|
|
|
On May 12 2011 03:48 Zeri wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 03:44 VIB wrote: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. There's a practical use for naming things. But that doesn't mean what we named is that what we named. It doesn't mean it exist  Something can be wrong, and still have a good practical scientific use. We know today that newton's movement laws are wrong. But we still use it to calculate how to build buildings. It has a practical use. The building is standing up, even tho you used something that doesn't exist to get there.
I'm saying morals doesn't exist. It's definition is not universal. People will disagree to a common universal moral. It's not universal. I'm not saying that there isn't a practical use for trying to find a scientific definition for morality (what Harris is doing). Maybe it does have a practical use. I'm not convinced, but it's plausible that there might be one 
|
On May 12 2011 02:58 adun12345 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Heh, our little slowchat here in the middle of the thread is far more interesting than the thread at large 
Your second paragraph sounds a lot like what Zeri is quoting Sam Harris about. I would firstly argue that where morality comes from is essential to the discussion. An objective morality imposed by a higher being would have a right and wrong answer to any ethical question, namely, the answer given by the divine being. Any ambiguous question of morality (such as philosophers are really good at dreaming up) would thus have a correct answer and our task is to find out what it is. We have <insert divine scripture here> to guide us in this quest, but often it's still just guess work and common sense.
However, if with "objective morality" you mean morality as defined by Sam Harris, it is fluid and defined by making the "least bad choice". As such, we should tally up the "human suffering" (however you want to measure that) from each choice and the choice that results in the least suffering is the right choice. This can change over time (for instance, abortion of babies with genetical defects might be good now, but as medical science improves we could cure genetical defects and abortion would be bad) and is thus not really objective: there is no universal morality.
Personally I believe in the third option you give: there is no objective morality, but morality IS genetically encoded to some extent, because it has helped humans, as a species (or maybe just societies of humans and it's group selection rather than gene selection), evolve. That is why an aversion for slaughter, rape, theft and some other things are fairly universal. However, opinions on abortion, euthanasia or capital punishment are so diverse throughout the world: they have had no (evolutionary) effect on the survival of a society. Just as haircolour is so diverse throughout the human species: if there was an advantage in being blonde, a lot more people would be (and not just artificially ).
|
On May 12 2011 03:59 Barrin wrote:
Sam Harris knows what he's talking about, and I've fundamentally agreed with the concept that "morality" is just "avoiding suffering" ever since I came to that conclusion on my own like 10 years ago.
That's moral behavior to a secular humanist.
I would think that "What is moral", to a religious extremist, is "What God wants, regardless of the outcome".
I think the major problem here is that there are often disagreements in definitions of morality, objectivity, and subjectivity. If we can't all agree on the same set of axioms, then it's very hard to have a discussion.
I do like reading threads like these, however, to see how people playing devil's advocate elicit certain responses and make people reflect upon their initial claims. There's certainly no harm in doing that; it can surely be logical.
|
Morality only matters to Humans, so it is subjective.
|
On May 12 2011 03:59 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 03:48 Zeri wrote:On May 12 2011 03:44 VIB wrote: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. There's a practical use for naming things. But that doesn't mean what we named is that what we named. It doesn't mean it exist Something can be wrong, and still have a good practical scientific use. We know today that newton's movement laws are wrong. But we still use it to calculate how to build buildings. It has a practical use. The building is standing up, even tho you used something that doesn't exist to get there. I'm saying morals doesn't exist. It's definition is not universal. People will disagree to a common universal moral. It's not universal. I'm not saying that there isn't a practical use for trying to find a scientific definition for morality (what Harris is doing). Maybe it does have a practical use. I'm not convinced, but it's plausible that there might be one
Ah, I see what you are saying. This is more were I am unsure about Harris and the argument in general, I need to read more. But I believe Harris is asserting that through science is the only way we can even discuss morality. In the same way it is really the only way we can discuss health. In any other terms, its not worth discussing.
|
On May 12 2011 02:12 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 01:59 Acrofales wrote:
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!
The problem with this interpretation of altruism is that it isn't altruism anymore. You give someone a cookie because eating it yourself wouldn't make you as happy as giving it to someone else. It is, in it's essence, a reduction of altruism to self-interest. (Which is why so many millionaires start foundations in their own name. 'Look at me, I'm a good person!') Simple fact is that humans are a social species. We're hardwired to do these things, and analyzing it takes away the beauty of empathic acts.
No it doesn't. Knowing that we do it because it gives us an increase in endorphins and other pleasurable stimulants in our brain does not make it less pleasurable!
"Hey a beggar, should I give him money?"
"No, it'd be selfish of you, as you'll only be doing it to feel proud of yourself"
"You're right. I should burn this dollar note instead, that would be a truly selfless act!"
As if anybody would ever use that reasoning...
|
On May 12 2011 04:07 Zeri wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 03:59 VIB wrote:On May 12 2011 03:48 Zeri wrote:On May 12 2011 03:44 VIB wrote: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. There's a practical use for naming things. But that doesn't mean what we named is that what we named. It doesn't mean it exist Something can be wrong, and still have a good practical scientific use. We know today that newton's movement laws are wrong. But we still use it to calculate how to build buildings. It has a practical use. The building is standing up, even tho you used something that doesn't exist to get there. I'm saying morals doesn't exist. It's definition is not universal. People will disagree to a common universal moral. It's not universal. I'm not saying that there isn't a practical use for trying to find a scientific definition for morality (what Harris is doing). Maybe it does have a practical use. I'm not convinced, but it's plausible that there might be one Ah, I see what you are saying. This is more were I am unsure about Harris and the argument in general, I need to read more. But I believe Harris is asserting that through science is the only way we can even discuss morality. In the same way it is really the only way we can discuss health. In any other terms, its not worth discussing.
Finally! Something I agree with! I do believe that morality is worth studying (in fact, I have friends who are studying the evolution of normative systems, which is very interesting) and that the only true way of studying anything is by using the scientific method.
However, I do not agree with Sam Harris' premature conclusions that there is an objective morality, because a good moral choice is synonymous to reducing human suffering. Mainly because I disagree there is an objective definition of human suffering... hell, there's a problem with any singular definition of human (does a human start at fertilisation? gastrulation? birth?), let alone suffering.
|
On May 12 2011 04:16 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 04:07 Zeri wrote:On May 12 2011 03:59 VIB wrote:On May 12 2011 03:48 Zeri wrote:On May 12 2011 03:44 VIB wrote: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. There's a practical use for naming things. But that doesn't mean what we named is that what we named. It doesn't mean it exist Something can be wrong, and still have a good practical scientific use. We know today that newton's movement laws are wrong. But we still use it to calculate how to build buildings. It has a practical use. The building is standing up, even tho you used something that doesn't exist to get there. I'm saying morals doesn't exist. It's definition is not universal. People will disagree to a common universal moral. It's not universal. I'm not saying that there isn't a practical use for trying to find a scientific definition for morality (what Harris is doing). Maybe it does have a practical use. I'm not convinced, but it's plausible that there might be one Ah, I see what you are saying. This is more were I am unsure about Harris and the argument in general, I need to read more. But I believe Harris is asserting that through science is the only way we can even discuss morality. In the same way it is really the only way we can discuss health. In any other terms, its not worth discussing. Finally! Something I agree with! I do believe that morality is worth studying (in fact, I have friends who are studying the evolution of normative systems, which is very interesting) and that the only true way of studying anything is by using the scientific method. However, I do not agree with Sam Harris' premature conclusions that there is an objective morality, because a good moral choice is synonymous to reducing human suffering. Mainly because I disagree there is an objective definition of human suffering... hell, there's a problem with any singular definition of human (does a human start at fertilisation? gastrulation? birth?), let alone suffering.
I think you misrepresent Harris here, Harris states that there are objective facts to be learned about morality, and as we learn them our knowledge will grow and be more refined. But he doesn't argue that we can do some calculations and figure out the answer to every question about life. Rather, we can use science to explore options and discover (objectively) better and worse aspects of all options.
|
I think it's subjective. There are tons of gray areas when speaking about morality, but I think even the black and white things are subjective.
Just the masses have come to expect, and want certain things out of life. To not have to worry about you getting murdered or raped (which happens regardless) will make you feel (supposedly) that raping / killing is in itself a bad thing.
I tend to think it's just a widely accepted agreement because your average person does not want to get raped or killed for any reason.
Therefore everyone appreciates not having to worry about that (for the most part), and that promotes community, which in essence is a lot of people agreeing to not rape and kill each other.
"I won't rape you, bro, we cool."
|
Morality is never objective and it's pretty hard to do any arguing about that. It all depends on how you've lived to the point of now, every different person has a different morality.
|
On May 12 2011 04:06 Tdelamay wrote:
Morality only matters to Humans, so it is subjective.
Whether or not you care about an issue has no reflection on whether or not it's objective or subjective. Calculus only matters to humans, yet it's objective.
|
I'd argue morality is both objective and subjective, it's not just a black or white distinction. Some things are completely ingrained in our nature that, for humans, they become objective. We naturally don't like seeing someone starving. We don't like seeing someone injured. It's thanks to millennia of evolution that they're things we hate and don't want to see. Other moral subjects stem from schools of thought and are entirely subjective.
|
Morals are, in my view, a set of values adapted to environmental factors (subjective). However in increasingly complex societies, where environmental factors remain generally stable over short periods (several generations), these values become codified into a system which is generally accepted (appear to observer as objective). however, as environmental factors (ecological as well as social) inevitably change over long periods, of themselves and as a direct result of complex societies themselves, these systems eventually become, in whole or in part, obsolete.
Ethics is the objective investigation of Morality. The big question here is whether there is an a priori (objective) value which affects the formation of moral values (subjective) in a certain direction. Note that this definition of Objective Morality does not necessarily require a 'higher power' or 'supreme being', only a value (such as health, security, pleasure, etc) that, subconsciously held, in the manner of 'instinct', would inform our actions (values). I cant help but point out the irony that our perceived 'spirituality' (Objective Morality) may be a function of our 'animality' (Instinct).
|
On May 11 2011 15:31 ILIVEFORAIUR wrote:This is always a fun conversation! Like the title asks, "Is morality subjective or objective?" A couple definition for the nubs Subjective morals: Each person determines his/her own morals based on their experiences. For example, a priest would believe it is moral to help others, a murder would think it is moral to end another's life. There is no set moral code which we all live by. We make this moral code through our experiences. Objective morals: What is considered "right" and "wrong" are universal and will always be such. For example, it is moral for a priest to help others, it is immoral for a murder to end another's life. Personally, I believe in subjective morals, based on my existential worldview. I believe that there is not inherent meaning to life, in that we go through our life and create our own meaning. This world view would be consistant with subjective morals. I would love to know what the TLr's think Cheers, ILIVEFORAIUR
Well the whole example in your post is kind of incorrect, as it's only what the public opinion of what these groups are supposed to think. Also you're comparing a job to an act a random person have commited during his lifetime. Most murderers are regretting what they've done, as it wasn't their actual intention, whereas there are tonnes of priests who have sex with children.
The moral code of society is constantly changing, is different in different parts of the world, and has changed immensly since for instance the medieval era.
This isn't a question under discussion, it's objectively a subjective question. Moral is something humans have constructed, and is decided by us, thus making it subjective. That doesn't make it less powerful though.
For instance it's immoral to be homusexual in the middle east, which means that the governments have a death penalty on it, whereas in most western countries people are fairly indifferent.
|
This is why Miyazaki films are better than baseless Hollywood action films. There is no black and white. There is no good and evil. It's all shades of grey. That's how the world works. Therefor, morality is subjective. You can't say that pro-life is OBJECTIVELY better than pro-choice. Everything has down and ups.
|
there is nothing constructive going on here.
stop clouding your foggy heads with useless preachers (religion AND scientists) that base their wealth on their teachings. unless you're actually a better person from the knowledge they BESTOW upon you, shut up. the point of philosophy is to learn and grow, which is obviously not happening in this world.
|
I think it's a stupid question.
Morality will always be subjective.
The whole "objective morality" is just an, as inabsolute as our laws, (yet still valuable) mechanism, or norm if you may, taught (hopefully) at early age to stop us from doing what would have a negative outcome on the bigger picture of our civilization.
As there is no true objective "Right" and "wrong", these will always be different in the eyes of the beholder. I see it just like learning manners. This is what you do, this is what you don't.
Morality will always be subject to our opinions, experiences, beliefs, etcetera. Did cavemen ever consider the morality of beheading someone to steal their food? Did morality evolve? No, we did and so did our norms.
Governments and media will always try to bend it to serve the bigger picture. It's clever, really!
|
On May 12 2011 04:50 jimmyjingle wrote:
there is nothing constructive going on here.
stop clouding your foggy heads with useless preachers (religion AND scientists) that base their wealth on their teachings. unless you're actually a better person from the knowledge they BESTOW upon you, shut up. the point of philosophy is to learn and grow, which is obviously not happening in this world.
Did you really call scientists "useless preachers"? I think it's rather absurd that you group them with religious preachers, although I agree with you that philosophy should help you learn and grow (and identify truths regarding the world... which is what this thread is trying to do...).
|
On May 12 2011 03:59 Barrin wrote:
Sam Harris knows what he's talking about, and I've fundamentally agreed with the concept that "morality" is just "avoiding suffering" ever since I came to that conclusion on my own like 10 years ago.
Of course. I've long believed that something is "wrong" only if it directly causes harm to another being, and that is my criteria. It is the basis for a lot of my libertarian arguments for eliminating victimless crimes as well.
However, I also acknowledge that this is a purely subjective criteria and that there are fundamental inconsistencies to the belief. Morality will never be objective, and it will never be strict or precise or consistent. Because ultimately morality is based upon human emotions, and that is the crux of everything. In this sense, Sam Harris doesn't know what he is talking about. You can't force these characteristics when they don't actually exist.
I deny the objective legitimacy of morality for being dependent on subjective emotion, but at the end of the day I am still the subjective individual. I'm not going to pretend my emotions are rational criteria by using scientific generalizations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
