|
On May 12 2011 18:51 Lixler wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 18:42 imagine7xy wrote:On May 12 2011 18:15 Lixler wrote:On May 12 2011 18:10 imagine7xy wrote:On May 12 2011 17:55 Lixler wrote:On May 12 2011 17:35 imagine7xy wrote:On May 12 2011 17:29 Lixler wrote:On May 12 2011 17:26 imagine7xy wrote:On May 12 2011 16:59 Fyodor wrote: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? Bound in the Homeward Bound sense, as Headed or intending to head in a specified direction. Yes, that is what natural selection wants, to survive. It gives you a nervous system so you can sense pain and avoid danger for instance. Harris's morality is subjective in the sense that it is up to us to determine individual or collectively what maximizes well being. It's a scientific approach to morality that takes into account our evolutionary origins as well. There's a bit of a gap in your logic here. I'll give you the idea that natural selection binds us to moral actions (let's say, for the sake of argument, entirely and universally), but it's an error to assume that we can expand this class of actions with scientific research. The things natural selection binds us to may fit into a certain class (maximizing well-being), but that does not mean we are bound to all actions in that class. Scientific investigation might help us find out more things that maximize well-being, but we are not actually bound (by natural selection, at least) to do these things. Take a couple examples of moral cases. One example of a moral good from natural selection is feeding starving people. Clearly it's advantageous for a species to give some food to people who are about to die. Now, for a scientifically discovered moral good, let's take the example of stem cell therapies (assume that they work 100%, if you don't mind). It generally increases well-being to take unused stem cells from aborted fetuses or what-have-you (we don't need to do that any more, but this is a half-hypothetical example) and to give those stem cells to Alzheimer's patients/quadraplegics/I don't have any more examples. But we run into a problem after we acknowledge this - a lot of people don't actually approve of stem cell research. Many people don't feel an obligation to support stem cell research, even though it increases well-being, and a few people even actively try to hinder it. So we can see that even if we might say that natural selection is trying to point us in the direction of a certain class of actions, all it can actually bind us to are things which could be discovered during the evolutionary process (forgive my bad terminology). Natural selection has no way to bind us to things we found out after it's been completed, e.g. any scientific discoveries. There is, of course, another class of argument which could say our inherited inclinations have nothing to do with morality (you can argue this from an objective or a subjective viewpoint), but that's an entirely differently thing. Again, semantics around the word bound. I apologize, but I feel like those semantics are crucial in saying that natural selection establishes any kind of system of morality. What word would you say best fits the relationship between natural selection and morality? The relationship is that following certain morals directly affects our behavior, and that behavior directly affects our survival. Ideas concerning morality propagate mainly through indoctrination, but those ideas origins are from human minds. The net effect of those ideas have severe consequences on survival. If you had to guess if there was a civilization of people who believed its OK to kill children, and a civilization that decided its NOT OK, which one will continue to EXIST? Thus, a simulation is occurring, and TODAY after tens of thousands of years MORALITY is getting FINE-TUNED through natural selection. That is a very extreme example, but we have limited time, but do not underestimate time duration and net effects of morality. The tricky thing is, do we have to LET NATURAL SELECTION run a simulation to find good morality, or can we do so scientifically. Well first, lets look at what took place in the example above... What is natural selection doing? It is maximizing survival, ie well being. So when I say we are "We are bound to maximizing well-being" perhaps you are closer to understanding the context, aside from the semantics. I'm terribly sorry, but I asked you what the relationship was between natural selection and morality. It might look like "morality" and "well-being/survival" mean the same thing, but that assumption is what the argument is about. Why is morality defined by "promoting survival?" I understand the basic point here - an appeal to morality as a sort of shared concept throughout humanity which was developed through environmental pressures - but I think the question that is being asked is what about that concept of morality makes it "objective?" Subjectivists are trying to ask something like "Why should I do moral actions?" and I don't think the answer "Natural selection has prodded you in that direction" is what they are looking for.
There is no reason you should NOT personally kill, steal, lie, or decide as a dictator (instead of democratically) that you will create an Orwellian society, but after the shit hits the wall, the cards turn, the dice settle, whatever, certain things will EXIST or NOT EXIST. Since you happen to live in a world full of life that is billions of years old you reap the benefits of the blind watchmaker. However, what exactly are you trying to avoid by not walking into a bank and robbing it, what environmental pressures are you avoiding?
|
On May 12 2011 18:32 zocktol wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 18:06 imagine7xy wrote:On May 12 2011 17:57 HULKAMANIA wrote:On May 12 2011 17:48 imagine7xy wrote:On May 12 2011 17:41 HULKAMANIA wrote:On May 12 2011 17:35 imagine7xy wrote:On May 12 2011 17:29 Lixler wrote:On May 12 2011 17:26 imagine7xy wrote:On May 12 2011 16:59 Fyodor wrote: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? Bound in the Homeward Bound sense, as Headed or intending to head in a specified direction. Yes, that is what natural selection wants, to survive. It gives you a nervous system so you can sense pain and avoid danger for instance. Harris's morality is subjective in the sense that it is up to us to determine individual or collectively what maximizes well being. It's a scientific approach to morality that takes into account our evolutionary origins as well. Natural selection wants nothing. Yes, technically, but natural selection is running simulations that maximize the survival of genes... No? I dunno. I think you're still talking as if there is some entity called "natural selection" and it has agency. "Natural selection" is just a phrase. It's just a model for explaining certain aspects of biology. The phenomena to which "natural selection" refers has no purpose. It has no goal. It's not wanting or giving or running anything. No, you misunderstood me. I was simply referring to the fact that natural selection tries to maximize survival. Whether you want to use the term purpose or agency is a matter of semantics. Natural selection in and of itself wants nothing. Just like breathing wants nothing. it is just the description of a process. During natural selection however the most succesfull genes are passed on. If theses involve cooperation, then something like morality is passed on and would be universal. However, the fact that Xenophobia is also part of Human nature and violence is a big part of human history, i would not go so far and state that morality is universal. As we can see in the difference between cultures(Taliban vs. the "Western" culture), where totally different forms of moral exist. This indicates that the form of Moral you follow is subjective, morality in and of itself, if we define it as the ability to create a way that you are supposed to act in, is however universal. Concluding i would reason that the ability to have Moral is universal, but what is acceptable within your form of moral is subjective however. If something about my train of thoughts is unclear, please tell me cause i am not a native speaker so my thoughts might not be understandable 
We agree with eachother! Wonderful!
Again, it was a semantic problem. When I say "natural selection wants to survive" you certainly were incapable of understanding the context. I thought it was pretty obvious to anyone who understood evolution. I didn't mean it in the "natural selection wants a diet coke" sense. I'll make sure I'm more clear next time, akay?
|
I actually find this definition of morality by natural selection and possibly scientific research quite scary... Do you actually think the world is entirely determined? That I have actually no liberty?
If you don't you cannot hold on this position. Actually, proposing that *eventually* moral will be *perfected* goes even beyond science and puts back a real finality of the world and moreover a finality that would be of human nature. This is just shifting from "God made the Man to rule the world " to "Natural Selection slowly perfect the Man so that he eventually rules it". I personally think that all this should be considered neutral and random. That's for the deeper implications of what you propose.
But actually let's admit it for a second and look at what moral you propose : eventually, you have a world of robot that acts "according to what has been shown working". Science has these two limitations : first it cannot actually help me in my personal dilemma as its rules are general and second if it actually reaches its goal, there is no humanity left. Just mechanics
Mandrakel
PS: I wont quote every single quotation, it would be ridiculous, the "you" I'm criticizing is whoever feels that Nature has a finality and that we should find the rules of *human actions* in *nature's direction*
|
OK, here is why Sam Harris uses the term maximize well-being instead of maximize survival. BECAUSE the term well-being is subjective. He leaves it up to us to determine what our well-being is, which natural selection origins would determine as survival being an influence.
On an overview we know morality is conduct between parties, so that brings in the picture of the collective. Now - what maximizes well being for the collective? It has to be a democratic process and subjective inherently.
|
I'll first actually agree with the well-being thing if this is close to what Spinoza or Nietzsche stated in there own work. Some kind of an aim to be as "awesome" as possible (I genuinely think that "awesome" is a legitimate term if you take aside some the Barney-stinsonism that has colored it)
I however find it quite interesting that you ultimately give a definition of well-being that is ours (democracy). And in my opinion it reflects the final problem of this position : it ultimately aims at stagnation. And I will not agree with this because, and I have Bergson, Nietzsche, Spinoza and Arendt by my side as I say it : life is movement and change. How convenient is it that democracy happens to be *the* good system... I'm not saying that I am against democracy at the moment but seeing how history is moving especially these days, saying that the system in itself is "the one" lies more in the realm of faith than in that of rationality.
Two centuries ago, democracy *was* the solution to the problems of human society. I think that the moral thing to do is to look for *new* solution which might not be democracy or might be a totally changed,reformed democracy. I am not per se against what your Sam Harris (that I have not [yet] had time to fully listen at) but against any ethnocentrical idea that ,whether it be grounded on god, survival, well-being or pokemons, we have reached a final achievement or ever will. The next solution will bring new problems that we have to be delt with and so on.
|
On May 12 2011 20:07 Mandrakel wrote:
I'll first actually agree with the well-being thing if this is close to what Spinoza or Nietzsche stated in there own work. Some kind of an aim to be as "awesome" as possible (I genuinely think that "awesome" is a legitimate term if you take aside some the Barney-stinsonism that has colored it)
I however find it quite interesting that you ultimately give a definition of well-being that is ours (democracy). And in my opinion it reflects the final problem of this position : it ultimately aims at stagnation. And I will not agree with this because, and I have Bergson, Nietzsche, Spinoza and Arendt by my side as I say it : life is movement and change. How convenient is it that democracy happens to be *the* good system... I'm not saying that I am against democracy at the moment but seeing how history is moving especially these days, saying that the system in itself is "the one" lies more in the realm of faith than in that of rationality.
Two centuries ago, democracy *was* the solution to the problems of human society. I think that the moral thing to do is to look for *new* solution which might not be democracy or might be a totally changed,reformed democracy. I am not per se against what your Sam Harris (that I have not [yet] had time to fully listen at) but against any ethnocentrical idea that ,whether it be grounded on god, survival, well-being or pokemons, we have reached a final achievement or ever will. The next solution will bring new problems that we have to be delt with and so on.
Morals (morality) are just personal conduct. We can decide our goal is to maximize well-being (subjective) for the individual TO THE collective (spectrum.) However, since conduct is a personal decision, all we can really do is spread awareness or promote certain ideas on morality. Also science would be concerned about the process of DISCOVERY in KNOWLEDGE not DICTATING morals like a 1984.
Now if you get into other questions like "What is the purpose of life?" in the context of morality then its actually as bad as asking "What is the purpose of a mountain?" and more unrelated "What is the color of jealousy?" It turns out just because you can phrase something in the form of a question it doesn't mean it deserves an answer.
|
OK, here is why Sam Harris uses the term maximize well-being instead of maximize survival. BECAUSE the term well-being is subjective. He leaves it up to us to determine what our well-being is, which natural selection origins would determine as survival being an influence.
Wrong, he uses well beeing because he speaks of the state in which that human is what he means is the sum of his/her physical mental and emotional health. Survival only has 2 states alive or dead.
Morality is something objective there is no doubt to that, just as a human beeing is something objective, however the opinion and our perception of it is completely subjective, every1 sees it in a different way.
Why's democracy even in the discussion i wonder, not like there aren't perfectly functional moral societies that don't use it, political systems have no role to play in morality, it's the political leader who does. Be it an "enlightened" dictator, democracy or hell knows what.
|
On May 12 2011 20:22 Cyba wrote:Show nested quote +OK, here is why Sam Harris uses the term maximize well-being instead of maximize survival. BECAUSE the term well-being is subjective. He leaves it up to us to determine what our well-being is, which natural selection origins would determine as survival being an influence. Wrong, he uses well beeing because he speaks of the state in which that human is what he means is the sum of his/her physical mental and emotional health. Survival only has 2 states alive or dead. Morality is something objective there is no doubt to that, just as a human beeing is something objective, however the opinion and our perception of it is completely subjective, every1 sees it in a different way. Why's democracy even in the discussion i wonder, not like there aren't perfectly functional moral societies that don't use it, political systems have no role to play in morality, it's the political leader who does. Be it an "enlightened" dictator, democracy or hell knows what.
You said its both objective and subjective in the same post.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
sweet, the sam harris talk is already here so i dont have to link it.
|
We will miss your all insightful contributions to this forum, imagine7xy.
|
On May 12 2011 17:38 Jameser wrote:
morality is obviously subjective by definition
ethics however can be constructed to have an arbitrary set of laws, in which case it can become objective
If it's constructed with a set of laws made by humans, how can it be objective? Name one ethical rule that you consider objective (not that you consider should be but which actually is).
On another note. If murder is ethically wrong and an objective moral rule, why do we have death penalty and euthanasia and self defense and how come the interpretation can be so skewed that some see them as different things? Could it be because it's just an opinion that murder is wrong or that death penalty is murder or that euthanasia is murder? Under than same rule wars are wrong yet all soldiers are taught is how to kill more efficiently, and they've been taught that since the beginning of time. Then how can murder be wrong when it's considered good in so many cases.
Ethics are just the way societies find to manage to live in groups, the ones with influence just make up what they think is right or wrong and force it on everyone else.
What is objective is that you either find ways to live in society or are thrown out (in one way or another). I have never felt I have rules imposed, I just have to behave in such a way as to not piss other people off or find ways to avoid them altogether.
|
Do not harm others just because you feel like it.
Sounds like a sound example.
|
i think many people dont get what "objective" means, someone should give a definition or else this thread is going nowhere
and second, people should not mix things up, only cause death penalty exists in the USA or any unmoral thing exist anywhere does not mean there is no moral code or its wrong.
|
I think it`s objective, because even if you believe its the right thing to do, doesn`t make it the right thing to do. Like for example, Nazi Germany. Many German Nazi`s sincerely believed that they were doing the world a great justice by killing Jews, but that does not change the fact that they believed in and committed murder.
|
On May 12 2011 21:01 Cyba wrote:
Do not harm others just because you feel like it.
Sounds like a sound example.
Not exactly a rule. There's plenty of people that feel pleasure in harming others/feel good when they show the little guy who's tougher. I think this one is one of the least worthy of being called objective. At this point I wouldn't even agree on "Do not kill others just because you feel like it." considering some of the war time clips you get to see about recent wars. When you see people enjoying killing, yeah, no chance.
|
On May 12 2011 21:23 MeteorRise wrote:
I think it`s objective, because even if you believe its the right thing to do, doesn`t make it the right thing to do. Like for example, Nazi Germany. Many German Nazi`s sincerely believed that they were doing the world a great justice by killing Jews, but that does not change the fact that they believed in and committed murder.
What? No. For one we think they committed murder, they didn't, your word against theirs and trust me, currently your word is better only because you/we won. For another I do not see killing someone as wrong, I mean I wouldn't do it but for humanity it doesn't really seem to be something wrong.
|
I think it's mostly objective, but somewhat subjective. Numerous experiments have been done with people from all over the world, religious people, non-religious people, people from remote tribes etc. and they all broadly have the same moral system. There are Darwinian reasons for altruism and morality.
|
On May 12 2011 21:23 MeteorRise wrote:
I think it`s objective, because even if you believe its the right thing to do, doesn`t make it the right thing to do. Like for example, Nazi Germany. Many German Nazi`s sincerely believed that they were doing the world a great justice by killing Jews, but that does not change the fact that they believed in and committed murder.
Which is, in fact, a great example of why morality is subjective: they believed they were doing the right thing. We believe they were doing the wrong thing. We also think that their framework of morality (and justifying beliefs) is flawed, but the only way we can say that is by comparing it to our own framework of morality. If there is a "true morality" how can we distinguish it from all the different "false moralities" that various cultures (or individuals) use to varying degrees of success (and justify in completely rational ways).
I won't go into the semiotics of morality in general (and whether it even exists), or the evolution of morality (which in my opinion is the only way of even discussing "universal" morality and you will soon see that there is a human-wide set of ethics which are evolutionary "good ideas", but this is not even species-wide, let alone valid for other species): this thread already contains ample discussion from both sides on the matter and you should read it (or rather, read the work by actual philosophers who worded it much better, but aren't as easily accessible as the posts in this thread  ).
|
I'm amazed at the number of people voting that it's objective. I'm also amazed that this thread has gone on this long.
If the question of whether morality is subjective or objective is in itself a subjective question, then by extension morality itself must be subjective.
How can people debate this? Why do you think people disagree on the death penalty? Age limits for consensual sex? Age limits for voting?
If you were fighting a war, would you bomb a military compound knowing that 10% of its inhabitants are innocent civilians? How about 20%? 50%? 80%? The fact that everyone will have a different answer for that question should be sufficient.
Now as to whether there is a part of morality that is objective, then that gets more interesting, but not much more so. Humans have "similar" value systems across the world despite differing cultures is due largely to the fact that we face similar environments and issues. It's more telling to consider the morality of animals. There are those who fiercely protect their own species. There are cannibals. There are animals who eat their own young. There are animals who eat their parents. There are animals that protect other species around them. There are animals with the ability to easily kill other species, but will not do so for sport.
So. 100% subjective.
|
Very interesting poll/question. Though an answer in black/white does not exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
