Objective Morality?

[enviousintheeverafter]

It is often claimed that objective morality only exists if God does- that without God, there is no basis for claiming that morality is objective, that anything like objective moral facts or duties exist. Of course, for this argument to have any force, it needs to be true, or probably true, that objective morality does in fact exist.

So does it? Why think there are such things as objective moral facts or duties?

[Artie]

If theoretically you were in a position where your death would save 1000 others from dying would you say it would be immoral to shoot you?

Wouldnt that be murder, something which even you are against?

No it wouldn't. It would be justified homicide.

No society thinks like this.

If you sacrificed your own life so that others could survive you would be a hero. If somebody shot you so that others could survive what's the difference? If some person went bananas and was an immediate threat to the lives of others and the only option you had was to shoot him wouldn't you?

We should also keep in mind that we are becoming increasingly proficient at using 'artificial selection'. Perhaps down the line humans can be cloned rather with a preselected genetic makeup. Then we will become objective since we can select or create our own instincts (Artie's logic)!!!!

LOL No that would be subjective opinion of course because we decided which instincts to have not evolution and natural selection. Logic isn't your strong point...

[Artie]

Morality in general is something we've inherited thru natural selection. It results in an instinct to "be nice," to cooperate, have empathy, and in general be fair and treat others the way we want to be treated.

So nobody subjectively decided that we should have this "instinct"?

The simplistic "murder is wrong" is not much help when we are talking about allocating limited resources in a way to do the greatest good for the greatest number. Is murdering a Hitler 'wrong' if it prevents millions of deaths and incalculable suffering?

Then it wouldn't be murder but justified homicide in the same way killing in self defense or in defense of others is justified homicide.

[OpenYourEyes]

Wouldnt that be murder, something which even you are against?

No it wouldn't. It would be justified homicide.

It would depend on the scenario. If it's killing Hitler then I'd agree because he has done something wrong. But if it involves killing people who just happened to be in the cross-fire, then I'd disagree that its a justified killing like in your bomb example. This is why bombs are being made nowadays that have pinpoint target accuracy so that collateral damage can be minimal.

No society thinks like this.

If you sacrificed your own life so that others could survive you would be a hero. If somebody shot you so that others could survive what's the difference? If some person went bananas and was an immediate threat to the lives of others and the only option you had was to shoot him wouldn't you?

With this scenario, I'd agree, and I'd do so because it fits within my moral standards, as well. But in my scenario about male lions and infanticide, I'd disagree with you.

We should also keep in mind that we are becoming increasingly proficient at using 'artificial selection'. Perhaps down the line humans can be cloned rather with a preselected genetic makeup. Then we will become objective since we can select or create our own instincts (Artie's logic)!!!!

LOL No that would be subjective opinion of course because we decided which instincts to have not evolution and natural selection. Logic isn't your strong point...

Let me break it down for you. Lets take your logic for example and presume that our survival instinct is objective. The survival instinct is an objective moral parameter by which humans derive their morals from. But what about the moral precepts, the specific standards of behavior (do not murder, cheat, etc) that fall within the parameter? This is where your view falls flat on its face because we are the ones that DECIDE the actual moral precepts. And as others and I have pointed out to you, morals almost always differ across person, place, and time so they're subjective/relative.

So Artie, please prove to me that survival is the only moral parameter, if a moral parameter at all. Then prove to me exactly which moral precepts apply or give me an OBJECTIVE way of figuring it out and ensuring that you're correct compared to the long history of inconsistency among mankind. Save us!!!

[Bust Nak]

1. No subjective opinions were involved when evolution and natural selection gave us the survival instinct.
2. For an organism with a survival instinct survival is advantageous.
3. A synonym for advantageous is good.
4. No subjective opinions on morality were involved declaring that survival is advantageous/good. It's a result of objective natural processes.

Sure, I grant you all that but that changes nothing. This still isn't an argument for objective morality. The conclusion that no subjective opinions on morality were involved in declaring that survival is morally right does not follow from that.

That is unless you are suggesting that what is advantageous is good, what is morally right is good, therefore what is advantageous is morally right? Hence my charge of equitation fallacy.

[Artie]

Wouldnt that be murder, something which even you are against?

No it wouldn't. It would be justified homicide.

It would depend on the scenario. If it's killing Hitler then I'd agree because he has done something wrong. But if it involves killing people who just happened to be in the cross-fire, then I'd disagree that its a justified killing like in your bomb example. This is why bombs are being made nowadays that have pinpoint target accuracy so that collateral damage can be minimal.

Sure. In the Hiroshima/Nagasaki example they made a moral judgement. It may have been right or wrong but I can't say since I wasn't there and don't know exactly what they based their judgement on and what their alternatives were.

No society thinks like this.

If you sacrificed your own life so that others could survive you would be a hero. If somebody shot you so that others could survive what's the difference? If some person went bananas and was an immediate threat to the lives of others and the only option you had was to shoot him wouldn't you?

With this scenario, I'd agree, and I'd do so because it fits within my moral standards, as well. But in my scenario about male lions and infanticide, I'd disagree with you.

For a lion, if this behavior evolved because it was/is beneficial for the survival of the species it would be wrong for a lion not to do it.

Let me break it down for you. Lets take your logic for example and presume that our survival instinct is objective. The survival instinct is an objective moral parameter by which humans derive their morals from. But what about the moral precepts, the specific standards of behavior (do not murder, cheat, etc) that fall within the parameter? This is where your view falls flat on its face because we are the ones that DECIDE the actual moral precepts.

Since we are a social species living in communities and have a survival instinct we have no choice but to "decide" "do not murder" since if we all murdered each other nobody would survive.

So Artie, please prove to me that survival is the only moral parameter, if a moral parameter at all. Then prove to me exactly which moral precepts apply or give me an OBJECTIVE way of figuring it out and ensuring that you're right compared to the long history of inconsistency among mankind. Save us!!!

Sure. The objective way of figuring out what is moral is "for every action determine to the best of your ability what is the most beneficial and/or least detrimental action you can take for the society and the affected people."

[Artie]

That is unless you are suggesting that what is advantageous is good, what is morally right is good, therefore what is advantageous is morally right? Hence my charge of equitation fallacy.

What is "equitation fallacy"? I can find only three references in all of google and two of them are in German...

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 275 by Artie]

My mistake, it was a typo. I meant equivocation fallacy.

[dianaiad]

If theoretically you were in a position where your death would save 1000 others from dying would you say it would be immoral to shoot you?

Wouldnt that be murder, something which even you are against?

No it wouldn't. It would be justified homicide.

No society thinks like this.

If you sacrificed your own life so that others could survive you would be a hero. If somebody shot you so that others could survive what's the difference? If some person went bananas and was an immediate threat to the lives of others and the only option you had was to shoot him wouldn't you?

We should also keep in mind that we are becoming increasingly proficient at using 'artificial selection'. Perhaps down the line humans can be cloned rather with a preselected genetic makeup. Then we will become objective since we can select or create our own instincts (Artie's logic)!!!!

LOL No that would be subjective opinion of course because we decided which instincts to have not evolution and natural selection. Logic isn't your strong point...

Moderator Comment

Personal comments are not required. If logic is not a poster's strongpoint, It will be obvious; you don't have to say so.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[OpenYourEyes]

So Artie, please prove to me that survival is the only moral parameter, if a moral parameter at all. Then prove to me exactly which moral precepts apply or give me an OBJECTIVE way of figuring it out and ensuring that you're right compared to the long history of inconsistency among mankind. Save us!!!

Sure. The objective way of figuring out what is moral is "for every action determine to the best of your ability what is the most beneficial and/or least detrimental action you can take for the society and the affected people."

So far, you've attributed objective morality to the products of adaptation, like the survival instinct. Considering, this is correct, in that it meets all or most of the characteristics of morality that philosophers usually bring up, then you've only established an objective moral parameter. This would also be a shifting parameter at best since traits can die out and get replaced by new ones. But morality would also involve actual specific rules and not just guidelines for making rules. People have been using the best of their abilities for centuries and yet we are left with inconsistencies and once again the ever-present shifting environment (culture, politics, etc) that tends to influence our moral practices.

So once again, do you have an objective epistemology for your view of morality? In other words, how can I take your moral parameter, and derive specific rules that would benefit all or most areas of life, and how can I objectively verify that those rules are indeed correct for life. I ask this question because it makes no sense to claim that objective morals exist and yet we have no way of knowing what they are which would mean we are likely not following them.

[Artie]

So once again, do you have an objective epistemology for your view of morality? In other words, how can I take your moral parameter, and derive specific rules that would benefit all or most areas of life, and how can I objectively verify that those rules are indeed correct for life. I ask this question because it makes no sense to claim that objective morals exist and yet we have no way of knowing what they are which would mean we are likely not following them.

We are a social species. The objectively moral action is the action that is beneficial for survival and/or reproduction. Simply make sure your acts are generally beneficial to survival of individuals and society. Those are objectively moral acts.

"the set of behaviors that constitute morality evolved largely because they provided possible survival and/or reproductive benefits (i.e. increased evolutionary success). Humans consequently evolved "pro-social" emotions, such as feelings of empathy or guilt, in response to these moral behaviors.

On this understanding, moralities are sets of self-perpetuating and biologically-driven behaviors which encourage human cooperation. Biologists contend that all social animals, from ants to elephants, have modified their behaviors, by restraining immediate selfishness in order to improve their evolutionary fitness. Human morality, although sophisticated and complex relative to other animals, is essentially a natural phenomenon that evolved to restrict excessive individualism that could undermine a group's cohesion and thereby reducing the individuals' fitness.[17]

On this view, moral codes are ultimately founded on emotional instincts and intuitions that were selected for in the past because they aided survival and reproduction (inclusive fitness)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality