|
On May 12 2011 06:40 valedictory wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 12 2011 06:35 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 06:21 travis wrote:
Morality is subjective, for sure. We make up the rules of right or wrong based on ideals we hold and what is important to us.
Logic, however, is objective; and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality. Wait, is he trolling? I don't understand... How is logic supposed to determine subjective values? It's not as inconsistent as it appears on the surface. Basically Travis has proposed a theory which claims values are subjective, but logic is objective. Logic will ultimately guide action with respect to each individual's values. I'm actually pretty sure most subjective theories of morality operate in this way, if not all. The role logic plays is just not mentioned, because it seems obvious. Well, in either case it would be kind of absurd to have a subjective theory of morality which claims subjects have differing and equally valid faculties of reason.
He didn't say logic should guide our actions or be used to fulfill our subjective morality, he said logic should DICTATE what morality is.
|
It amazes me how many people discount existentialism even though they use it in their arguments.
|
On May 12 2011 06:28 divito wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 06:21 travis wrote:
Logic, however, is objective; and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality. Eh? It's not that logic dictates morality. For instance, the reason I don't kill someone isn't because I think it's wrong or bad. It's because unless I'm fully confident in not being caught, I won't do it because of the consequence of being placed in jail. People perform this opportunity cost and probabilities for everything they do.
Really, that's why you don't kill people? I am sorry to hear that. But I am not sure how what you're saying has any place in a discussion on morality. You aren't even addressing the issue of morality.
|
On May 12 2011 06:27 yamato77 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 06:21 travis wrote:
Morality is subjective, for sure. We make up the rules of right or wrong based on ideals we hold and what is important to us.
Logic, however, is objective; and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality. Just because we "make it up" doesn't mean it's not objective, does it? We "made up" math, but it's still objective. If the large majority of the world thinks that killing innocent people is wrong (they do, btw), then it's obvious an objective truth. Verifiable.
I don't think those words mean what you think they mean. Objective, verifiable, truth.
|
On May 12 2011 06:35 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 06:21 travis wrote:
Morality is subjective, for sure. We make up the rules of right or wrong based on ideals we hold and what is important to us.
Logic, however, is objective; and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality. Wait, is he trolling? I don't understand... How is logic supposed to determine subjective values?
We use logic to determine subjective values all the time. Logic is the science of reasoning. Reasoning is used to determine what music we like, what food we like, who we would like to date, etc etc etc etc.
Now sure, emotion plays a large part in this as well. But emotion isn't rational and that's exactly why I say "and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality."
|
Just a theoretical situation.
What if some powerful aliens came to Earth and killed us off, because we're in the way of them harvesting resources. We would think that they're actions are wrong, but to them we're wrong for getting in their way. Our moralities doesn't really matter to the aliens if they are so set in removing us, and we did not have enough power to stop them.
|
On May 12 2011 06:49 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 06:35 jdseemoreglass wrote:On May 12 2011 06:21 travis wrote:
Morality is subjective, for sure. We make up the rules of right or wrong based on ideals we hold and what is important to us.
Logic, however, is objective; and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality. Wait, is he trolling? I don't understand... How is logic supposed to determine subjective values? We use logic to determine subjective values all the time. Logic is the science of reasoning. Reasoning is used to determine what music we like, what food we like, who we would like to date, etc etc etc etc. Now sure, emotion plays a large part in this as well. But emotion isn't rational and that's exactly why I say "and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality."
Reasoning determines what music we like and what food we like and who we like to date?
Really?
Sure we have reasonable explanations for why we like things, but it's hard to not believe that they are simply mere rationalizations of arbitrary inclinations when we examine them.
|
On May 12 2011 06:49 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 06:35 jdseemoreglass wrote:On May 12 2011 06:21 travis wrote:
Morality is subjective, for sure. We make up the rules of right or wrong based on ideals we hold and what is important to us.
Logic, however, is objective; and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality. Wait, is he trolling? I don't understand... How is logic supposed to determine subjective values? We use logic to determine subjective values all the time. Logic is the science of reasoning. Reasoning is used to determine what music we like, what food we like, who we would like to date, etc etc etc etc. Now sure, emotion plays a large part in this as well. But emotion isn't rational and that's exactly why I say "and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality."
Logic and reasoning have nothing to do with determining a person's taste in music, food, dating, etc. These are determined by personal preferences, whether learned or biological, etc. There is no way that logic or reasoning could be used to determine a normative judgement of the "good" or "bad" preferences in an individual. Even if they use logic to deduce a belief, they are still operating on the premise of their subjective preferences.
|
On May 12 2011 06:27 yamato77 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 06:21 travis wrote:
Morality is subjective, for sure. We make up the rules of right or wrong based on ideals we hold and what is important to us.
Logic, however, is objective; and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality. Just because we "make it up" doesn't mean it's not objective, does it? We "made up" math, but it's still objective. If the large majority of the world thinks that killing innocent people is wrong (they do, btw), then it's obvious an objective truth. Verifiable.
100% False. Argumentum ad populum logical fallacy. Objective truth or facts aren't decided by what is popular. They're decided by what's actually factual.
There was a period of time when the general public thought the Earth was flat; this opinion was in the majority. Not true though.
I'm pretty sure that the statistics show that the majority of Americans don't accept the theory of evolution. That doesn't falsify it.
Truth is not dependent on public opinion or what the majority thinks.
|
morality is based in evolution, so its mainly objective. it can appear subjective because of different people growing up in different situations and that shaping their views.
even the staunchest liberals and conservatives want the same basic things at the simplest level, based on objective morals and such.
|
On May 12 2011 06:12 Sablar wrote:Show nested quote +In my opinion, the term "objective morality" should be reserved for the scientifically sound concepts that we have discovered and realized are foundations of a functioning society. Core stuff, like incest = bad, cannibalism = bad, breeding at too late an age = bad. Lately we have some new ones as well, like unprotected sex with strangers = bad (spread of STDs, mainly HIV) is a good example.
Something isn't 'good' in an evolutionary perspective = a belief, or value. It's entirely based on the context and it's perfectly possible that only HIV carriers were to survive some catastrophe or something. Now HIV is suddenly something good? That doesn't make an objective amount of sense.
I disagree with your interpretation. The good lies in embracing logically and ultimately scientifically determined facts. Once said catastrophe happens and it becomes apparent that HIV is a necessity for survival it does make objective sense to adapt to these new findings for the same reason the behavior in question was shunned earlier - it should now be embraced.
"But - unprotected sex with strangers would have saved more people, ergo HIV was objectively good all along"
Well, let's take the malaria example. The legs of hospital beds in the tropics were placed in water (buckets, cups) in order to restrict crawling insects from reaching patients. A sound practice given the current knowledge of tropical disease. The consequence, however, was the spawning of mosquitoes in these pools of water that from birth had easy access to both infected and healthy blood - hospitals themselves became a breeding zone for malaria.
I guess what i'm saying is - objective morality is doing what we "know" to be best for the prolonged success of society. We're not always right (most of the time we're not) but trying - i dare call that grounds for the word 'objective'.
|
On May 12 2011 06:47 Tarbosh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 06:27 yamato77 wrote:On May 12 2011 06:21 travis wrote:
Morality is subjective, for sure. We make up the rules of right or wrong based on ideals we hold and what is important to us.
Logic, however, is objective; and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality. Just because we "make it up" doesn't mean it's not objective, does it? We "made up" math, but it's still objective. If the large majority of the world thinks that killing innocent people is wrong (they do, btw), then it's obvious an objective truth. Verifiable. I don't think those words mean what you think they mean. Objective, verifiable, truth.
Well, he is right in the sense that IF.. "the large majority of the world thinks that killing innocent people is wrong" then it's an objective truth that "the large majority of the world thinks that killing innocent people is wrong" 
On an unrelated note referring to Kant and people not having knowledge enough kind of bothers me. It's like having to be baptised in order to discuss Christianity or something. What I learnt from philosophy at the university is that you can make anything sound smart and complex when it's in fact either A) an argument about 'who is the least wrong' leading nowhere or B) kind of self explanatory and common sense.
|
On May 12 2011 06:55 turdburgler wrote:
morality is based in evolution, so its mainly objective. it can appear subjective because of different people growing up in different situations and that shaping their views.
even the staunchest liberals and conservatives want the same basic things at the simplest level, based on objective morals and such.
The capacity for hate and murder are also evolved. Are they therefore moral?
|
On May 12 2011 06:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 06:55 turdburgler wrote:
morality is based in evolution, so its mainly objective. it can appear subjective because of different people growing up in different situations and that shaping their views.
even the staunchest liberals and conservatives want the same basic things at the simplest level, based on objective morals and such. The capacity for hate and murder are also evolved. Are they therefore moral?
I don't think everything evolved must be moral. Heck, lungs are evolved. Are they moral?
I think morality has evolved, but that's why it's subjective, not objective >.>
|
Morals are just another word invented to control people's actions. I believe in laws to keep people from killing me and taking my money, food and land. Laws may or may not be moral, and I don't really care, as long as it makes my life easier.
|
To claim that morality is "objective" or "subjective" does not even make sense. Under no circumstance can morals be "true" or "false", they can only be useful or not, because morality is not a claim. Only claims can be true or false.
It is like the rules of a game, they are not "true" or "false", but they can be followed or not.
|
On May 11 2011 15:45 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 15:35 Pleiades wrote:
I have a moral nihilistic view of the world, so subjective for me. That does not mean I don't value anything at all. I just have my own set of values, and I try not to value it above others' values. 100% agree. Morals are an illusion created by people to feel better to themselves. Same as god. People are just afraid that without these pre-set unquestionable rules. The world would collapse. So they make stuff up.
^ Winners :D ^
What is evil but good tortured by its own hunger and thirst?
Word is nothing without silence. What is your god without infinity of zero?
Ultimate justice in nothingness.
:D
|
On May 12 2011 06:49 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 06:35 jdseemoreglass wrote:On May 12 2011 06:21 travis wrote:
Morality is subjective, for sure. We make up the rules of right or wrong based on ideals we hold and what is important to us.
Logic, however, is objective; and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality. Wait, is he trolling? I don't understand... How is logic supposed to determine subjective values? We use logic to determine subjective values all the time. Logic is the science of reasoning. Reasoning is used to determine what music we like, what food we like, who we would like to date, etc etc etc etc. Now sure, emotion plays a large part in this as well. But emotion isn't rational and that's exactly why I say "and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality."
Hold on there. You can't just equate logic and reasoning. Logic is systematic study of proper inferences and such. By itself, logic has no actual content. Logic is a machine, it can't tell you anything about morals or art or science. The best you can do is give logic some statements and arguments and logic will tell you if they are consistent or valid. Logic can't help you with the truth of the premises and such.
|
On May 12 2011 06:49 travis wrote:
We use logic to determine subjective values all the time. Logic is the science of reasoning. Reasoning is used to determine what music we like, what food we like, who we would like to date, etc etc etc etc.
Now sure, emotion plays a large part in this as well. But emotion isn't rational and that's exactly why I say "and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality."
Not really, logic isn't a 'science' of any thing. Logic in the academic sense is parasitic on common language. All logic is is an attempt to make clearer the rules that govern the central features of human discourse, so we can better understand it.
The thing which frustrates me the most about these debates, and that people can't seem to get through there head is that logic 'says' nothing
Logical Identity
p p
T T
F F
Tells you nothing about the world, all it tells you is how we conceptualize it. It's very useful, but it itself can't dictate the nature of how we should live it, that has to come from some place else. You do not use logic to determine which music you like, that's simply not possible - it's not how logic works to think so just shows a clear misunderstanding of logic and reasoning. All logic and reasoning due is enlighten you as to certain common rules.
Logic cannot dictate morality, anymore than a pen can dictate a book.
|
majority =/= universal or being objective
Majority is more of a general concensus of agreed subjective concepts.
If there is a majority, then there is a minority. Just because the majority have come to an agreement, does not mean that the minority have. It then, is not universal for everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
