the Big Bully (in reality - of his priestly "interpreters")

Are you sure about the free will? From what I've kept up with, it's still hotly debated and no one has reached a solid answer.

Why would anyone take people asserting that they are zombies seriously?

What if we come up with a set of rules causing us to self-destruct?

Then those are lousy rules. See "Moral Code of the Builder of Communism", for example

What objective features?

To save time: posts #134 and # 137 on this thread.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Actually, I cannot. A morality stemming from a "higher power" never could be objective. The "higher power" tells you to do this, and not to do that, or else. No explanations. Pure subjectivity of the Big Bully (in reality - of his preistly "interpreters")

If there was a supreme, omnipotent being (a "god") then it would be objective due to his omnipotence.

Why would anyone take people asserting that they are zombies seriously?

Poor metaphor. Try again.

Then those are lousy rules. See "Moral Code of the Builder of Communism", for example

Then that's a subjective set of rules. :roflamo:

To save time: posts #134 and # 137 on this thread.

That's too far back. That's what she said.

 

[Cyrylek]

If there was a supreme, omnipotent being (a "god") then it would be objective due to his omnipotence. ]

It wouldn't be any more objective. Because omnipotence doesn't mean being able to rewrite all and any rules of nature and logic at will - it means only full capacity to follow those rules. Whether this capacity is realized in "God" or not is an open question.

To give moral commands, "God" has to show first that He is good. (Like, not Satan pretending to be Him, or something). Which means - there is "good" and "not-good" quite apart from His Divine Authority.

Poor metaphor. Try again.

All metaphors are poor. Lower middle class at best. There was a discussion on that topic recently, on another thread:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philosophical-discussions/152228-free-4.html (my two cents: #38).

 

[Harshaw]

Because omnipotence doesn't mean being able to rewrite all and any rules of nature and logic at will - it means only full capacity to follow those rules.

No, actually, omnipotence means being all-powerful, which includes defining the rules.