Another post on morality

[Alueshen]

So morality is the yardstick (if you will) that we use to determine if an action is "good" or "bad". The misunderstanding is, IMO, that morality is itself standard of good or bad.

Kind of like the length of a ruler doesn't determine what a foot is, it is the measurement that determines what the length of the ruler will be. We chose the measurement and while one might argue that choosing the dashed lines that go on a ruler night be entirely arbitrary, I'd argue that the length of any form of measurement is indeed very specific based on what you are trying to accomplish, that is, no one would would measure the distance from the earth to the sun using a ruler any more than they would use light years to measure their height.

Morality does not make a statement about the good and bad until a set of values is established. The idea that there is such a thing as "objective morality" is a non-nonsensical notion as there are no such thing as values independent of subjects.

To say that life is valuable is to assume that there is a thing called life and there are those that value it, once you have established this subjective notion you can make objective statements about how life is best valued.

To say that god is the source of morality is really just saying that god is the source of all values, but he is still the subject of the subject object relationship....That is unless you're willing to argue that values are independent of god in which case he's just the messenger and seemingly unnecessary.

Thoughts?

[Jashwell]

You call behaviour that "increases chances of well being and survival" morally objectively right.

What would you call that behavior? Wrong? It would be wrong to help others?

I don't think the survival of the human race has anything to do with morality.

So if you got your hands on a bomb that could wipe out all life on this planet you don't think it would be immoral of you to do so?

No, it would certainly be immoral.
But not because of the discontinued survival of the human race.

That's besides the point, why would anyone else equate survival instinct with morality?

Assuming suicide is wrong is begging the question.

I don't "assume" suicide is wrong, the survival instinct doesn't "assume" suicide is wrong, nobody "assumes" suicide is wrong. We are programmed by the objective process of evolution and natural selection to value survival so suicide is wrong regardless of any assumptions.

Assuming a survival instinct is objectively right (as opposed to neutral) is assuming suicide is wrong. Your argument requires the premise or assumption that survival is objectively valuable.

Not only is your justification a non-sequitur ("evolution programmed us to value survival so suicide is wrong") but it's also either false or requires special pleading - evolution also programmed every other human behaviour, and while you could make some kind of argument that it has to be directly from evolution (which would still be special pleading), you'd still be faced with depression and suicidal thought.

I'm not sure if division fallacy is the appropriate term, but then I've never seen anyone assume that objectivity is passed down like that.

That's exactly the kind of thing I would group as not caring about the individual. They're just a means to an end, they alone aren't important.

That is why many give their lives to save others. The survival of the individual isn't important if losing one individual means the survival of many others.

It is the choice of the individual to give their life, not a moral compulsion, not what they ought do. The individual is important, but not for the survival or propagation of the human species. (or at least, that isn't what I would consider of moral importance)

If the survival of the species is important, is giving birth to more children objectively more moral?

Depends on the circumstances.

In what reasonable circumstances is it more moral?
("Have children or I'll kill these people" is an example of an unreasonable circumstance)

Earlier people had many children because it increased the chances that some children would survive childhood. Now one should have as many children as the circumstances allow until having more would reduce everybody's chances of well being and survival.

So, someone who could have 5 children without reducing everyone's well being or survival chances, but decides to have no children as they don't want any, is acting immorally?

Do you think if two fertile humans are left alive, man and woman, that they ought to reproduce or something?

]Suicide of individuals can easily plausibly benefit the survival of the species.

That wouldn't be suicide, that would be self sacrifice.[/quote]
Self sacrifice is intended by the individual to benefit something. Not coincidental, and not necessarily the survival of the species.

Once again you're assuming suicide is wrong.

When will you learn and stop claiming I'm "assuming" anything? The survival instinct doesn't "assume" anything. The survival instinct doesn't "assume" anything. It's just an instinct. The survival instinct makes us want to survive. Not wanting to survive is therefore wrong.

"The survival instinct is objectively morally right" <- an assumption; premise; requisite belief

You do realise that you're effectively suggesting sadness is a mental illness?

Sadness is normal if it is a reaction to something bad that has happened. If it turns into depression and threatens the well being and survival of yourself and others we say you are ill and try to treat you.

What if a reaction to something bad that has happened leads to suicidal thoughts?
What if the survival of yourself threatens your well-being, or vice-versa?

I imagine I'm not the only one that understands that human suffering isn't a triviality to be excused for unverifiable survival gain. There's a reason that kind of thinking is called cold, and it's not because it's considered morally correct.

A person who tries to save another person from committing suicide is "cold"?

It's of no surprise to me that you're only responding with already addressed emotive language. If you want me to respond in the same way:

A person who tries to torture another human being and induce their suffering for the express purpose of minimal (if at all), unverifiable survival benefit is cold. 'Suicide is only permissible for people useless at benefiting others' is something most would describe as cold.

Instantc's post is right on point - merely claiming "rational people will agree with me" is not a valid argument - you're the only one saying that this is what morality is.

Then just go online and read about "the evolution of morality". Maybe you can find something written by irrational people.

Morality evolved, that much is obvious. Doesn't make it an objective moral system, any more than simply existing counts as being objective. Morality also differs from culture to culture, and how people instinctively behave also differs. You can read papers on the sociological evolution of morality.

People have instincts like sympathy and disgust that relate to morality. They often conflict with each other and with survival. Which is the objectively moral one?

At best you're attempting to convince us that we're irrational and that you're therefore right, which won't get anywhere.

I am presenting logical and rational explanations. If you can use logical and rational replies to show there is something wrong with my logic and reasoning please do.

Your argument relies on an unsupported premise, repeating your claims is not justification, appealing to it as an instinct is not supporting your premise, etc.

[Artie]

Again, that's the assertion, where is the justification? I have never met anyone who equates morality with survival instincts. To say that all rational and logical people do so is a bold assertion to say the least.

"morality is a crucial instinct for survival in social animals." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_morality

Do you want to live? Is it immoral to murder you? Do you think these two questions are unconnected?

[instantc]

Again, that's the assertion, where is the justification? I have never met anyone who equates morality with survival instincts. To say that all rational and logical people do so is a bold assertion to say the least.

"morality is a crucial instinct for survival in social animals." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_morality

From 'morality increases survival' it does not follow that everything that increases survival is moral. Moreover, you haven't shown that every moral act increases survival. At best you could say that morality in general increases survival.

There's nothing moral going on in North Korea, but they seem to be surviving quite well as a society.

Why do you think that in case of war or another national emergency, when the survival of society is really at stake, we forfeit most of the rules that we normally consider to be moral?

Do you want to live? Is it immoral to murder you? Do you think these two questions are unconnected?

Is it then moral to murder someone who doesn't want to live? Isn't that the opposite of what you have been preaching previously?

[Jashwell]

Again, that's the assertion, where is the justification? I have never met anyone who equates morality with survival instincts. To say that all rational and logical people do so is a bold assertion to say the least.

"morality is a crucial instinct for survival in social animals." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_morality

any system of morality =/= objective morality
crucial for survival =/= survival is crucial

Do you want to live? Is it immoral to murder you? Do you think these two questions are unconnected?

Thinking they're unconnected would lead to beliefs such as the immorality of suicide.
Thinking they're connected leads to beliefs such as assisted suicide being moral or permissible.

More of a problem for you, than anyone else.
Thinking they're connected does not mean survival is the goal of morality.

[Artie]

I don't think the survival of the human race has anything to do with morality.

So if you got your hands on a bomb that could wipe out all life on this planet you don't think it would be immoral of you to do so?

No, it would certainly be immoral.
But not because of the discontinued survival of the human race.

Because of what then?

That's besides the point, why would anyone else equate survival instinct with morality?

If murder isn't immoral because the other person doesn't survive why is murder immoral?

Assuming a survival instinct is objectively right (as opposed to neutral) is assuming suicide is wrong. Your argument requires the premise or assumption that survival is objectively valuable.

The survival instinct doesn't "assume" anything. It is an objective fact that we have a survival instinct and that we are programmed to survive. There's no "premise" or "assumption" involved. If you don't get that I have no further to say on this subject.

So, someone who could have 5 children without reducing everyone's well being or survival chances, but decides to have no children as they don't want any, is acting immorally?

Having a child they don't want would reduce everybody's chances of well being and survival so they would be acting morally by not having one.

Do you think if two fertile humans are left alive, man and woman, that they ought to reproduce or something?

Well, do they have an instinct to reproduce but shouldn't follow it for some reason?

Self sacrifice is intended by the individual to benefit something. Not coincidental, and not necessarily the survival of the species.

It is getting very annoying this habit of yours to just object without explaining yourself properly. When you say "benefit something" and "not necessarily the survival of the species" then
specify what else it is supposed to benefit! Otherwise your statement is worthless.

What if a reaction to something bad that has happened leads to suicidal thoughts?

Then we try to cure you.

What if the survival of yourself threatens your well-being, or vice-versa?

What?

'Suicide is only permissible for people useless at benefiting others' is something most would describe as cold.

No idea what this is supposed to mean.

Morality evolved, that much is obvious. Doesn't make it an objective moral system, any more than simply existing counts as being objective. Morality also differs from culture to culture,

What is moral differs from culture to culture and what people see as moral differs from culture to culture.

and how people instinctively behave also differs.

True.

People have instincts like sympathy and disgust that relate to morality. They often conflict with each other and with survival. Which is the objectively moral one?

The behavior that leads to the well being and survival of as many as possible.

Your argument relies on an unsupported premise,

That we have a survival instinct is very well supported. http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/surv ... vival1.htm

[Jashwell]

I don't think the survival of the human race has anything to do with morality.

So if you got your hands on a bomb that could wipe out all life on this planet you don't think it would be immoral of you to do so?

No, it would certainly be immoral.
But not because of the discontinued survival of the human race.

Because of what then?

That's besides the point, why would anyone else equate survival instinct with morality?

If murder isn't immoral because the other person doesn't survive why is murder immoral?

Doesn't matter, I'm not the one defending my own morality, but as your previous post alludes to, "because they don't want to die"

Assuming a survival instinct is objectively right (as opposed to neutral) is assuming suicide is wrong. Your argument requires the premise or assumption that survival is objectively valuable.

The survival instinct doesn't "assume" anything. It is an objective fact that we have a survival instinct and that we are programmed to survive. There's no "premise" or "assumption" involved. If you don't get that I have no further to say on this subject.

It is my instinct that suicide is perfectly moral. This instinct was programmed into me by evolution, and therefore you are objectively wrong and if you don't understand I have nothing else to say.

Presumably because I don't have a logical response.

An argument with no premises is a blank page. Non existant.
"A square has four sides" is a premise. An easily demonstrable premise.
"Evolution has programmed our survival instinct" is a premise. An easily demonstrable premise.

"Survival is objectively morally right" is a premise. A hard to demonstrate premise. Please show the logic between the previous and this.

So, someone who could have 5 children without reducing everyone's well being or survival chances, but decides to have no children as they don't want any, is acting immorally?

Having a child they don't want would reduce everybody's chances of well being and survival so they would be acting morally by not having one.

No, I quite specifically said "without reducing everyone's well being or survival chances".

Do you think if two fertile humans are left alive, man and woman, that they ought to reproduce or something?

Well, do they have an instinct to reproduce but shouldn't follow it for some reason?

They might not want to reproduce.
Why, would you advocate rape?

Self sacrifice is intended by the individual to benefit something. Not coincidental, and not necessarily the survival of the species.

It is getting very annoying this habit of yours to just object without explaining yourself properly. When you say "benefit something" and "not necessarily the survival of the species" then
specify what else it is supposed to benefit! Otherwise your statement is worthless.

It seems blindingly obvious that people can self sacrifice for things other than the survival of the human species. For instance, the survival of people they care about specifically, or an ideology they care about.

What if a reaction to something bad that has happened leads to suicidal thoughts?

Then we try to cure you.

I thought you said being sad wasn't an illness.

What if the survival of yourself threatens your well-being, or vice-versa?

What?

You've identified well being and survival as two different things. Presumably well being involves choice and happiness and stuff. They can conflict. How do you evaluate?

'Suicide is only permissible for people useless at benefiting others' is something most would describe as cold.

No idea what this is supposed to mean.

You said that suicide could be justified, provided the "victim" decided they were of no benefit to anyone else, and were physically impaired or injured.

Morality evolved, that much is obvious. Doesn't make it an objective moral system, any more than simply existing counts as being objective. Morality also differs from culture to culture,

What is moral differs from culture to culture and what people see as moral differs from culture to culture.

and how people instinctively behave also differs.

True.

Then it isn't objective?

People have instincts like sympathy and disgust that relate to morality. They often conflict with each other and with survival. Which is the objectively moral one?

The behavior that leads to the well being and survival of as many as possible.

You said survival is moral because it's an instinct. Sympathy and disgust are also instincts. When they conflict, how do you know which is more moral, why are you assuming it's survival?

Your argument relies on an unsupported premise,

That we have a survival instinct is very well supported. http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/surv ... vival1.htm

[/quote]
Have you been reading my posts? Nobody doubts the existence of a survival instinct, I don't doubt the evolution of a survival instinct. I doubt it's an objective moral system.

[Artie]

From 'morality increases survival' it does not follow that everything that increases survival is moral.

And here again you make a statement without supporting it. You don't mention something immoral that increases well being and survival.

Moreover, you haven't shown that every moral act increases survival. At best you could say that morality in general increases survival.

Name a moral act that decreases well being and survival.

There's nothing moral going on in North Korea, but they seem to be surviving quite well as a society.

I have little knowledge of what's going on in North Korea.

Why do you think that in case of war or another national emergency, when the survival of society is really at stake, we forfeit most of the rules that we normally consider to be moral?

Because the moral thing to do is to make sure the society survives because that increases our chances of survival.

Do you want to live? Is it immoral to murder you? Is that you have a survival instinct and that it is immoral to murder you connected?

[instantc]

From 'morality increases survival' it does not follow that everything that increases survival is moral.

And here again you make a statement without supporting it. You don't mention something immoral that increases well being and survival.

I didn't say I could, did I?

Moreover, you haven't shown that every moral act increases survival. At best you could say that morality in general increases survival.

Name a moral act that decreases well being and survival.

You do realize that you are engaging in a text book example of the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof, don't you? If I cannot name a moral act that decreases survival, then it's safe to assume that none of them do?

[Artie]

It is my instinct that suicide is perfectly moral. This instinct was programmed into me by evolution, and therefore you are objectively wrong and if you don't understand I have nothing else to say.

If evolution and natural selection had programmed into organisms that suicide was right and survival wrong your ancestors would have committed suicide and you wouldn't have been here to say it!

So, someone who could have 5 children without reducing everyone's well being or survival chances, but decides to have no children as they don't want any, is acting immorally?

Having a child they don't want would reduce everybody's chances of well being and survival so they would be acting morally by not having one.

No, I quite specifically said "without reducing everyone's well being or survival chances".

They don't want any. That would automatically reduce survival chances. You can't have it both ways.

Do you think if two fertile humans are left alive, man and woman, that they ought to reproduce or something?

Well, do they have an instinct to reproduce but shouldn't follow it for some reason?

They might not want to reproduce.
Why, would you advocate rape?

That would reduce the child's survival chances so having one wouldn't accomplish anything.

It seems blindingly obvious that people can self sacrifice for things other than the survival of the human species. For instance, the survival of people they care about specifically,

They are a part of the human race.

or an ideology they care about.

And why do they care about it? Because it is beneficial for survival?

What if a reaction to something bad that has happened leads to suicidal thoughts?

Then we try to cure you.

I thought you said being sad wasn't an illness.

Sad isn't the same as having suicidal thoughts.

What if the survival of yourself threatens your well-being, or vice-versa?

What?

You've identified well being and survival as two different things. Presumably well being involves choice and happiness and stuff. They can conflict. How do you evaluate?

Example?

Have you been reading my posts? Nobody doubts the existence of a survival instinct, I don't doubt the evolution of a survival instinct. I doubt it's an objective moral system.

LOL. Who said "the survival instinct" is "an objective moral system"? Our moral system has "the survival instinct" as the objective basis.

[Artie]

You do realize that you are engaging in a text book example of the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof, don't you? If I cannot name a moral act that decreases survival, then it's safe to assume that none of them do?

A moral act is one that increases well being and survival. That is why you can't come up with any that don't.