Objective Moralism

For a long time I was silly enough to believe that morals are subjective. Of course, this is not actually the case. We are humans, humans are animals, animals exhibit behaviour and that behaviour is studied by the science of biology. Therefore using the scientific method, to study our own behaviour, we can come up with a set of objective morals... of preferred human behaviour which:
- Assists the group the most out of any set of behaviours ( in the long run ).
- Assists the individual the most out of any set of behaviours ( in the long run ).
- Is applicable to everyone, everywhere at anytime and in any state.

The first thing to recognise when discussing the topic of morality is that morals are rules or guidelines that govern interaction between PEOPLE. And therefore all other entities are irrelevant. We must break the construct of 'society', 'the government', 'a corporation'. None of these entities are human or have free will, they are simply abstractions to label a group of people. So to say 'for the good of society' is to state a fallacy when talking of morals, because society is no one person, and morals only exist between people.

A moral must be applicable to all people. There can be no exclusion phraze. Therefore if you were to say 'taxation is moral' then I would say 'so why is it only moral for people in the government to do, and not moral for me to do?'

If you were to say 'war is moral' then I would say 'if people in the government have the moral right to steal money from other people to pay mercenaries to murder and steal in another country, then why do I not have this right?'

If you were to say 'conscription is justified' then I would say 'if people in the government have the right to enslave anyone over the age of 18 when they feel threatened, then why do I not have that right?'

And so, quickly we see, that the evils of the modern world stem not from moral justification but from immoral justification. The morals on which our society are based are false. And yes, morality is a syllogistic argument. You are either correct in your understanding of morals or you are incorrect. Just as you are either correct in understanding the laws of electromagnetism, or you are incorrect. There is no subjectivity about it.

So... you are probably saying 'well thats an interesting point, but what morals DO exist then?' Well I'm glad you asked!

It just so happens that libertarianism is based on what's called the 'non aggression' principle. That is: you never have the right to initiate force against another human unless they have initiated force against you to begin with (self defense).

Everything else stems from this basic root moral law. Every action between humans must be voluntary. It is never morally correct or morally legal to point a gun at someone and say 'pay taxes', 'do this', 'do that'. No one has that right, because if everyone had that right then society would cease to function, and morals, by their definition, are a preferred set of human behaviour.

The absolute logical argument is put forth in this podcast far better than I could ever hope to explain it:

http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/proving_morality_32.mp3

I hope this thread has helped you.

 

[Shredderbeam]

So, to clarify, if one man tortures his daughter with a knife every night, and causes her such untold miseries that her mind shatters under the pressure of it, then interfering is immoral?

 

So, to clarify, if one man tortures his daughter with a knife every night, and causes her such untold miseries that her mind shatters under the pressure of it, then interfering is immoral?

If you have not been asked to interfere by the victim and it is not obvious that she is in distress, seeking help, then you have no business interfering. Her failure to seek help, or run away, implies voluntary consent.

And I wish you'd get off this fucking '0.001% of people are violent parents' thing. Some tiny percentage of the population is always going to abuse their kids. And you cannot justify implementing fascism to stop them. So shut up about it, you irrational twat.

 

[Shredderbeam]

If you have not been asked to interfere by the victim and it is not obvious that she is in distress, seeking help, then you have no business interfering.

Perhaps.

Her failure to seek help, or run away, implies voluntary consent.

Are you being serious? Do you know what goes on in the minds of the tortured? Have you ever been in such a situation? Oh, the wife stays with the abusive husband, she clearly voluntarily consents. Oh, look, the five year old doesn't have the common sense to call the police. Obviously, her nightly rape is agreed to by her.

And I wish you'd get off this fucking '0.001% of people are violent parents' thing. Some tiny percentage of the population is always going to abuse their kids. And you cannot justify implementing fascism to stop them.

So, I guess we just forget about them, and run about in our happy-go-lucky anarchy. I mean, it's none of our business! In fact, we should begin applying this logic to all aspects of life. If I see somebody being robbed on the street, it's none of my business!

So shut up about it, you irrational twat.

I do wish debates could be had without one side becoming emotional.

 

[Music Makes Me Pwn]

Morals can be subjected though, overtime the daughter would have been used to it, and would have not known anything otherwise. Hence the saying, Pain doesnt hurt, if tis the only thing you feel.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Morals can be subjected though, overtime the daughter would have been used to it, and would have not known anything otherwise. Hence the saying, Pain doesnt hurt, if tis the only thing you feel.

Ok, let's go about changing human nature, then. I'm sure you wouldn't mind if we take a member of your family, and subject them to nothing but pain.

 

Perhaps.

What do you mean 'perhaps'? You either agree or disagree, which is it?

Are you being serious? Do you know what goes on in the minds of the tortured? Have you ever been in such a situation? Oh, the wife stays with the abusive husband, she clearly voluntarily consents. Oh, look, the five year old doesn't have the common sense to call the police. Obviously, her nightly rape is agreed to by her.

If you heard screams next door you'd be morally obligated to investigate. You might ask the child if she wanted to live with you instead. You still have no right to march in and kidnap people.

So, I guess we just forget about them, and run about in our happy-go-lucky anarchy. I mean, it's none of our business! In fact, we should begin applying this logic to all aspects of life. If I see somebody being robbed on the street, it's none of my business!

Well in the current state of things you pay taxes which fund a war in which millions of people are killed. But I guess we just forget about that because 5 people will be raped by members of their family each year. You bloody idiot. The state is a million times worse than the worst acts an individual can commit.

I do wish debates could be had without one side becoming emotional.

So do I. But logic fails to work on you. I can give you a logical proof of something, wherein you accept the premises but reject the conclusion. Unless you can find an error in the logic you are forced to either accept the conclusion or you are literally irrational; which you are.

 

[Shredderbeam]

What do you mean 'perhaps'? You either agree or disagree, which is it?

When I say "perhaps", I mean that I do not immediately disagree, and that it's not an illogical statement.

If you heard screams next door you'd be morally obligated to investigate. You might ask the child if she wanted to live with you instead. You still have no right to march in and kidnap people.

If the child said no, and was clearly being tortured, I would fully endorse child protection services "kidnapping" the child, who clearly doesn't know any better.

Well in the current state of things you pay taxes which fund a war in which millions of people are killed. But I guess we just forget about that because 5 people will be raped by members of their family each year. You bloody idiot. The state is a million times worse than the worst acts an individual can commit.

Oh, you're right. Let's only focus on one thing at a time.

So do I. But logic fails to work on you. I can give you a logical proof of something, wherein you accept the premises but reject the conclusion. Unless you can find an error in the logic you are forced to either accept the conclusion or you are literally irrational; which you are.

Meh. I still don't see the need for anger.

 

[Sin666]

So to say 'for the good of society' is to state a fallacy when talking of morals, because society is no one person, and morals only exist between people.

So, you're saying that morality is only applicable to situations involving only two people, and collectivities - because they are necessarily more complicated - are therefore excluded? You said yourself that words like society are "simply an abstraction to label a group of people". If it refers to a group of people, then, it's applicable to morality.

Moreover, nothing is truly moral or immoral. You were right the first time: it is subjective. If you understand economics and taxes at all, you'll know that taxes are necessary to provide goods that are not commercially profitable, but have a higher consumer benefit than the cost: bridges, stop signs and traffic lights, public education, anti-drug education, etc. Most of the people who pay them are better off for it. There's nothing either moral or immoral about taxes themselves, it's simply a system. You can judge the way that system is used, or the way that system is set up. But, you can't label it's existence good or bad.

Morality is defined by society. Among a group of people where stealing is a way of life and where killing is needed for survival (for there are such people with limited food resources, that have evolved such methods of controlling the population), it is not immoral to do either: to steal or to kill. In fact, there are several tribes who will leave their infants abandoned in the woods to starve to death if they do not look strong enough. That is their way of life. Here, there are enough resources that such actions are unnecessary. Hence, immoral.

 

If the child said no, and was clearly being tortured, I would fully endorse child protection services "kidnapping" the child, who clearly doesn't know any better.

See this is where you are fundamentally wrong.

And heres why:
If people within child services have the moral authority to kidnap children, then why is it wrong for anyone else to kidnap children. This is not a preferred human behaviour, and it cannot be consistently applied to the entire human population, and therefore it is not moral.

So to be frank about it. You are syllogistically incorrect. There is no subjectivity here. You have stated your belief, and your belief is a falsehood. You must accept this fact and either change your belief, or further accept that you are a hypocrite.

 

[Shredderbeam]

See this is where you are fundamentally wrong.

And heres why:
If people within child services have the moral authority to kidnap children, then why is it wrong for anyone else to kidnap children. This is not a preferred human behaviour, and it cannot be consistently applied to the entire human population, and therefore it is not moral.

All right, I see where you are coming from.

Well, the child protection services are a special group that have oversight committees, special training, etc., and do not act irresponsibly. I don't know that any other groups would be as well qualified, and, if they were, I would not see the need to have more than one.

 

[Cruel__Machine]

Every action between humans must be voluntary. It is never morally correct or morally legal to point a gun at someone and say 'pay taxes', 'do this', 'do that'. No one has that right, because if everyone had that right then society would cease to function, and morals, by their definition, are a preferred set of human behaviour.

No. You defined that which is good for society to be moral. The actual definition is much more generally... relating only to that which one considers to be good or bad.
That being said, why have you defined it as such? How are you correct and others wrong for defining it otherwise?

 

So, you're saying that morality is only applicable to situations involving only two people, and collectivities - because they are necessarily more complicated - are therefore excluded? You said yourself that words like society are "simply an abstraction to label a group of people".

Moreover, nothing is truly moral or immoral. You were right the first time: it is subjective. If you understand economics and taxes at all, you'll know that taxes are necessary to provide goods that are not commercially profitable, but have a higher consumer benefit than the cost: bridges, stop signs and traffic lights, public education, anti-drug education, etc. Most of the people who pay them are better off for it.

Thus, there's nothing either moral or immoral about taxes themselves, it's simply a system. You can only judge the way that system is used, or the way that system is set up. But, you can't label it's existence good or bad.

Incorrect. Morality is objective. There exists a formal proof that I invite you to attempt to find fault with:

(this is a paraphrased segment of the podcast posted before)

Morals are a set of rules claiming to accurately and consistently identify preferred human behaviours.
So, is there any such thing as preferred behaviour at all?

Consider the proposition: There is no such thing as preferred behaviour.

If I were to argue this proposition I have already shown my preference for truth over falsehood, as well as a preference for correcting those who speak falsely.

Therefore, the proposition that there is no such thing as preferred behaviour, is self contradictory. You could not make such an argument without proving yourself wrong.

Therefore preferred behaviour does exist and therefore morals do exist.

You must now either reject the premise that morals are a set of rules claiming to accurately and consistently identify preferred human behaviour or accept the conclusion that objective morality does exist.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Morals are a set of rules claiming to accurately and consistently identify preferred human behaviours.
So, is there any such thing as preferred behaviour at all?

Consider the proposition: There is no such thing as preferred behaviour.

If I were to argue this proposition I have already shown my preference for truth over falsehood, as well as a preference for correcting those who speak falsely.

Therefore, the proposition that there is no such thing as preferred behaviour, is self contradictory. You could not make such an argument without proving yourself wrong.

Therefore preferred behaviour does exist and therefore morals do exist.

You must now either reject the premise that morals are a set of rules claiming to accurately and consistently identify preferred human behaviour or accept the conclusion that objective morality does exist.

Preferred behavior exists, but how does that entail morality?

 

[Macroman]

Morals are also based On religion of Humans, Societies and Culture.

The easiest way to put it is that A good moral is to Place yourself in the other persons Place, and See the subject from their Point of View..

So, you're saying that morality is only applicable to situations involving only two people, and collectivities - because they are necessarily more complicated - are therefore excluded? You said yourself that words like society are "simply an abstraction to label a group of people". If it refers to a group of people, then, it's applicable to morality.

Moreover, nothing is truly moral or immoral. You were right the first time: it is subjective. If you understand economics and taxes at all, you'll know that taxes are necessary to provide goods that are not commercially profitable, but have a higher consumer benefit than the cost: bridges, stop signs and traffic lights, public education, anti-drug education, etc. Most of the people who pay them are better off for it. There's nothing either moral or immoral about taxes themselves, it's simply a system. You can judge the way that system is used, or the way that system is set up. But, you can't label it's existence good or bad.

Morality is defined by society. Among a group of people where stealing is a way of life and where killing is needed for survival (for there are such people with limited food resources, that have evolved such methods of controlling the population), it is not immoral to do either: to steal or to kill. In fact, there are several tribes who will leave their infants abandoned in the woods to starve to death if they do not look strong enough. That is their way of life. Here, there are enough resources that such actions are unnecessary. Hence, immoral

Something that may seem moral in one society, Or to one person might in Conjunction seem immoral, Thus for Morals are more withing Social Gorups.

 

[Sin666]

I know you get your kicks out of arguing, but if you're going to have an opinion, defend it. Saying incorrect isn't an argument, and you can't use a podcast to do your reasoning for you. "Morality" is loosely defined: I challenged your definition, and therefore, you cannot refute simply by saying, "No, it's this. The podcast says so."

Even so, it uses poor logic. He is analyzing the result of a spoken proposition, when referring to a state of being. In speaking it, he reflects his own culture's preference for truth over falsehoods, and it is there that morality lies. It does not disprove itself simply by "being".

 

Preferred behavior exists, but how does that entail morality?

Well you must either accept that definition of morality or accept the conclusion. There is no two ways about it.

The definition, in my opinion, is correct.

To elaborate:
A moral position is one that is right and just. Therefore an immoral position is one that is wrong and unjust. Now, assuming there is no god, right and wrong must have definitions.

When something is right, then that is a preferred behaviour. When something is wrong then that is an un-preferred behaviour. If this distinction did not exist, if humans did not have a preference to be treated 'right', then the words right and wrong would be meaningless. When something is 'right' it is preferred over something that is 'wrong'.

So, for there to be a distinction between right and wrong, there must be preffered behaviour. And because an action that is 'moral' is synonymous to an action that is 'right and just' we must conclude that morality is in fact a set of rules that accurately and consistently identify preferred human behaviours.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Well you must either accept that definition of morality or accept the conclusion. There is no two ways about it.

The definition, in my opinion, is correct.

To elaborate:
A moral position is one that is right and just. Therefore an immoral position is one that is wrong and unjust. Now, assuming there is no god, right and wrong must have definitions.

When something is right, then that is a preferred behaviour. When something is wrong then that is an un-preferred behaviour. If this distinction did not exist, if humans did not have a preference to be treated 'right', then the words right and wrong would be meaningless. When something is 'right' it is preferred over something that is 'wrong'.

So, for there to be a distinction between right and wrong, there must be preffered behaviour. And because an action that is 'moral' is synonymous to an action that is 'right and just' we must conclude that morality is in fact a set of rules that accurately and consistently identify preferred human behaviours.

Preferred behavior is not absolute, though, and varies from person to person.

 

I know you get your kicks out of arguing, but if you're going to have an opinion, defend it. Saying incorrect isn't an argument, and you can't use a podcast to do your reasoning for you. "Morality" is loosely defined: I challenged your definition, and therefore, you cannot refute simply by saying, "No, it's this. The podcast says so."

Even so, it uses poor logic. He is analyzing the result of a spoken proposition, when referring to a state of being. In speaking it, he reflects his own culture's preference for truth over falsehoods, and it is there that morality lies. It does not disprove itself simply by "being".

Have you listened to the podcast. I sincerely hope you are not claiming ignorance as a defense for your own argument! Because that would be a syllogistic fallacy.

If you wish to define morality based on god then you are free to do so. But the logical arguments disproving the existence of god will have a knock on effect to your own arguments, thus making your premise invalid and leaving you with no alternative.

If you accept that morality determines the difference between 'right' and 'wrong', in any society, then you are forced to accept the definition laid forth in the original argument.

 

[Zypur]

Morals are also based On religion of Humans, Societies and Culture.

So you are implying that absolute morals do not exist outside of religion, or in a place with no law or structure?