Objective Moralism

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

The rules of preferred behaviour are not absolute, this is correct. Some people have a preference to be tortured, others have a preference to torture others, still others have a preference to torture themselves. But, overwhelmingly, the preferred behaviour of others in ordinary humans is consistent.

Even if you are taught to accept having money from you, or having your children taken from you, you will feel bad when it occurs. There is a natural instinct for preferred behaviour as well as an intellectual understanding of it.

Across religions fundamental morals are similar, all with a smattering of real morality, although most have many elements of falsehood.

You should not: steal, murder, rape, commit violent acts, or threaten.
These are the common 'morals', the common preferred behaviours, which exist throughout virtually every society in the world.

 

[Shredderbeam]

The rules of preferred behaviour are not absolute, this is correct. Some people have a preference to be tortured, others have a preference to torture others, still others have a preference to torture themselves. But, overwhelmingly, the preferred behaviour of others in ordinary humans is consistent.

Even if you are taught to accept having money from you, or having your children taken from you, you will feel bad when it occurs. There is a natural instinct for preferred behaviour as well as an intellectual understanding of it.

Across religions fundamental morals are similar, all with a smattering of real morality, although most have many elements of falsehood.

You should not: steal, murder, rape, commit violent acts, or threaten.
These are the common 'morals', the common preferred behaviours, which exist throughout virtually every society in the world.

Yet from age to age, and from place to place, the common moral standards differ. Around a year ago, a girl was stoned to death in the Middle East for having sex outside of marriage. Those among her killers were family members.

 

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.

It doesn't matter that it is a specially trained group.

If something is immoral for one person to do then it must be immoral for all to do, otherwise it cannot be true.

If I got special training to be an atomic bomb specialist, does that give me the right to murder hundreds of millions of people in a nuclear inferno, just because I have 'special training'?

What about your child protection people when they go home at night. Do they retain the right to kidnap people when they take off their badge? What about when they go on holiday.

Do they have some fundamental difference which makes them no longer subject to human morality? Are they of a different species? Are they gods?

The answer to all of this of course is that the behavior of kidnap is immoral, it is unpreferred, it is wrong. There is no justification, ever, to forcibly remove someone and lock them up, unless that justification can be used by every man and woman in every situation anywhere in the world.

So, to expand this further. You are saying that: if one person does not approve of the way a child in another family is being raised or treated at any point in time (so this is a subjective view that this person has), then that person automatically gains the moral right to kidnap the child and do whatever he pleases with that child.

Obviously the above is absurd. It is not a preferred behaviour to kidnap children and thus it is immoral.

 

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

That is what the whole thread is about.

 

[Shredderbeam]

It doesn't matter that it is a specially trained group.

If something is immoral for one person to do then it must be immoral for all to do, otherwise it cannot be true.

I disagree. If everybody were allowed to do it, you would have people who don't understand the law try to do it, and do it it situations that would not warrant it.

So, to expand this further. You are saying that: if one person does not approve of the way a child in another family is being raised or treated at any point in time (so this is a subjective view that this person has), then that person automatically gains the moral right to kidnap the child and do whatever he pleases with that child.

No, I am saying that if an official committee of unbiased people decides that the children are being abused, then they should be the ones to perform the rescue.

 

Yet from age to age, and from place to place, the common moral standards differ. Around a year ago, a girl was stoned to death in the Middle East for having sex outside of marriage. Those among her killers were family members.

Those are not morals any more than claiming that magic is a law of physical science.

We must cease to call them 'morals' because they are not moral actions, they are universally un-preferred behavioural acts. You show this very fact by protesting the acts. Most societies, most people across the world protest these acts. Certainly the girl herself, and her family, protested these acts.

Stoning someone to death is not a moral act. Murder is not a moral act. Calling it a moral act is simply lying. It is no more a moral act than 'hydrogen turns into a frog at negative 300 degrees' is a physical law.

 

[Sin666]

Actually, I'm an outspoken atheist. I believe that nothing "is", including morality. It's whatever we - again, as a society, as a country, whatever - want to make of it.

I merely stated that what we say and how we say it is itself a reflection of our culture - at least according to linguistic anthropology. If you want to go ahead and disprove a branch of science, be my guest. Otherwise, to say something is as much to describe the object as ourselves. Since speaking anything adds this other aspect - one of self - it cannot be used to disprove subjective morality on the basis that it's contradictory. It's not; it's the imposition of self on the statement that makes it contradictory.

I hate repeating myself, but perhaps that clarifies.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Those are not morals any more than claiming that magic is a law of physical science.

We must cease to call them 'morals' because they are not moral actions, they are universally un-preferred behavioural acts. You show this very fact by protesting the acts. Most societies, most people across the world protest these acts. Certainly the girl herself, and her family, protested these acts.

Stoning someone to death is not a moral act. Murder is not a moral act. Calling it a moral act is simply lying. It is no more a moral act than 'hydrogen turns into a frog at negative 300 degrees' is a physical law.

Those stoning her (her family included) considered the action to be moral.

My point was that what most people consider to be right and just varies from place to place, and from age to age.

 

I disagree. If everybody were allowed to do it, you would have people who don't understand the law try to do it, and do it it situations that would not warrant it.

If the law is not understood by all then it is not the law; it is someone's rules which they are imposing on you at gun-point.

No, I am saying that if an official committee of unbiased people decides that the children are being abused, then they should be the ones to perform the rescue.

And who would choose the committee of unbiased people? Why can't I have a committee too? Why can't I place myself in the committee? If it is moral to have a committee of people, whom I believe are unbiased, that run around and kidnap children, then why is it immoral for me to have a committee which does that too?

I could elect myself as the only member of my committee, and, as I believe myself to be unbiased, I would then gain the moral authority to kidnap children, correct?

Again your argument fails because the actions that you suggest are 'moral' are not universally applicable, and therefore are not consistent, and therefore are not preferred human behaviour, and therefore are not moral.

 

[Shredderbeam]

If the law is not understood by all then it is not the law; it is someone's rules which they are imposing on you at gun-point.

Well, no, some people are ignorant, and don't care about understanding the law.

And who would choose the committee of unbiased people? Why can't I have a committee too? Why can't I place myself in the committee? If it is moral to have a committee of people, whom I believe are unbiased, that run around and kidnap children, then why is it immoral for me to have a committee which does that too?

The choosers of this committee would be other members of the government who good faith is provided to to choose unbiased members.

I could elect myself as the only member of my committee, and, as I believe myself to be unbiased, I would then gain the moral authority to kidnap children, correct?

If you really were unbiased, had the training so you wouldn't make horrible mistakes, and only intervened in situations that drastically needed them, then yes, you would have the moral authority. However, there would be no reason for you to exist as a separate group from the existing child protection services.

 

I merely stated that what we say and how we say it is itself a reflection of our culture - at least according to linguistic anthropology.

Well I speak from the perspective and understanding of syllogistic truth; which is based on the ability of a statement or theory to correspond with the real world, with reality, in a meaningful and consistent manner. So I have already disproved your statement because I am not speaking from cultural bias, and it only takes one divergent person to disprove that statement.

If you want to go ahead and disprove a branch of science, be my guest.

It is not about 'disproving the science' it is about disproving your argument that it is relevant to this debate. Which have already done above.

Otherwise, to say something is as much to describe the object as ourselves. Since speaking anything adds this other aspect - one of self - it cannot be used to disprove subjective morality on the basis that it's contradictory. It's not; it's the imposition of self on the statement that makes it contradictory.

I reject your premise, that 'what we say and how we say it is itself a reflection of our culture' as untrue in the field of empirical science and objective thought. Our actions, and decisions, and truth value, are governed by their coherence, consistency, and how they conform to, predict, and explain reality.

 

Those stoning her (her family included) considered the action to be moral.

My point was that what most people consider to be right and just varies from place to place, and from age to age.

I seriously doubt her family found it moral. But, as I stated before, morality must be universally preferred, otherwise it is not morality. Clearly this action was not universally preferred and therefore was not moral.

The point you are attempting to make is irrelevant: People's beliefs about how they should treat one another change from society to society. But the actual preferred behaviour does not. People do not like being punched in the gut, for example. You find me one instance of a society that actually found 'being punched in the gut' to be a preferred behaviour, and therefore found 'not being punched in the gut' to be an unpreferred behaviour, and I will consider your argument.

 

[Shredderbeam]

I seriously doubt her family found it moral. But, as I stated before, morality must be universally preferred, otherwise it is not morality. Clearly this action was not universally preferred and therefore was not moral.

Well, all right, maybe they didn't find it moral. They still partook, though.

Even what is universally preferred can change. True, it will take a longer time, but a thousand years from now, the majority of people in the world might support female circumcision, a painful and useless procedure. I would not call that moral.

The point you are attempting to make is irrelevant: People's beliefs about how they should treat one another change from society to society. But the actual preferred behaviour does not. People do not like being punched in the gut, for example. You find me one instance of a society that actually found 'being punched in the gut' to be a preferred behaviour, and therefore found 'not being punched in the gut' to be an unpreferred behaviour, and I will consider your argument.

Well, being punched in the gut is generally not preferred because our instincts dictate that we avoid pain, and we haven't really been trained to ignore those instincts. There are some things, however, which do vary. In the West, in the business world, it tends to be that people enjoy being singled out for praise. In places such as Japan, however, this is not desirable. Most would rather that their group be singled out.

 

Well, no, some people are ignorant, and don't care about understanding the law.

Then it is not the law! The law is a common feeling that the entire society has about 'how just' an action is. The law is not a set of rules laid down by a dictator, or a dictatorial group.

The choosers of this committee would be other members of the government who good faith is provided to to choose unbiased members.

Oh I see, so now it is moral to have a government. Aside from the obvious absurdity of this statement, let me perform the exact same set of arguments I have for every other proposition you have put forward:

If it is moral for you to elect a government, that can, in turn, elect a committee to kidnap children, then why is it immoral for me to setup my own government, say for my suburb, which elects a committee, in good faith (as I see it), which, in turn, creates a group which has the moral authority to kidnap children?

I could elect myself the government, I could be the only member of the government, and I could elect myself the only member of that committee, in good faith, then I could elect myself the only member of that 'child services agency', thus obtaining the moral authority to kidnap children.

Then I'd have the moral authority to run around and kidnap children, right?

Wrong! If its immoral for one person to do then it must be immoral for ANY person to do. How many times must I explain this to you?

If you really were unbiased, had the training so you wouldn't make horrible mistakes, and only intervened in situations that drastically needed them, then yes, you would have the moral authority. However, there would be no reason for you to exist as a separate group from the existing child protection services.

I see, and who is to determine what is 'unbiased' and what is 'the correct training'? Who is to determine what is a drastic situation?

Must I spell it out for you? Your position on this is immoral, and it can never be moral, because it is inconsistent. In fact, why don't you look up the great evils of your CPS group in the US to see the real manifestation of the immorality of which I speak?

 

Well, all right, maybe they didn't find it moral. They still partook, though.

Even what is universally preferred can change. True, it will take a longer time, but a thousand years from now, the majority of people in the world might support female circumcision, a painful and useless procedure. I would not call that moral.

Sure, people evolve. Fortunately you will not be alive then. The laws of physics may abruptly change in 1000 years, but that possibility does not negate the validity of the existing laws.

Well, being punched in the gut is generally not preferred because our instincts dictate that we avoid pain, and we haven't really been trained to ignore those instincts. There are some things, however, which do vary. In the West, in the business world, it tends to be that people enjoy being singled out for praise. In places such as Japan, however, this is not desirable. Most would rather that their group be singled out.

These are derived from natural preferences. We have a natural preference to gain respect within our community. Thus preferred actions, which gain us respect, are moral and desirable actions to commit. The actual manifestation of gaining respect changes however, depending on your culture and your genetic heritage. If it is seen as shallow to be taking praise then obviously this becomes an undesired behaviour.

The fact that some people have different manifestations of preferred behaviour in their cultures does not void the argument that preferred behaviour exists. In fact, it further supports the argument for preferred behaviour. If you know that japanese people don't enjoy praise then you will respect that and not give them praise, thus you conform to their manifestation of preferred behaviour, and that, in itself, is due to your own manifestation of your preferred behaviour: to not make other people uncomfortable.

I hope that made sense to you.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Then it is not the law! The law is a common feeling that the entire society has about 'how just' an action is. The law is not a set of rules laid down by a dictator, or a dictatorial group.

Some people really just do not care, and don't want to understand.

If it is moral for you to elect a government, that can, in turn, elect a committee to kidnap children, then why is it immoral for me to setup my own government, say for my suburb, which elects a committee, in good faith (as I see it), which, in turn, creates a group which has the moral authority to kidnap children?

I could elect myself the government, I could be the only member of the government, and I could elect myself the only member of that committee, in good faith, then I could elect myself the only member of that 'child services agency', thus obtaining the moral authority to kidnap children.

Then I'd have the moral authority to run around and kidnap children, right?

Well, now you're getting into separationism. You do not have the right to impose your will upon others who do not harm anybody, so you could not run your entire neighborhood.

However, if you wanted to leave your country, and go live out in the ocean with your community, I'm sure you would be free to do so.

Wrong! If its immoral for one person to do then it must be immoral for ANY person to do. How many times must I explain this to you?

Well, it just wouldn't work out if everybody tried to do it. We can't have societies full of janitors, or doctors. Sometimes, you only need a certain amount of people with a set responsibility.

I see, and who is to determine what is 'unbiased' and what is 'the correct training'? Who is to determine what is a drastic situation?

Well, I would define unbiased to be purely logical, the correct training as that which produces the best results (not coming in and carrying away children with the SWAT team), and a drastic situation as one where a mentally unfit person is having their rights violated.

Must I spell it out for you? Your position on this is immoral, and it can never be moral, because it is inconsistent. In fact, why don't you look up the great evils of your CPS group in the US to see the real manifestation of the immorality of which I speak?

Oh, I'm sure it's not perfect. I just advocate that the concept itself isn't inherently immoral.

Sure, people evolve. Fortunately you will not be alive then. The laws of physics may abruptly change in 1000 years, but that possibility does not negate the validity of the existing laws.

Right, so if something which we consider abhorrent now is considered virtuous 100 hears hence, then it is moral?

These are derived from natural preferences. We have a natural preference to gain respect within our community. Thus preferred actions, which gain us respect, are moral and desirable actions to commit. The actual manifestation of gaining respect changes however, depending on your culture and your genetic heritage. If it is seen as shallow to be taking praise then obviously this becomes an undesired behaviour.

The fact that some people have different manifestations of preferred behaviour in their cultures does not void the argument that preferred behaviour exists. In fact, it further supports the argument for preferred behaviour. If you know that japanese people don't enjoy praise then you will respect that and not give them praise, thus you conform to their manifestation of preferred behaviour, and that, in itself, is due to your own manifestation of your preferred behaviour: to not make other people uncomfortable.

But these preferred behaviors are not absolute, and vary! You cannot have absolute morality as long as this is the case.

 

Some people really just do not care, and don't want to understand.

There is nothing to understand because its already understood. Anyone who is divergent in the manner you speak of is a criminal, or at least a potential criminal.

Well, now you're getting into separationism. You do not have the right to impose your will upon others who do not harm anybody, so you could not run your entire neighborhood.

Right, so why do a group of people called 'the government' have the right to impose themself on me. I never agreed to that. And if the imposition of unwanted rules on a group of people is all the justification needed to form you CPS group then why can't any other group impose unfair unjust rules on people and create their own CPS group? Why would that be less moral than the government doing it?

However, if you wanted to leave your country, and go live out in the ocean with your community, I'm sure you would be free to do so.

Oh I see. And if a criminal gang comes along to your shop and threatens to burn it down if you don't pay them protection money, you still have a choice because you can simply leave? The shop owner was there first, the criminal gang is the aggressor. So no, I should not have to leave my home and my country because a criminal gang moves in next door. And to assert that it is my free choice is to assert a fallacy. Because I did not ask for the aggression to be committed against me to begin with, therefore and choices I have stemming from that aggression are not made freely.

Well, it just wouldn't work out if everybody tried to do it. We can't have societies full of janitors, or doctors. Sometimes, you only need a certain amount of people with a set responsibility.

You now admit that your argument is immoral by asserting that only a small group of people can hold that 'moral' authority. As proven above and before if an action is moral for one person to perform, then it MUST be moral for every person to perform.

Well, I would define unbiased to be purely logical, the correct training as that which produces the best results (not coming in and carrying away children with the SWAT team), and a drastic situation as one where a mentally unfit person is having their rights violated.

Who is to determine what the best results are. You cannot argue that 'the best results' or 'the best training' can be derived from logic. Because logically, as I have pointed out many times, the fundamental act of kidnapping children is immoral. Therefore if you were to derrive 'the best results' and 'the best training' from logic, your results would be 'leave the children with the family' and your training would be 'don't train them or even have a CPS to begin with'.

Oh, I'm sure it's not perfect. I just advocate that the concept itself isn't inherently immoral.

And that is an irrational position to hold. I cannot argue further with you because you have accepted the premise of my argument and rejected the conclusions. Until you can either provide a fault in my logic or accept that you are incorrect in holding this point of view there is no point in continuing this debate.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Right, so why do a group of people called 'the government' have the right to impose themself on me. I never agreed to that. And if the imposition of unwanted rules on a group of people is all the justification needed to form you CPS group then why can't any other group impose unfair unjust rules on people and create their own CPS group? Why would that be less moral than the government doing it?

The majority of people in your country want it to be so.

And if the imposition of unwanted rules on a group of people is all the justification needed to form you CPS group then why can't any other group impose unfair unjust rules on people and create their own CPS group? Why would that be less moral than the government doing it?

They would not have the majority of the people's support.

Oh I see. And if a criminal gang comes along to your shop and threatens to burn it down if you don't pay them protection money, you still have a choice because you can simply leave? The shop owner was there first, the criminal gang is the aggressor. So no, I should not have to leave my home and my country because a criminal gang moves in next door. And to assert that it is my free choice is to assert a fallacy. Because I did not ask for the aggression to be committed against me to begin with, therefore and choices I have stemming from that aggression are not made freely.

Meh, it may be unfair to you, but it provides the largest benefits to the people.

You now admit that your argument is immoral by asserting that only a small group of people can hold that 'moral' authority. As proven above and before if an action is moral for one person to perform, then it MUST be moral for every person to perform.

Anybody can hold the moral authority, but their existence as a separate group is redundant.

Who is to determine what the best results are. You cannot argue that 'the best results' or 'the best training' can be derived from logic. Because logically, as I have pointed out many times, the fundamental act of kidnapping children is immoral. Therefore if you were to derrive 'the best results' and 'the best training' from logic, your results would be 'leave the children with the family' and your training would be 'don't train them or even have a CPS to begin with'.

In a lot of cases, it probably would be, yet there are extreme cases where the best thing to do is to intervene.

And that is an irrational position to hold. I cannot argue further with you because you have accepted the premise of my argument and rejected the conclusions. Until you can either provide a fault in my logic or accept that you are incorrect in holding this point of view there is no point in continuing this debate.

I never accepted the premises. To quote Cruel__Machine:

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?[/quote

 

I never accepted the premises.

Then you must find fault in the below:

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 preferred 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.

 

[Cruel__Machine]

These are the common 'morals', the common preferred behaviours, which exist throughout virtually every society in the world.

That is what they are, preferred behaviors. The behaviors aren't right, nor wrong. They're preferred [by the majority]. It's as simple as that.

What is right and wrong cannot be conditional. If a problem were to have different solutions under certain conditions, there would be no solution defined... only possible solutions being dependent on the different conditions.

You guys aren't accomplishing anything with this debate while you hold no common foundation. There is evidently a disagreement concerning the definition of morality. And your words are wasted with the assumption of these common grounds. Your arguments crumble when you talk about the nature of something when it has yet to have an established definition.
I speak for the sake of the progression of the discussion.