|
On May 12 2011 02:23 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 02:09 Suisen wrote:
Ooh god, I am shocked by the responses so far.
If they learned the content of the Sam Harris video and the result of the Chomsky vs Foucault debate in school, maybe we would live in a better world.
How can we have a moral and successful society if people believe any system of morals is equal to any other system you can conceive of? Because that is what subjective morality means.
There are good answers and bad answers, people. Just because it isn't all crisp clear to us yet doesn't mean it is subjective.
Except there are no good or bad answers... Only "your" answers and "my" answers. That's the whole point of this discussion. Just because you feel your morality should be the criteria for everyone on the planet doesn't make it so. People use simplistic arguments about things like rape, because damn near everyone agrees with them. The real arguments are found in issues people disagree on, like morality towards animals to insects, the death penalty, euthanasia and so on... Show nested quote +Someone's daughter gets raped. One response and one that is commonly seen in more primitive societies, is for the father/brothers to kill her out of shame. You think that is a perfectly fine response? Do you think that in their society the answer is different than in ours? Obviously, in our society that solution doesn't result in anything anyone would consider 'good'. But does it in theirs? No. Even in their society this is a damaging act. So why isn't it objectively immoral? You tell me why.
Because "objectivity" means more than a consensus of subjective individuals.
Your initial assertion shows that good and bad are not even defined in a way that is relevant to our existence. If you truly believe there are zero truths to be known about morality then you have to accept the fact that my answer to the question of morality is 'lamp' and that answer is equally valid to anything anyone could possibly say. (Upon any level of analysis it becomes painfully obvious that this is not true). Furthermore, good and bad by definition have to apply to our existence in a relevant way and once you define them, then you acknowledge that there are facts to be known about morality.
|
On May 12 2011 01:59 Acrofales wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 12 2011 01:30 adun12345 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 00:53 Acrofales wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 12 2011 00:07 adun12345 wrote:On May 11 2011 23:42 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 23:18 adun12345 wrote:On May 11 2011 23:09 Acrofales wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 11 2011 22:18 adun12345 wrote:
or you have to believe that it was wrong solely on the basis that you personally believe that it was wrong. No. There is a third option without reverting to an "objective" morality: the predominant belief in your society is that it is wrong. In this case "your society" refers to the majority of the world. This is how we have an International Court of Justice and the Geneva Conventions, because the majority of the world population came together and set down a list of rules that should not be broken. However, if the majority view of the world population changes, there is a good chance we will readdress issues in International Law and other such treaties, just as countries update their internal laws as the time goes on (and individuals adjust their behaviour as they go through life: as a teenager I might have thought it acceptable to not pay a metro ticket, whereas now I frown on this behaviour). This is admittedly an option, but it fails to explain why I, as a rational individual, ought to behave according to the rules of society. Can pure ethics provide any rationale for why I shouldn't do this? By what authority can the global community judge me? More sympathetically, what if the majority decides for something with which you personally disagree? Suppose the majority of the world decided that slavery was an acceptable institution - would you be wrong for disagreeing with them? Individually-centric pure ethics would say of course not - you generate your own ethics, and damn anyone who says otherwise. However, community-centric ethics would say of course - you are magically beholden to conform your own personal behavior to the whims of the majority. In short, although you are right that there is a third option, I fail to see how this option is more consistent, or more appealing. I think my earlier post makes sense of that. Your personal code of ethics can obviously differ significantly from the majority view (for instance, fundamental moslims in -lets say- china), although human evolution has hardcoded some ways of thinking into us and it would be extreme to break a rule given by this way of thinking. Even so, there is nothing "wrong" with that, unless you break some code of ethics which has been turned into legal code, in which case you will suffer the consequences (if caught). The same for your example: if you decide it is ethically okay to slaughter 800,000 unarmed people with machetes (or jews with a gas chamber, tutsis with machine guns or kurds with mustard gas, to name some real examples) then you are welcome to do so, but don't be surprised when the large majority of people who don't share your code of ethics cry out in rage and subject you to a fitting punishment (try you for crimes against humanity most likely). As for your other example: if the majority population decides to revert back to the idea that slavery is ethical you are welcome to disagree with it (just as Thomas More did, except as a form of punishment for criminals, in the 15th century), just don't expect to achieve anything or even be judged to have the moral highground (except perhaps in the eyes of a future civilization when slavery has been abolished once again). Community-centered ethics are what rules and laws are built around. Person-centered ethics are subsequent rules you personally decide to live your life by. If these conflict significantly with community-centered ethics there is a large chance you will be a social outcast, or tried as a criminal. However there is no ethical system which is inherently right or wrong, which is what an objective morality states. The universe at large does not impose some set of morals which must be adhered to, however the underlying laws of the universe do impose some restrictions on what sets of morals lead to a viable society (if wholesale slaughter is seen as ethical, the society runs a large risk of extinguishing itself). All of that is besides my real question, though: by what right does society impose its ethical norms upon the individual? The very difference between a law and an ethical standard is that a law only has a negative aspect - obey or be punished - while an ethical standard also has a positive aspect ("it is good to act ethically"). If one seeks to depend entirely on the negative aspect, then one is no longer actually discussing pure ethics - rather, one has moved over into the realm of "legalism," in which the law is the ultimate and final arbiter of all. The difficulty I still have with pure ethics is from whence the positive aspect of communal ethics emerges (it is good to act ethically). From an objective morality standpoint, I support the statement "it is good to act ethically" in so far as the ethics in question adhere to my understanding of the general objective moral principles, because it is good to act morally (and thus, ethically). From a pure ethics standpoint, I cannot see how one can say "it is good to act ethically." Why is this the case? What positive argument is there to be made for this position (distinct from the negative argument of, "because otherwise you will be punished")? I have just watched the TED talk by Sam Harris posted earlier. I somewhat agree with him, but not so much with his examples. I think a good moral system (more on this later) is more to be grounded in evolution and the sociology of a society, whereas his idea is that it is a system for maximizing human happiness. However, there is a fundamental flaw in this: I have seen a lot of poverty when traveling in Africa, yet these people were extremely friendly, hospitable and above all happy. Brainscans aside, I believe people can find happiness in the most apalling conditions (and similarly, others find misery in the most ideal situations) and thus maximizing individual happiness seems like a bad benchmark for deciding whether a code of ethics is "good" or "bad". As the interviewer after Sam Harris' talk mentioned: women wearing burkas in Afghanistan are often genuinely satisfied by the fact that they have to wear a burka. Now you can refer to their deluded belief system, but who are we to say (as Sam Harris did) that their belief system is deluded? For that reason I feel that the only "judge" of a code of ethics is: 1. our personal code of ethics (and thus majority rules) 2. time (if a code of ethics of a society is sufficiently bad, that society will dwindle under its weight) Our personal code of ethics is partially inspired by our biology. We feel empathy, which instills in us a want for others not to experience what we would not to experience ourselves. For most this results in rules such as: 1. do not kill (because we don't want to die) 2. do not steal (because we don't want to be stolen from) 3. do not rape (because we don't want to be raped) 4. do not oppress (because we don't want to be oppressed) Thus resulting in strong disapproval of people who slaughter 800,000 civilians with machetes, people who condone slavery, etc. Note that I am not speaking about an individual who knows it is wrong to kill his opponents, but, in his thirst to maintain power does so anyway, but people who feel genuinely morally justified in their homicidal tendencies. If a majority of your society has convinced itself that jews are not really people, gas chambers are a possible result. Similarly for black people (or just people who were beaten in war) and slavery. That in modern times we look back on history and judge these as gross aberrations and lack of ethics is simply because you and I do[\i] empathize with jews and blacks. However, the same still continues, with Osama bin Laden justifying wholescale slaughter of civilians in the twin towers in a similar manner and equally radical bible thumping protestants declaiming the Islam as a dangerous and inferior religion and thus worthy of eradication. I judge both viewpoints as wrong (or even evil) because I do feel empathy towards americans, respectively moslims, but have to acknowledge that there is no universal code that makes me right and them wrong. All of which is perfectly fine, in as far as it goes. However, to simply say "I believe that al Qaeda is wrong, but I recognize that there is no universal objective code that makes me right and them wrong" still does not answer the basic question: do we as a society have a right to force individuals who believe in al Qaeda's ethical code to abide by our ethical code? I don't want to immediately discount the answer "no," but I would also like to point out that we as a society nonetheless have taken action to enforce our ethical standards on members of al Qaeda, just as we have with many other divergent viewpoints. The question here is, is our attempt to enforce our ethical views on others at all justified? It seems to me that the viewpoint above will forever be limited to only judging one's own personal behavior, or to arbitrarily attempting to enforce one's own viewpoints on others [i]even though one knows that these viewpoints are entirely subjective. Well, there's the question of tribalism to consider here as well. We as "western" society want to protect our "western" way of life. Whether or not this is morally justifiable is kinda beside the point, even though there will be many people saying that we are not just protecting our lifestyle, but also a higher moral standard or some such bollocks  Whether we are morally justified in attempting to spread our code of ethics to the rest of the planet is thus irrelevant (if not deeply flawed in the very asking): it is a very good tactic for protecting our code of ethics from destruction (by proponents of other codes of ethics, such as al Quaeda's). + Show Spoiler +Show nested quote +Some part of it is built into us biologically. I can highly recommend Richard Dawkin's work as an illuminating read on where concepts such as altruism can come from, if not from a higher power. One clue is that we feel genuine pleasure from helping somebody in the street who we have no selfish reason to help. Our brain's reward system kicks in to give us a selfish reason for doing a "good deed". This alone should give us an indication that (societies of) humans feeling pleasure from helping other humans somehow had a leg up over (societies of) non-altruistic humans in the battle for survival. A possible reason for this is given in "The Selfish Gene", which, although quite old now, still rings true (although the end on memetics is pure speculation). As an aside, the great difficulty I have with Dawkin's work is that he takes the above example (the brain rewards us for altruism) and therefore concludes that there is no God (I just can't fathom the logic of "Chemicals in the brain reward us for altruism, therefore there is no God;" I always feel like there are a couple of steps missing in that logic) - although his science is generally sound, his philosophy is simply abysmal (and his conflating of philosophy and science rather unforgivable, both from a scientific and philosophical standpoint). Agreed. Despite being an atheist I would've preferred if he hadn't tried to mix and merge. However, the science part says that we are capable of explaining altruism without a higher power, which is the interesting part! + Show Spoiler +However, a full discussion of my opinions on the soundness of Dawkin's work would take us wildly off-topic, so instead let's focus on the specific question of brain chemistry. For the question of morality, it would seem to me that this example provides perhaps more evidence for objective morality than it does for pure ethics. The premise is that all human begins are genetically hard-wired to respond to certain thoughts or actions in certain ways through the common evolutionary experiences of our ancestors. If we accept that judgments of "right" and "wrong" have a certain objective basis in human brain chemistry, then that would seem to support the concept that there are certain objective standards by which human behavior can be judged right or wrong that exist beyond either the the rational, creative effort of the individual consciousness or the quasi-democratic zeitgeist of society.
One might further induce the broader origins of this brain-chemical level reaction by suggesting that it reflects the will of a higher power, but this induction is not really necessary to suggest that there are certain standards of behavior (vague though they might be) shared by all human beings that exist beyond the ethical realm of reason and society. Well, there are some rules which are biologically programmed into us (and others which are socially programmed into us). However, this is hardly a definition of an objective moral code. Female praying mantises have it biologically hardcoded to eat their mates after sex: is this an objective moral code of praying mantises? If so, then moral code is species dependent. What if we evolve over a couple of thousand years into two species: a ruler human and a slave human (see plenty of distopian scifi books for similar examples, including the seminal brave new world (huxley) and the time machine (wells)): would slavery be morally justified by biology then? If we accept that "right" and "wrong" have a bias in human brain chemistry, then we have not decided it's objective, just species-wide. However, biological programming can also be overcome, just as social programming can. In the end a personal code of ethics is an amalgamy of biological, social and personal influences. That's why many people (and societies) consider it morally wrong to cheat on your husband/wife, despite there being a biological drive to do so. Following your instincts is thus not always considered ethical!
Once again, I'm not entirely convinced by the argument that the only reason we impose our ethical system on al Qaeda is because it is convenient for the survival of our ethical system (although that is, admittedly, an advantage). On these grounds, the only reason my society would ever intervene anywhere is because of a direct threat to my ethical structure - that is, an individual who wanted to force their ethics onto me.
That fails to provide any justification for, say, intervening in Rwanda in 1994 - their society, their rules. And yet, that is not how most people here would react. Instead, I believe most would claim that the genocide in Rwanda was wrong, and that action should have been taken to save innocent lives. And my question is: how does one reconcile the proposition of pure ethics (in that individuals or societies develop their own subjective ethical systems) with the position that international action against the genocide in Rwanda would have been correct? As far as I can tell, either one must admit that there is no good reason to intervene and impose one's ethics on another group, or one must claim that, by some extra-ethical standards, one's own ethics are superior to those of the genocidaires.
Maybe those rules are genetically-dictated by the brain chemistry that emerged from our shared evolutionary experiences. Maybe those rules are the result of a natural law written on our souls at the moment of creation by an all-mighty God. Maybe the only rule is survival (a grim possibility, but a possibility nonetheless). But without some rules, without some standard by which we can evaluate ethical systems against each other, we have absolutely no way of judging the worth of one thought or action against another. Without that basis, without the ability to judge thoughts and actions, either implicitly or explicitly, against objective standards, I fail to see how any society can survive.
|
On May 12 2011 02:52 Zeri wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 02:23 jdseemoreglass wrote:On May 12 2011 02:09 Suisen wrote:
Ooh god, I am shocked by the responses so far.
If they learned the content of the Sam Harris video and the result of the Chomsky vs Foucault debate in school, maybe we would live in a better world.
How can we have a moral and successful society if people believe any system of morals is equal to any other system you can conceive of? Because that is what subjective morality means.
There are good answers and bad answers, people. Just because it isn't all crisp clear to us yet doesn't mean it is subjective.
Except there are no good or bad answers... Only "your" answers and "my" answers. That's the whole point of this discussion. Just because you feel your morality should be the criteria for everyone on the planet doesn't make it so. People use simplistic arguments about things like rape, because damn near everyone agrees with them. The real arguments are found in issues people disagree on, like morality towards animals to insects, the death penalty, euthanasia and so on... Someone's daughter gets raped. One response and one that is commonly seen in more primitive societies, is for the father/brothers to kill her out of shame. You think that is a perfectly fine response? Do you think that in their society the answer is different than in ours? Obviously, in our society that solution doesn't result in anything anyone would consider 'good'. But does it in theirs? No. Even in their society this is a damaging act. So why isn't it objectively immoral? You tell me why.
Because "objectivity" means more than a consensus of subjective individuals. Your initial assertion shows that good and bad are not even defined in a way that is relevant to our existence. If you truly believe there are zero truths to be known about morality then you have to accept the fact that my answer to the question of morality is 'lamp' and that answer is equally valid to anything anyone could possibly say. Furthermore, good and bad by definition have to apply to our existence in a relevant way and once you define them, then you acknowledge that there are facts to be known about morality.
Actually, once you define "good" and "bad" you are not acknowledging facts about morality, only facts about our definitions of the word, because objective morality does not exist. Strictly defining it is impossible since morality is dependent upon subjective human emotions. But even if we could strictly define it, it would only be making the defined criteria objective.
|
On May 12 2011 02:09 Suisen wrote:
Ooh god, I am shocked by the responses so far.
If they learned the content of the Sam Harris video and the result of the Chomsky vs Foucault debate in school, maybe we would live in a better world.
How can we have a moral and successful society if people believe any system of morals is equal to any other system you can conceive of? Because that is what subjective morality means.
There are good answers and bad answers, people. Just because it isn't all crisp clear to us yet doesn't mean it is subjective.
Someone's daughter gets raped. One response and one that is commonly seen in more primitive societies, is for the father/brothers to kill her out of shame. You think that is a perfectly fine response? Do you think that in their society the answer is different than in ours? Obviously, in our society that solution doesn't result in anything anyone would consider 'good'. But does it in theirs? No. Even in their society this is a damaging act. So why isn't it objectively immoral? You tell me why.
Do you mean the rape or the killing of the daughter?
In their society it can be considered a less damaging act to kill the daughter than let her live (even as in some of ours we apply that logic to the rapist, or the terminally ill.)
Avoiding misery is something that we as humans are biologically programmed to do, and as such seems good and objective. But humans are only biologically programmed to avoid their Own misery. The misery of others causes misery in us, but that means we can either
1. reduce the misery of others
2. isolate ourselves from those who are miserable
Both work, and both are therefore "moral" in the view of preventing misery in self (the bio programmed view). Different societies will then have to choose the most effective course in particular instances (help the miserable, or isolate the miserable)
Indeed the "ruler human" and "slave human" with appropriate evolution could also reduce misery.. If the slaves and rulers were programmed to be appropriately happy with their roles, and carried them out with the skills so as to increase human happiness/well being. (ie the rulers+slaves were effective)
|
Stop bringing up that Sam Harris talk, it's just silly. You're completely misunderstanding what he's saying. You can shorten his whole talk to 2 sentences:
- If we define the word "morality" as this one single idea I have (that avoiding suffering is moral).
- Then my specific definition of the word is objective and practical
That's cool. But that's only your own definition of morality. And clearly not everyone else's :O It's not universal. That's only your own opinion. Sam Harris is smart enough to understand this. He is NOT advocating morals are universal. All he's saying is that IF we all agree to morals being the same thing, then maybe science can quantify it and study it.
Again, Sam Harris is NOT arguing that morals are universal. Stop misinterpretating him.
|
On May 12 2011 03:00 VIB wrote:
Stop bringing up that Sam Harris talk, it's just silly. You're completely misunderstanding what he's saying. You can shorten his whole talk to 2 sentences:
- If we define the word "morality" as this one single idea I have (that avoiding suffering is moral).
- Then my specific definition of the word is objective and practical
That's cool. But that's only your own definition of morality. And clearly not everyone else's :O It's not universal. That's only your own opinion. Sam Harris is smart enough to understand this. He is NOT advocating morals are universal. All he's saying is that IF we all agree to morals being the same thing, then maybe science can quantify it and study it.
Again, Sam Harris is NOT arguing that morals are universal. Stop misinterpretating him.
In the past I've disagreed with 99% of the things you have said. This post is part of that 1% 
It's an important point to make. Morals are not universal. Even empathetic emotions are not universal. No matter how you cut it, morality is subjective.
|
On May 12 2011 02:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 02:52 Zeri wrote:On May 12 2011 02:23 jdseemoreglass wrote:On May 12 2011 02:09 Suisen wrote:
Ooh god, I am shocked by the responses so far.
If they learned the content of the Sam Harris video and the result of the Chomsky vs Foucault debate in school, maybe we would live in a better world.
How can we have a moral and successful society if people believe any system of morals is equal to any other system you can conceive of? Because that is what subjective morality means.
There are good answers and bad answers, people. Just because it isn't all crisp clear to us yet doesn't mean it is subjective.
Except there are no good or bad answers... Only "your" answers and "my" answers. That's the whole point of this discussion. Just because you feel your morality should be the criteria for everyone on the planet doesn't make it so. People use simplistic arguments about things like rape, because damn near everyone agrees with them. The real arguments are found in issues people disagree on, like morality towards animals to insects, the death penalty, euthanasia and so on... Someone's daughter gets raped. One response and one that is commonly seen in more primitive societies, is for the father/brothers to kill her out of shame. You think that is a perfectly fine response? Do you think that in their society the answer is different than in ours? Obviously, in our society that solution doesn't result in anything anyone would consider 'good'. But does it in theirs? No. Even in their society this is a damaging act. So why isn't it objectively immoral? You tell me why.
Because "objectivity" means more than a consensus of subjective individuals. Your initial assertion shows that good and bad are not even defined in a way that is relevant to our existence. If you truly believe there are zero truths to be known about morality then you have to accept the fact that my answer to the question of morality is 'lamp' and that answer is equally valid to anything anyone could possibly say. Furthermore, good and bad by definition have to apply to our existence in a relevant way and once you define them, then you acknowledge that there are facts to be known about morality. Actually, once you define "good" and "bad" you are not acknowledging facts about morality, only facts about our definitions of the word, because objective morality does not exist. Strictly defining it is impossible since morality is dependent upon subjective human emotions. But even if we could strictly define it, it would only be making the defined criteria objective.
If good and bad are defined in relation to our existence (as Sam Harris defines bad as 'the worst possible suffering for everyone') then every possible change in that experience can be related the 'bad' and therefore there can be facts learned about them. And a move towards 'bad' compared to a move towards 'good' is objectively bad.
|
On May 12 2011 03:10 Zeri wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 02:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:On May 12 2011 02:52 Zeri wrote:On May 12 2011 02:23 jdseemoreglass wrote:On May 12 2011 02:09 Suisen wrote:
Ooh god, I am shocked by the responses so far.
If they learned the content of the Sam Harris video and the result of the Chomsky vs Foucault debate in school, maybe we would live in a better world.
How can we have a moral and successful society if people believe any system of morals is equal to any other system you can conceive of? Because that is what subjective morality means.
There are good answers and bad answers, people. Just because it isn't all crisp clear to us yet doesn't mean it is subjective.
Except there are no good or bad answers... Only "your" answers and "my" answers. That's the whole point of this discussion. Just because you feel your morality should be the criteria for everyone on the planet doesn't make it so. People use simplistic arguments about things like rape, because damn near everyone agrees with them. The real arguments are found in issues people disagree on, like morality towards animals to insects, the death penalty, euthanasia and so on... Someone's daughter gets raped. One response and one that is commonly seen in more primitive societies, is for the father/brothers to kill her out of shame. You think that is a perfectly fine response? Do you think that in their society the answer is different than in ours? Obviously, in our society that solution doesn't result in anything anyone would consider 'good'. But does it in theirs? No. Even in their society this is a damaging act. So why isn't it objectively immoral? You tell me why.
Because "objectivity" means more than a consensus of subjective individuals. Your initial assertion shows that good and bad are not even defined in a way that is relevant to our existence. If you truly believe there are zero truths to be known about morality then you have to accept the fact that my answer to the question of morality is 'lamp' and that answer is equally valid to anything anyone could possibly say. Furthermore, good and bad by definition have to apply to our existence in a relevant way and once you define them, then you acknowledge that there are facts to be known about morality. Actually, once you define "good" and "bad" you are not acknowledging facts about morality, only facts about our definitions of the word, because objective morality does not exist. Strictly defining it is impossible since morality is dependent upon subjective human emotions. But even if we could strictly define it, it would only be making the defined criteria objective. If good and bad are defined in relation to our existence (as Sam Harris defines bad as 'the worst possible suffering for everyone') then every possible change in that experience can be related the 'bad' and therefore there can be facts learned about them. And a move towards 'bad' compared to a move towards 'good' is objectively bad.
But then those aren't facts learned about "Morality" they are facts learned about Suffering. Incredibly useful since many people
1. do believe that morality is about suffering.
2. are very motivated to avoid suffering.
But it doesn't answer the question... It just helps develop one of the possible answers.
|
On May 12 2011 03:00 VIB wrote:
Stop bringing up that Sam Harris talk, it's just silly. You're completely misunderstanding what he's saying. You can shorten his whole talk to 2 sentences:
- If we define the word "morality" as this one single idea I have (that avoiding suffering is moral).
- Then my specific definition of the word is objective and practical
That's cool. But that's only your own definition of morality. And clearly not everyone else's :O It's not universal. That's only your own opinion. Sam Harris is smart enough to understand this. He is NOT advocating morals are universal. All he's saying is that IF we all agree to morals being the same thing, then maybe science can quantify it and study it.
Again, Sam Harris is NOT arguing that morals are universal. Stop misinterpretating him.
You are missing one crucial point from Harris. Harris states many, many times (not in that specific talk, but in others and his book) that his definition of morality (avoiding suffering) is the only thing we can value. So don't be mistaken. Sam is genuinely arguing that morality is universal and objective.
|
Russian Federation905 Posts
Sorry my english first. but i want to say of morality that it is not outside to human.
It is not standard to everyone, or to divine. It is a choice. And effects of conditions which human grow. So it is useless when discussing how to define morality. Read Kant, he is already cleared this topic. It is very limit to discuss things as only A or B. My words is, People agree, and that is morality. If poeple suddenly agree rape and killing is ok, then that is new morality.
|
On May 12 2011 03:10 Zeri wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 02:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:On May 12 2011 02:52 Zeri wrote:On May 12 2011 02:23 jdseemoreglass wrote:On May 12 2011 02:09 Suisen wrote:
Ooh god, I am shocked by the responses so far.
If they learned the content of the Sam Harris video and the result of the Chomsky vs Foucault debate in school, maybe we would live in a better world.
How can we have a moral and successful society if people believe any system of morals is equal to any other system you can conceive of? Because that is what subjective morality means.
There are good answers and bad answers, people. Just because it isn't all crisp clear to us yet doesn't mean it is subjective.
Except there are no good or bad answers... Only "your" answers and "my" answers. That's the whole point of this discussion. Just because you feel your morality should be the criteria for everyone on the planet doesn't make it so. People use simplistic arguments about things like rape, because damn near everyone agrees with them. The real arguments are found in issues people disagree on, like morality towards animals to insects, the death penalty, euthanasia and so on... Someone's daughter gets raped. One response and one that is commonly seen in more primitive societies, is for the father/brothers to kill her out of shame. You think that is a perfectly fine response? Do you think that in their society the answer is different than in ours? Obviously, in our society that solution doesn't result in anything anyone would consider 'good'. But does it in theirs? No. Even in their society this is a damaging act. So why isn't it objectively immoral? You tell me why.
Because "objectivity" means more than a consensus of subjective individuals. Your initial assertion shows that good and bad are not even defined in a way that is relevant to our existence. If you truly believe there are zero truths to be known about morality then you have to accept the fact that my answer to the question of morality is 'lamp' and that answer is equally valid to anything anyone could possibly say. Furthermore, good and bad by definition have to apply to our existence in a relevant way and once you define them, then you acknowledge that there are facts to be known about morality. Actually, once you define "good" and "bad" you are not acknowledging facts about morality, only facts about our definitions of the word, because objective morality does not exist. Strictly defining it is impossible since morality is dependent upon subjective human emotions. But even if we could strictly define it, it would only be making the defined criteria objective. If good and bad are defined in relation to our existence (as Sam Harris defines bad as 'the worst possible suffering for everyone') then every possible change in that experience can be related the 'bad' and therefore there can be facts learned about them. And a move towards 'bad' compared to a move towards 'good' is objectively bad.
So we define bad as "the worst possible suffering for everyone." I've got news for you, this isn't some scientific breakthrough. It's called basic utilitarianism.
How do you define this suffering? How do you compare the suffering of one person at the cost of the suffering of another? Can their emotional responses be scientifically measured and quantified?
And does "everyone" include future generations as well? Suppose we go out and shoot every person with aids we can track down. In the long run such a policy would certainly move us towards "less suffering for everyone," and is therefore moral. Right?
And of course intentions have no place in this philosophy. If someone attempts to cause harm to people and then inadvertently causes good, is the person now behaving morally?
|
On May 12 2011 03:21 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 03:10 Zeri wrote:On May 12 2011 02:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:On May 12 2011 02:52 Zeri wrote:On May 12 2011 02:23 jdseemoreglass wrote:On May 12 2011 02:09 Suisen wrote:
Ooh god, I am shocked by the responses so far.
If they learned the content of the Sam Harris video and the result of the Chomsky vs Foucault debate in school, maybe we would live in a better world.
How can we have a moral and successful society if people believe any system of morals is equal to any other system you can conceive of? Because that is what subjective morality means.
There are good answers and bad answers, people. Just because it isn't all crisp clear to us yet doesn't mean it is subjective.
Except there are no good or bad answers... Only "your" answers and "my" answers. That's the whole point of this discussion. Just because you feel your morality should be the criteria for everyone on the planet doesn't make it so. People use simplistic arguments about things like rape, because damn near everyone agrees with them. The real arguments are found in issues people disagree on, like morality towards animals to insects, the death penalty, euthanasia and so on... Someone's daughter gets raped. One response and one that is commonly seen in more primitive societies, is for the father/brothers to kill her out of shame. You think that is a perfectly fine response? Do you think that in their society the answer is different than in ours? Obviously, in our society that solution doesn't result in anything anyone would consider 'good'. But does it in theirs? No. Even in their society this is a damaging act. So why isn't it objectively immoral? You tell me why.
Because "objectivity" means more than a consensus of subjective individuals. Your initial assertion shows that good and bad are not even defined in a way that is relevant to our existence. If you truly believe there are zero truths to be known about morality then you have to accept the fact that my answer to the question of morality is 'lamp' and that answer is equally valid to anything anyone could possibly say. Furthermore, good and bad by definition have to apply to our existence in a relevant way and once you define them, then you acknowledge that there are facts to be known about morality. Actually, once you define "good" and "bad" you are not acknowledging facts about morality, only facts about our definitions of the word, because objective morality does not exist. Strictly defining it is impossible since morality is dependent upon subjective human emotions. But even if we could strictly define it, it would only be making the defined criteria objective. If good and bad are defined in relation to our existence (as Sam Harris defines bad as 'the worst possible suffering for everyone') then every possible change in that experience can be related the 'bad' and therefore there can be facts learned about them. And a move towards 'bad' compared to a move towards 'good' is objectively bad. But then those aren't facts learned about "Morality" they are facts learned about Suffering. Incredibly useful since many people 1. do believe that morality is about suffering. 2. are very motivated to avoid suffering. But it doesn't answer the question... It just helps develop one of the possible answers.
As Harris would argue, there is no definition of Morality that is not reduce-able to a claim about conscious experience and its changes. And we understand these things through facts.
|
On May 12 2011 03:23 Zeri wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 03:00 VIB wrote:
Stop bringing up that Sam Harris talk, it's just silly. You're completely misunderstanding what he's saying. You can shorten his whole talk to 2 sentences:
- If we define the word "morality" as this one single idea I have (that avoiding suffering is moral).
- Then my specific definition of the word is objective and practical
That's cool. But that's only your own definition of morality. And clearly not everyone else's :O It's not universal. That's only your own opinion. Sam Harris is smart enough to understand this. He is NOT advocating morals are universal. All he's saying is that IF we all agree to morals being the same thing, then maybe science can quantify it and study it.
Again, Sam Harris is NOT arguing that morals are universal. Stop misinterpretating him. You are missing one crucial point from Harris. Harris states many, many times (not in that specific talk, but in others and his book) that his definition of morality (avoiding suffering) is the only thing we can value. So don't be mistaken. Sam is genuinely arguing that morality is universal and objective. How does
a) his definition of morality (avoiding suffering) is the only thing we can value
implies into
b) morality is universal and objective
???
His definition is practical for studying. But it's still HIS DEFINITION! If there are diferent definitions it's not universal!
|
On May 12 2011 03:25 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 03:10 Zeri wrote:On May 12 2011 02:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:On May 12 2011 02:52 Zeri wrote:On May 12 2011 02:23 jdseemoreglass wrote:On May 12 2011 02:09 Suisen wrote:
Ooh god, I am shocked by the responses so far.
If they learned the content of the Sam Harris video and the result of the Chomsky vs Foucault debate in school, maybe we would live in a better world.
How can we have a moral and successful society if people believe any system of morals is equal to any other system you can conceive of? Because that is what subjective morality means.
There are good answers and bad answers, people. Just because it isn't all crisp clear to us yet doesn't mean it is subjective.
Except there are no good or bad answers... Only "your" answers and "my" answers. That's the whole point of this discussion. Just because you feel your morality should be the criteria for everyone on the planet doesn't make it so. People use simplistic arguments about things like rape, because damn near everyone agrees with them. The real arguments are found in issues people disagree on, like morality towards animals to insects, the death penalty, euthanasia and so on... Someone's daughter gets raped. One response and one that is commonly seen in more primitive societies, is for the father/brothers to kill her out of shame. You think that is a perfectly fine response? Do you think that in their society the answer is different than in ours? Obviously, in our society that solution doesn't result in anything anyone would consider 'good'. But does it in theirs? No. Even in their society this is a damaging act. So why isn't it objectively immoral? You tell me why.
Because "objectivity" means more than a consensus of subjective individuals. Your initial assertion shows that good and bad are not even defined in a way that is relevant to our existence. If you truly believe there are zero truths to be known about morality then you have to accept the fact that my answer to the question of morality is 'lamp' and that answer is equally valid to anything anyone could possibly say. Furthermore, good and bad by definition have to apply to our existence in a relevant way and once you define them, then you acknowledge that there are facts to be known about morality. Actually, once you define "good" and "bad" you are not acknowledging facts about morality, only facts about our definitions of the word, because objective morality does not exist. Strictly defining it is impossible since morality is dependent upon subjective human emotions. But even if we could strictly define it, it would only be making the defined criteria objective. If good and bad are defined in relation to our existence (as Sam Harris defines bad as 'the worst possible suffering for everyone') then every possible change in that experience can be related the 'bad' and therefore there can be facts learned about them. And a move towards 'bad' compared to a move towards 'good' is objectively bad. So we define bad as "the worst possible suffering for everyone." I've got news for you, this isn't some scientific breakthrough. It's called basic utilitarianism. How do you define this suffering? How do you compare the suffering of one person at the cost of the suffering of another? Can their emotional responses be scientifically measured and quantified? And does "everyone" include future generations as well? Suppose we go out and shoot every person with aids we can track down. In the long run such a policy would certainly move us towards "less suffering for everyone," and is therefore moral. Right? And of course intentions have no place in this philosophy. If someone attempts to cause harm to people and then inadvertently causes good, is the person now behaving morally?
I'm just retyping the views of Harris because I think they are worth noting in this discussion. Harris answers that question directly (almost word for word) in the original talk posted with him and Dawkins. Its at around minute 35. In his view, a purely utilitarian argument doesn't provide enough foresight as to what counts as a consequence. Clearly killing everyone with aids is a bad idea, (their loved ones would be devastated, anyone showing symptoms of aids would live in constant fear etc, etc.) Harris's points do not advocate strict utilitarianism in the classic sense.
|
On May 12 2011 03:33 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 03:23 Zeri wrote:On May 12 2011 03:00 VIB wrote:
Stop bringing up that Sam Harris talk, it's just silly. You're completely misunderstanding what he's saying. You can shorten his whole talk to 2 sentences:
- If we define the word "morality" as this one single idea I have (that avoiding suffering is moral).
- Then my specific definition of the word is objective and practical
That's cool. But that's only your own definition of morality. And clearly not everyone else's :O It's not universal. That's only your own opinion. Sam Harris is smart enough to understand this. He is NOT advocating morals are universal. All he's saying is that IF we all agree to morals being the same thing, then maybe science can quantify it and study it.
Again, Sam Harris is NOT arguing that morals are universal. Stop misinterpretating him. You are missing one crucial point from Harris. Harris states many, many times (not in that specific talk, but in others and his book) that his definition of morality (avoiding suffering) is the only thing we can value. So don't be mistaken. Sam is genuinely arguing that morality is universal and objective. How does a) his definition of morality (avoiding suffering) is the only thing we can valueimplies into b) morality is universal and objective ??? His definition is practical for studying. But it's still HIS DEFINITION! If there are diferent definitions it's not universal!
Well hes asserting that IF there EXISTS a definition, then it HAS to be his, otherwise it does NOT have a definition. This is different than morality having a DIFFERENT definition.
|
On May 12 2011 03:41 Zeri wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 03:33 VIB wrote:On May 12 2011 03:23 Zeri wrote:On May 12 2011 03:00 VIB wrote:
Stop bringing up that Sam Harris talk, it's just silly. You're completely misunderstanding what he's saying. You can shorten his whole talk to 2 sentences:
- If we define the word "morality" as this one single idea I have (that avoiding suffering is moral).
- Then my specific definition of the word is objective and practical
That's cool. But that's only your own definition of morality. And clearly not everyone else's :O It's not universal. That's only your own opinion. Sam Harris is smart enough to understand this. He is NOT advocating morals are universal. All he's saying is that IF we all agree to morals being the same thing, then maybe science can quantify it and study it.
Again, Sam Harris is NOT arguing that morals are universal. Stop misinterpretating him. You are missing one crucial point from Harris. Harris states many, many times (not in that specific talk, but in others and his book) that his definition of morality (avoiding suffering) is the only thing we can value. So don't be mistaken. Sam is genuinely arguing that morality is universal and objective. How does a) his definition of morality (avoiding suffering) is the only thing we can valueimplies into b) morality is universal and objective ??? His definition is practical for studying. But it's still HIS DEFINITION! If there are diferent definitions it's not universal! Well hes asserting that IF there EXISTS a definition, then it HAS to be his, otherwise it does NOT have a definition. This is different than morality having a DIFFERENT definition. That's semantics. The whole point is there is no definition. Morality doesn't exist. Men made it up.
|
On May 12 2011 03:44 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 03:41 Zeri wrote:On May 12 2011 03:33 VIB wrote:On May 12 2011 03:23 Zeri wrote:On May 12 2011 03:00 VIB wrote:
Stop bringing up that Sam Harris talk, it's just silly. You're completely misunderstanding what he's saying. You can shorten his whole talk to 2 sentences:
- If we define the word "morality" as this one single idea I have (that avoiding suffering is moral).
- Then my specific definition of the word is objective and practical
That's cool. But that's only your own definition of morality. And clearly not everyone else's :O It's not universal. That's only your own opinion. Sam Harris is smart enough to understand this. He is NOT advocating morals are universal. All he's saying is that IF we all agree to morals being the same thing, then maybe science can quantify it and study it.
Again, Sam Harris is NOT arguing that morals are universal. Stop misinterpretating him. You are missing one crucial point from Harris. Harris states many, many times (not in that specific talk, but in others and his book) that his definition of morality (avoiding suffering) is the only thing we can value. So don't be mistaken. Sam is genuinely arguing that morality is universal and objective. How does a) his definition of morality (avoiding suffering) is the only thing we can valueimplies into b) morality is universal and objective ??? His definition is practical for studying. But it's still HIS DEFINITION! If there are diferent definitions it's not universal! Well hes asserting that IF there EXISTS a definition, then it HAS to be his, otherwise it does NOT have a definition. This is different than morality having a DIFFERENT definition. That's semantics. The whole point is there is no definition. Morality doesn't exist. Men made it up.
Its made up in the same sense that our idea of 'health' is made up. Yes, we used what knowledge we have to come up with a working definition of 'healthy' but in 100 years we could learn that we were completely and absolutely wrong about our own health. Does this mean that all definitions and all possible notions of what everyone considers health are equally valid? No.
EDIT - I feel like we agree on 99% of this. Your view on Harris is spot on, modulo his emphasis why his definition is better, and why it has to be better than others.
|
I think morality is both subjective and objective, although I think those definitions of subjective and objective are poorly formed.
Morality is subjective in the sense that the unique circumstances of each person determine what values, moral principles, and duties are relevant to guiding that persons actions (so morality cannot be universally codified). I also think that each persons moral beliefs are subjective, because beliefs are subjective.
Morality is objective, since some moral beliefs are wrong (Its better to be cowardly than courageous) and some are right (Intelligence is preferable to dullness).
I think the objectivity of morality is easier to recognize if we set aside interpersonal cases of moral disagreement and focus on moral disagreement we've had with ourselves (cases where we've deliberated about some moral belief, then changed our minds). When we decide we were wrong about some moral belief, we often recognize there's a reason we were wrong. Our past moral beliefs weren't wrong merely because we changed our minds. They were wrong for some reason, and that reason exists whether or not we recognize it.
An example: I used to think it was appropriate to make fun of a friend for a particular shortcoming. I thought it was up to him to change his flaw or toughen up. But then I realized I was being harsh and insensitive and decided to stop. Making fun of my friend was wrong when I was doing it, even though I believed it was right.
I think the definition of objective is poorly formed because facts can be true even if not universally true. Facts can be true for brief periods of time or only in certain places (facts about speed or the best NA SC2 player).
I think the definition of subjective is poorly formed because it conflates morality and moral beliefs. The fact that we change our minds about morality suggests that the two are distinct.
|
On May 12 2011 03:39 Zeri wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 03:25 jdseemoreglass wrote:On May 12 2011 03:10 Zeri wrote:On May 12 2011 02:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:On May 12 2011 02:52 Zeri wrote:On May 12 2011 02:23 jdseemoreglass wrote:On May 12 2011 02:09 Suisen wrote:
Ooh god, I am shocked by the responses so far.
If they learned the content of the Sam Harris video and the result of the Chomsky vs Foucault debate in school, maybe we would live in a better world.
How can we have a moral and successful society if people believe any system of morals is equal to any other system you can conceive of? Because that is what subjective morality means.
There are good answers and bad answers, people. Just because it isn't all crisp clear to us yet doesn't mean it is subjective.
Except there are no good or bad answers... Only "your" answers and "my" answers. That's the whole point of this discussion. Just because you feel your morality should be the criteria for everyone on the planet doesn't make it so. People use simplistic arguments about things like rape, because damn near everyone agrees with them. The real arguments are found in issues people disagree on, like morality towards animals to insects, the death penalty, euthanasia and so on... Someone's daughter gets raped. One response and one that is commonly seen in more primitive societies, is for the father/brothers to kill her out of shame. You think that is a perfectly fine response? Do you think that in their society the answer is different than in ours? Obviously, in our society that solution doesn't result in anything anyone would consider 'good'. But does it in theirs? No. Even in their society this is a damaging act. So why isn't it objectively immoral? You tell me why.
Because "objectivity" means more than a consensus of subjective individuals. Your initial assertion shows that good and bad are not even defined in a way that is relevant to our existence. If you truly believe there are zero truths to be known about morality then you have to accept the fact that my answer to the question of morality is 'lamp' and that answer is equally valid to anything anyone could possibly say. Furthermore, good and bad by definition have to apply to our existence in a relevant way and once you define them, then you acknowledge that there are facts to be known about morality. Actually, once you define "good" and "bad" you are not acknowledging facts about morality, only facts about our definitions of the word, because objective morality does not exist. Strictly defining it is impossible since morality is dependent upon subjective human emotions. But even if we could strictly define it, it would only be making the defined criteria objective. If good and bad are defined in relation to our existence (as Sam Harris defines bad as 'the worst possible suffering for everyone') then every possible change in that experience can be related the 'bad' and therefore there can be facts learned about them. And a move towards 'bad' compared to a move towards 'good' is objectively bad. So we define bad as "the worst possible suffering for everyone." I've got news for you, this isn't some scientific breakthrough. It's called basic utilitarianism. How do you define this suffering? How do you compare the suffering of one person at the cost of the suffering of another? Can their emotional responses be scientifically measured and quantified? And does "everyone" include future generations as well? Suppose we go out and shoot every person with aids we can track down. In the long run such a policy would certainly move us towards "less suffering for everyone," and is therefore moral. Right? And of course intentions have no place in this philosophy. If someone attempts to cause harm to people and then inadvertently causes good, is the person now behaving morally? I'm just retyping the views of Harris because I think they are worth noting in this discussion. Harris answers that question directly (almost word for word) in the original talk posted with him and Dawkins. Its at around minute 35. In his view, a purely utilitarian argument doesn't provide enough foresight as to what counts as a consequence. Clearly killing everyone with aids is a bad idea, (their loved ones would be devastated, anyone showing symptoms of aids would live in constant fear etc, etc.) Harris's points do not advocate strict utilitarianism in the classic sense.
And what if i say that i do not care if everyone with aids would be killed. I do not know anyone with aids so why would i care? And then there is no more aids in the world, Jay!
|
On May 12 2011 03:51 Vain wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 03:39 Zeri wrote:On May 12 2011 03:25 jdseemoreglass wrote:On May 12 2011 03:10 Zeri wrote:On May 12 2011 02:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:On May 12 2011 02:52 Zeri wrote:On May 12 2011 02:23 jdseemoreglass wrote:On May 12 2011 02:09 Suisen wrote:
Ooh god, I am shocked by the responses so far.
If they learned the content of the Sam Harris video and the result of the Chomsky vs Foucault debate in school, maybe we would live in a better world.
How can we have a moral and successful society if people believe any system of morals is equal to any other system you can conceive of? Because that is what subjective morality means.
There are good answers and bad answers, people. Just because it isn't all crisp clear to us yet doesn't mean it is subjective.
Except there are no good or bad answers... Only "your" answers and "my" answers. That's the whole point of this discussion. Just because you feel your morality should be the criteria for everyone on the planet doesn't make it so. People use simplistic arguments about things like rape, because damn near everyone agrees with them. The real arguments are found in issues people disagree on, like morality towards animals to insects, the death penalty, euthanasia and so on... Someone's daughter gets raped. One response and one that is commonly seen in more primitive societies, is for the father/brothers to kill her out of shame. You think that is a perfectly fine response? Do you think that in their society the answer is different than in ours? Obviously, in our society that solution doesn't result in anything anyone would consider 'good'. But does it in theirs? No. Even in their society this is a damaging act. So why isn't it objectively immoral? You tell me why.
Because "objectivity" means more than a consensus of subjective individuals. Your initial assertion shows that good and bad are not even defined in a way that is relevant to our existence. If you truly believe there are zero truths to be known about morality then you have to accept the fact that my answer to the question of morality is 'lamp' and that answer is equally valid to anything anyone could possibly say. Furthermore, good and bad by definition have to apply to our existence in a relevant way and once you define them, then you acknowledge that there are facts to be known about morality. Actually, once you define "good" and "bad" you are not acknowledging facts about morality, only facts about our definitions of the word, because objective morality does not exist. Strictly defining it is impossible since morality is dependent upon subjective human emotions. But even if we could strictly define it, it would only be making the defined criteria objective. If good and bad are defined in relation to our existence (as Sam Harris defines bad as 'the worst possible suffering for everyone') then every possible change in that experience can be related the 'bad' and therefore there can be facts learned about them. And a move towards 'bad' compared to a move towards 'good' is objectively bad. So we define bad as "the worst possible suffering for everyone." I've got news for you, this isn't some scientific breakthrough. It's called basic utilitarianism. How do you define this suffering? How do you compare the suffering of one person at the cost of the suffering of another? Can their emotional responses be scientifically measured and quantified? And does "everyone" include future generations as well? Suppose we go out and shoot every person with aids we can track down. In the long run such a policy would certainly move us towards "less suffering for everyone," and is therefore moral. Right? And of course intentions have no place in this philosophy. If someone attempts to cause harm to people and then inadvertently causes good, is the person now behaving morally? I'm just retyping the views of Harris because I think they are worth noting in this discussion. Harris answers that question directly (almost word for word) in the original talk posted with him and Dawkins. Its at around minute 35. In his view, a purely utilitarian argument doesn't provide enough foresight as to what counts as a consequence. Clearly killing everyone with aids is a bad idea, (their loved ones would be devastated, anyone showing symptoms of aids would live in constant fear etc, etc.) Harris's points do not advocate strict utilitarianism in the classic sense. And what if i say that i do not care if everyone with aids would be killed. I do not know anyone with aids so why would i care? And then there is no more aids in the world, Jay!
Well, its about human well being on the global scale, not just you. Furthermore, if you truly are only looking out for your own immediate joy, why are you doing anything except having lots and lots of sex, eating, taking ecstasy nonstop etc, etc?? Its because we know that there is greater happiness out there. To quote harris "the only way to be wisely selfish in this world is to genuinely care for others"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
