This debate at Notre Dame has not yet been posted and I think it is a must watch as it discusses Morality specifically in relation to whether or not it can be provided by god or whether an objective morality can be provided in the absence of god.
Funny you should post that, I got into an argument with Harris right after the debate about objective morality. Also I got to personally experience how much WLC's worldview disgusts me.
Also, the question the girl on the balcony asks was one I was going to ask (similar enough), and I was sitting behind her so I had to go sit back down
Oh wow. thats pretty awesome man. Would you mind sharing your discussion with Harris? If not here then in a PM? I am quite interested O.o
Say you had a village untouched by modern times. And let's say that in that village, one's parents were held in the utmost respect. So much so, that it was considered the duty of the sons and daughters to euthanize their parents before they become senile, as it might tarnish the memory of the parents during their prime. In their eyes, the killing of their parents is a sign of respect.
So, here's my perspective. Regardless of whether or not a place like this ever existed, it is possible to conceive of it being the case. In their eyes, killing someone was not against their moral code. Therefore, I'd say morality is subjective.
Also, while coming up with this, I had another thought. If morality was objective, than all laws would be basically the same, and there wouldn't be any major differences between cultures on what is "right" and what is "wrong". But, there are many examples of this not being the case. For instance, Sharia law, wherein it is morally wrong to be homosexual (or rather, engage in homosexual acts, eg sodomy.) Or, the Cow in Hinduism. In most of the world, it is completely fine to eat beef, but for Hindu's, it is morally wrong.
On May 12 2011 15:49 Fyodor wrote: Please stop posting sam harris. He's like the Husky of Philosophy.
It seems quite stupid to have this discussion right now without at least acknowledging his work. He is providing a pretty big and significant philosophical idea and trying to address the problem in a very new way. I mean if you have problems with his arguments then by all means, post them. But just posting "lol harris is just a dummy who appeals to the masses" seems quite silly and by most measures inaccurate because he actually does not appeal to the masses and he has done a ton of work in philosophy and morality in general...
On May 12 2011 15:49 Fyodor wrote: Please stop posting sam harris. He's like the Husky of Philosophy.
Atleast he still destroys William Lane Craig in that area... I have seen the Kalam Cosmological Argument and it presupposes several of its premises and then makes a bunch of logical errors in order to justify the existence of a deity.
Also my view of philosophy is similar to that of Wittgenstein's: He argues that philosophical problems are bewitchments that arise from philosophers' misguided attempts to consider the meaning of words independently of their context, usage, and grammar, what he called "language gone on holiday."
Took a class on Philosophy last semester and my professor had a straight forward perspective on morality.
Morality in its firm basis Objective that's why we have morality, if morality was purely subjective then there will be no questions about morality, heck morality the word itself wouldn't exist if morality was purely subjective. Everyone knows its wrong to Lie/Cheat/Kill/Have an Affair/steal/etc. Those morals are known by everyone throughout the world even by criminals. If you talk to any criminal in prison and ask them question about morality 100% of the answers will be the same. Human Traffickers know its wrong to traffic people, murderers know its wrong to murder. They might think its lucrative/fun, but its still wrong and those criminals know it is.
IF IN SOME CASES a civilization genuinely have a complete different set of morality then they're either extinct OR pretty much living in the dark age.
Then my professor said that 99% of subjectivity discussions comes up on the degree to follow these moral laws. Do you believe that killing is 100% wrong 100% of the time? do you believe that you always have to tell the truth? Individuals/cultures/religion will disagree on degree of how often we can break these rules, but they'll never disagree on if these rules are right/wrong. So therefore he says that 99% of discussions on subjectivity itself is approached incorrectly.
So the basis of Morality is objective, we know whats right and wrong and everyone generally agrees with it. The real question comes from what's our degree of breaking these rules.
Example that I'm personally guilty of.
I downloaded a game off of torrent site. I say, "hey its game, they're ripping me off, I'm too poor to buy it, I might not like it, etc." Now everyone will agree that stealing is bad, but what about how MUCH? or how often? or price?profit? etc. That's where everyone has their beliefs, but in the end I'm stealing from the developer of that game and even the most ardent Torrent Supporter will understand that and try to come up with lame excuse to cover his butt.
Now to truly approach the question on subjectivity is nearly impossible and too advance for my the level I'm taking. My professor believes that 99.99% of the world shouldn't even discuss about this topic because of the fact that 99.99% of the world isn't (poker analogy) Phil Ivey, instead they're those who wants to become like Phil Ivey. Morality for 99.99% of the world should be simply objective and for those .01% could be a little bit subjective.
Oh forgot to put this, sorry for the troll, I love SC and been visiting teamliquid for 4 years and was looking for a translation to an SKT vs STX interview and saw this thread and couldn't help myself
On May 12 2011 16:01 jiykong wrote: Took a class on Philosophy last semester and my professor had a straight forward perspective on morality.
Morality in its firm basis Objective that's why we have morality, if morality was purely subjective then there will be no questions about morality, heck morality the word itself wouldn't exist if morality was purely subjective. Everyone knows its wrong to Lie/Cheat/Kill/Have an Affair/steal/etc. Those morals are known by everyone throughout the world even by criminals. If you talk to any criminal in prison and ask them question about morality 100% of the answers will be the same. Human Traffickers know its wrong to traffic people, murderers know its wrong to murder. They might think its lucrative/fun, but its still wrong and those criminals know it is.
IF IN SOME CASES a civilization genuinely have a complete different set of morality then they're either extinct OR pretty much living in the dark age.
Then my professor said that 99% of subjectivity discussions comes up on the degree to follow these moral laws. Do you believe that killing is 100% wrong 100% of the time? do you believe that you always have to tell the truth? Individuals/cultures/religion will disagree on degree of how often we can break these rules, but they'll never disagree on if these rules are right/wrong. So therefore he says that 99% of discussions on subjectivity itself is approached incorrectly.
So the basis of Morality is objective, we know whats right and wrong and everyone generally agrees with it. The real question comes from what's our degree of breaking these rules.
Example that I'm personally guilty of.
I downloaded a game off of torrent site. I say, "hey its game, they're ripping me off, I'm too poor to buy it, I might not like it, etc." Now everyone will agree that stealing is bad, but what about how MUCH? or how often? or price?profit? etc. That's where everyone has their beliefs, but in the end I'm stealing from the developer of that game and even the most ardent Torrent Supporter will understand that and try to come up with lame excuse to cover his butt.
Now to truly approach the question on subjectivity is nearly impossible and too advance for my the level I'm taking. My professor believes that 99.99% of the world shouldn't even discuss about this topic because of the fact that 99.99% of the world isn't (poker analogy) Phil Ivey, instead they're those who wants to become like Phil Ivey. Morality for 99.99% of the world should be simply objective and for those .01% could be a little bit subjective.
On May 12 2011 16:01 jiykong wrote: Took a class on Philosophy last semester and my professor had a straight forward perspective on morality.
Morality in its firm basis Objective that's why we have morality, if morality was purely subjective then there will be no questions about morality, heck morality the word itself wouldn't exist if morality was purely subjective. Everyone knows its wrong to Lie/Cheat/Kill/Have an Affair/steal/etc.
It is perfectly possible to have questions about subjective things.
Do you think people are unable to have a discussion about why they think one television show is better than another, or one game is better than another, unless there is a definitive correct and objectively true answer?
On May 12 2011 15:14 yamato77 wrote: I don't care about what you major in or what school you don't go to. I guarantee that there are valedictorians that went to Harvard and graduated Summa Cum Laude that don't know what subjectivism or moral realism are.
I don't know why you posted essentially the same things I did, but moral realism (which is the opposite of ethical subjectivism and decidedly based on objectivism) does not necessitate a completely universal acceptance of moral rules for them to be objective. Perhaps people just don't know of the rules? Perhaps they have other, selfish motivations that lead them to act immorally, as other people tend to? I could say the same things about the governments that kill protestors; they certainly justify their actions, however selfish they may be.
After all, the point of discussing ethics isn't to argue about why people do what they do, it is to ague about what people ought to do. We can certainly, with our reason, come to objective moral truths that people ought to follow. We can also see that most people seem to agree with this moral reasoning in most situations. It does happen. Arguing against it is to ignore the development of the human race from nomads to the large-scale societies we now live as a part of. This happened because people agreed on moral rules that were objectively true, like not killing innocent people for no reason.
Good, I am glad you don't care, that means you will take my arguments based on their merit, even if I was homeless or in prison. (Atleast I hope this is what you would do)
I posted those things because it shows that in order for something to be objective it must exist independent just the realm of thought. Since morality appears to only exist as the products of thoughts, and it not universally the same, then for all intents and purposes we can call it subjective. Why would we call morality objective, and then say that perhaps those people with different views on it are just wrong or don't know what is right? Occam's razor necessitates that in the absence of a better explanation, morality is subjective because of those "exceptions".
I disagree that we can use reason to come up with Objective Moral Truths. Circumstances always change, and what we have know is largely a product of maximizing well-being for a majority. Despite the fact that most people agree with this moral reasoning (they have also largely been indoctrinated by religion to believe that we need morals) that does not make that moral reasoning objective. People agreed on those moral rules, but only in selfishness or because they believed it would benefit them, and this is why our society has developed those certain rules... however this is not what would define them as objective.
Let's just agree to disagree. We've both made our points. I can see how you see the world that way, but I don't think it is that way. I think there are things that are right and wrong, and that saying that they are right or wrong can also be a statement that is right or wrong. I may not know everything that is right or wrong, or be able to explain why people do things that are right or wrong, but I'm fairly sure that doesn't exclude the possibility of there being things that are right or wrong, in an objective sense.
Thanks for the discussion. It certainly has made me be much more specific in what I mean and actually develop a coherent way to express what I think. But, as it is, I am going to bed. I hope I've been as intellectually stimulating as you have been to talk with.
I believe there is a fundamental set, a 'kernel' if you will, of morals that are entirely objective and tend to be linked to instincts. We know and practice upon these morals not because we were taught them, but because our minds beg for them to be addressed. These tend to be the important ones, such as not killing another human being.
There are, indeed, many levels of morality that are layered on as a result of our family, religion, education, etc. that are likely subjective because, well, we had to be taught them after all. If we were taught differently, we might understand these morals differently.
On May 12 2011 16:01 jiykong wrote: Took a class on Philosophy last semester and my professor had a straight forward perspective on morality.
Morality in its firm basis Objective that's why we have morality, if morality was purely subjective then there will be no questions about morality, heck morality the word itself wouldn't exist if morality was purely subjective. Everyone knows its wrong to Lie/Cheat/Kill/Have an Affair/steal/etc.
It is perfectly possible to have questions about subjective things.
Do you think people are unable to have a discussion about why they think one television show is better than another, or one game is better than another, unless there is a definitive correct and objectively true answer?
No I believe that people are able to have subjective discussions, but when it comes to morality it must be approached with caution because its a very difficult and really annoying topic to deal with.
99% of the time I find these conversations in forums end up as a Bisu Fan vs Flash Fan base war
On May 12 2011 15:14 yamato77 wrote: I don't care about what you major in or what school you don't go to. I guarantee that there are valedictorians that went to Harvard and graduated Summa Cum Laude that don't know what subjectivism or moral realism are.
I don't know why you posted essentially the same things I did, but moral realism (which is the opposite of ethical subjectivism and decidedly based on objectivism) does not necessitate a completely universal acceptance of moral rules for them to be objective. Perhaps people just don't know of the rules? Perhaps they have other, selfish motivations that lead them to act immorally, as other people tend to? I could say the same things about the governments that kill protestors; they certainly justify their actions, however selfish they may be.
After all, the point of discussing ethics isn't to argue about why people do what they do, it is to ague about what people ought to do. We can certainly, with our reason, come to objective moral truths that people ought to follow. We can also see that most people seem to agree with this moral reasoning in most situations. It does happen. Arguing against it is to ignore the development of the human race from nomads to the large-scale societies we now live as a part of. This happened because people agreed on moral rules that were objectively true, like not killing innocent people for no reason.
Good, I am glad you don't care, that means you will take my arguments based on their merit, even if I was homeless or in prison. (Atleast I hope this is what you would do)
I posted those things because it shows that in order for something to be objective it must exist independent just the realm of thought. Since morality appears to only exist as the products of thoughts, and it not universally the same, then for all intents and purposes we can call it subjective. Why would we call morality objective, and then say that perhaps those people with different views on it are just wrong or don't know what is right? Occam's razor necessitates that in the absence of a better explanation, morality is subjective because of those "exceptions".
I disagree that we can use reason to come up with Objective Moral Truths. Circumstances always change, and what we have know is largely a product of maximizing well-being for a majority. Despite the fact that most people agree with this moral reasoning (they have also largely been indoctrinated by religion to believe that we need morals) that does not make that moral reasoning objective. People agreed on those moral rules, but only in selfishness or because they believed it would benefit them, and this is why our society has developed those certain rules... however this is not what would define them as objective.
Let's just agree to disagree. We've both made our points. I can see how you see the world that way, but I don't think it is that way. I think there are things that are right and wrong, and that saying that they are right or wrong can also be a statement that is right or wrong. I may not know everything that is right or wrong, or be able to explain why people do things that are right or wrong, but I'm fairly sure that doesn't exclude the possibility of there being things that are right or wrong, in an objective sense.
Thanks for the discussion. It certainly has made me be much more specific in what I mean and actually develop a coherent way to express what I think. But, as it is, I am going to bed. I hope I've been as intellectually stimulating as you have been to talk with.
Thanks too, we disagree, but at least we weren't afraid to each make cases for what we believe. Yeah it was intellectually stimulating, and let me get better at articulating my views.
On May 12 2011 15:53 XeliN wrote: Instead of saying that perhaps provide a coherent argument for why you disagree with him and/or think he is a bad philosopher.
I'll jump in here...
While the core argument - that it is possible to discuss ethics without any reference to transcendent (or even contra-factual) premises - is solid, it should also be noted that this concept is older than dirt. However, that doesn't mean that it's wrong to repeat it once more, because apparently some people still have a hard time comprehending this. Hence, in this regard, Harris is a good journalist, but a bad philosopher, since he succeeds in spreading an idea, but he doesn't substantially increase the overall pool of insights on this idea. On a sidenote, in his criticism of religion, Harris even falls behind the level of discussion of the 18th Century. Criticism of religion must always be criticism of the conditions of society; Harris' methodological individualism just doesn't cut it.
The main problem that at least I have with Harris (and people like him) though is that his style of writing and arguing borders on demagogy. For example, he uses the topical subjects of torture, intervention and terrorism to grab attention, while none of this is important for his core argument. Unfortunately, his "adversaries" are also approaching demagogy, and for them it is really easy to reduce the advocatus diaboli of torture to the advocate of torture. In other words, unfortunately in public debate it is rather common to attack an opponent at his weakest point. And when a demagoge is going to argue against secular ethics, Harris is a much easier target than e.g. Leibniz, Kant, Jaspers, or even Rawls...
" Scientific theories does not radically change in opposite direction"
yeah and neither do Moral theories.. It is in fact the other way around if u want to bring in some empirical arguments. Overall the world u still read Aristotels or Kant and so on if it comes to Ethics and Moral, while rly noone reads Gallilei anymore. To Murder ur own child is beeing wrong since ever ( dont come with isolated stories), 500 years ago ppl still though the earth is flat =)
and to ur second Point: Just read my last sentence...
"but if you are to argue that morality is objective you really need to present where that law is coming from"
if u can explain me where ur "natural law" comes from. Since Popper it is known that u cant make any sentence with scientific value that hasnt some theoretical Terms in it so what u call objective is highly dependant on other things then pure empirical data.
I am not saying i can proof that Moral is Objective, all i say is that no one can proof the opposite. Casue all arguemts i read are based upon a totally wrong comprehension of science
A lot of Christians would argue that abortion is murdering your own child, yet that is not "wrong" in a lot of western countries.
On May 12 2011 15:53 XeliN wrote: Instead of saying that perhaps provide a coherent argument for why you disagree with him and/or think he is a bad philosopher.
Harris keeps stumbling on the point Craig keeps hammering. The concept that maximizing well-being is something which we are all bound to is ridiculous. He refutes himself when he says "who are you to say that we are obligated to maximize well-being?" but then he shrugs it off without giving the question the seriousness it deserves. He just gives you a dumbfounded look that just says "duh, well-being man, it's soooo obvious duuude".
Craig is right on that. Harris has not succeeded in grounding his well-being concept as a binding moral obligation. His entire philosophy is a failure. It seems good enough at first sight yes. But consider for example the Nietzschean thought that suffering, intoxication and destruction can be desirable for the life-affirming type of man. Harris does not cover that angle very well and he knows it. He tries to cover it up so hard with that mocking look on his face. I do believe Nietzsche has a much more satisfying account of human morality than Harris. On so many levels. It's so arrogant on Harris' part to claim that his work is objective and no one else's is.
But I will say that evolutionary accounts of morality are interesting. However I think they have a limit. I think they are more useful as a descriptive, historical, explanatory tool than a prescriptive tool for me or future generations.
(BTW, I used Nietzsche here but feel free to insert any other philosopher. It's just who I had in mind at that precise moment."
On May 12 2011 15:53 XeliN wrote: Instead of saying that perhaps provide a coherent argument for why you disagree with him and/or think he is a bad philosopher.
Harris keeps stumbling on the point Craig keeps hammering. The concept that maximizing well-being is something which we are all bound to is ridiculous. He refutes himself when he says "who are you to say that we are obligated to maximize well-being?" but then he shrugs it off without giving the question the seriousness it deserves. He just gives you a dumbfounded look that just says "duh, well-being man, it's soooo obvious duuude".
Craig is right on that. Harris has not succeeded in grounding his well-being concept as a binding moral obligation. His entire philosophy is a failure. It seems good enough at first sight yes. But consider for example the Nietzschean thought that suffering, intoxication and destruction can be desirable for the life-affirming type of man. Harris does not cover that angle very well and he knows it. He tries to cover it up so hard with that mocking look on his face. I do believe Nietzsche has a much more satisfying account of human morality than Harris. On so many levels. It's so arrogant on Harris' part to claim that his work is objective and no one else's is.
But I will say that evolutionary accounts of morality are interesting. However I think they have a limit. I think they are more useful as a descriptive, historical, explanatory tool than a prescriptive tool for me or future generations.
(BTW, I used Nietzsche here but feel free to insert any other philosopher. It's just who I had in mind at that precise moment."
We are bound to maximizing well-being, that is what natural selection does. That is where it enters the realm of the physical.
On May 12 2011 12:36 AlphaNoodle wrote: But for the sake of the poll, morals are subjective because they do not exist naturally. It is man made so it must be subjective.
You're assuming human beings aren't a part of nature. If however you accept human beings are just a part of the animal kingdom, and are just a part of the material universe, then surely everything they create, including their systems of morality, are in fact very much "natural" and thus as objective as the study of mating habits of marmots.
We define anything subjective as "of man".
Anything objective as independent "of man".
If we were to use your definition we wouldn't have any use at all for the word "subjective".
So because we are part of nature does not make morality objective. In fact all morality is is the amalgamation of the chemical signals in the brain, and we all have some form of it.
No, subjectivism (even in ethics) does not particularly refer to something that is "from man". The problem with Ethical Subjectivism (which is the theory most people that have argued for subjective morals in this thread have espoused) is that not all of what is considered moral has to do with attitudes or emotions. We don't stop the killing of innocent people always because we have an aversion, no, we stop it because it's wrong. Wrong because our biology (which isn't subjective, btw) makes us more inclined to choose to advance our own species than hinder it by mindless slaughter. Wrong because, in any sane person's logic, there can be no justification for the slaughter of people that it views as innocent.
Biologically programmed does not make it objective. Objective would be if the universe were made in such a way that any possible being (limit it to sentient, if you prefer) would be biologically programmed with the same (or similar) morality.
However, as it is, saying the biological programming is objective is the same as saying that there is an objective need for a liver: there is obviously not. It is simply one of the possible ways of filtering poison from your body.
The same could be the case for morality, in fact, looking at animals: there are plenty of species that practice cannibalism. The large majority of humans have a "biologically programmed" aversion to eating other humans and thus we call it wrong. However, there's no "objective" reason to call it wrong, it's just rather bad for survival of the species (there's evidence that it increases the risk of prion diseases).
On May 12 2011 15:53 XeliN wrote: Instead of saying that perhaps provide a coherent argument for why you disagree with him and/or think he is a bad philosopher.
Harris keeps stumbling on the point Craig keeps hammering. The concept that maximizing well-being is something which we are all bound to is ridiculous. He refutes himself when he says "who are you to say that we are obligated to maximize well-being?" but then he shrugs it off without giving the question the seriousness it deserves. He just gives you a dumbfounded look that just says "duh, well-being man, it's soooo obvious duuude".
Craig is right on that. Harris has not succeeded in grounding his well-being concept as a binding moral obligation. His entire philosophy is a failure. It seems good enough at first sight yes. But consider for example the Nietzschean thought that suffering, intoxication and destruction can be desirable for the life-affirming type of man. Harris does not cover that angle very well and he knows it. He tries to cover it up so hard with that mocking look on his face. I do believe Nietzsche has a much more satisfying account of human morality than Harris. On so many levels. It's so arrogant on Harris' part to claim that his work is objective and no one else's is.
But I will say that evolutionary accounts of morality are interesting. However I think they have a limit. I think they are more useful as a descriptive, historical, explanatory tool than a prescriptive tool for me or future generations.
(BTW, I used Nietzsche here but feel free to insert any other philosopher. It's just who I had in mind at that precise moment."
We are bound to maximizing well-being, that is what natural selection does. That is where it enters the realm of the physical.
That isn't really a coherent idea. What does "bound" mean? "Bound" in the same sense that we are bound to eat food? But certainly this is false - we aren't physically incapable of performing immoral acts.
Do you mean natural selection has somehow placed moral obligations on us that transcend our inclinations?
EPT
