Objective Moralism

[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 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.

You're arguing that morality is defined by what the majority of people want. I argue that that is not morality, it's just what the majority of people want.

If you want to call that morality, then sure, that's morality. It is not, however, absolute.

 

You're arguing that morality is defined by what the majority of people want. I argue that that is not morality, it's just what the majority of people want.

If you want to call that morality, then sure, that's morality. It is not, however, absolute.

It is absolute in the sense there is no 'more absolute' morality. The preferred human behaviours, which are determined mostly by instinct and empathy,and partially by common human understanding, are the only actions which can be said to be universally preferred. There is no higher set of preferred actions and therefore there are no higher morals.

You are one person. You advocate that your definition of morality is more correct than my definition. Your definition is based on what you personally believe. My definition, 'the' definition, is based on a syllogistic argument that humans are animals and animals exhibit preferred behaviours.

You must concede that your argument is merely opinion, whereas my argument is scientific in nature. And therefore you must also concede that either I am right, or that you are irrational in your beliefs. That is of course, unless you can find a fault in my argument (which is legitimate and not just based on your opinion).

 

[Shredderbeam]

It is absolute in the sense there is no 'more absolute' morality. The preferred human behaviours, which are determined mostly by instinct and empathy,and partially by common human understanding, are the only actions which can be said to be universally preferred. There is no higher set of preferred actions and therefore there are no higher morals.

I can conceive of absolute morals. If a God existed, and decreed that certain things were moral, then they would be moral, regardless of how we regarded them. However, your definition relies on what the majority of people believe, and thus, is not absolute or objective.

You are one person. You advocate that your definition of morality is more correct than my definition. Your definition is based on what you personally believe. My definition, 'the' definition, is based on a syllogistic argument that humans are animals and animals exhibit preferred behaviours.

Actually, I argue that morality is a concept that humans come up with to try to justify their life. True morals don't actually exist, for if I commit supposedly immoral acts, no negativity will come of it. That will only happen if a majority of people commit such acts. Of course, my thoughts on a matter does not force everybody else to have the same thoughts.

You must concede that your argument is merely opinion, whereas my argument is scientific in nature. And therefore you must also concede that either I am right, or that you are irrational in your beliefs. That is of course, unless you can find a fault in my argument (which is legitimate and not just based on your opinion).

Your argument is based upon what humans want, which is ultimately meaningless.

 

I can conceive of absolute morals. If a God existed, and decreed that certain things were moral, then they would be moral, regardless of how we regarded them. However, your definition relies on what the majority of people believe, and thus, is not absolute or objective.

It doesn't rely on what the majority believe. It relies on how the majority behave. Two completely different things. Objective morality looks at humans as animals and examines preferred behaviours.

Actually, I argue that morality is a concept that humans come up with to try to justify their life. True morals don't actually exist, for if I commit supposedly immoral acts, no negativity will come of it. That will only happen if a majority of people commit such acts. Of course, my thoughts on a matter does not force everybody else to have the same thoughts.

Well your argument is void. Morality is a set of rules to determine the most preferred behavious one can make.

Your argument is based upon what humans want, which is ultimately meaningless.

This is a self contradicting argument. If it is ultimately meaningless what humans want, then it is ultimately meaningless what YOU want, as you are human. You are arguing voluntarily, because that is what you want to do. So, through the act of doing what you want to do, you argue that any arguments based on what humans want are meaningless, thus making your argument meaningless.

A self contradiction, as I am sure you can appreciate.

 

[Shredderbeam]

It doesn't rely on what the majority believe. It relies on how the majority behave. Two completely different things. Objective morality looks at humans as animals and examines preferred behaviours.

That, too, can change.

Well your argument is void. Morality is a set of rules to determine the most preferred behavious one can make.

I was under the impression that it determined what was right and wrong, of the sort that most religions claim.

This is a self contradicting argument. If it is ultimately meaningless what humans want, then it is ultimately meaningless what YOU want, as you are human. You are arguing voluntarily, because that is what you want to do. So, through the act of doing what you want to do, you argue that any arguments based on what humans want are meaningless, thus making your argument meaningless.

Fair enough.

This seems to be a fun activity. Sure, it's ultimately meaningless, but what seems to be pleasurable is what I'll do. But, what is seemingly pleasurable to others may not be to me. Why should I care?

 

That, too, can change.

So can the laws of physics and the nature of reality. It does not mean we should discard our understanding of the universe because the universe may change its nature at some point in the future.

I was under the impression that it determined what was right and wrong, of the sort that most religions claim.

How humans behave and why they behave that way are both valid areas of analysis in this debate. But ultimately, to examine morals objectively, you must look purely at how they act and the tendencies they tend to exhibit.

This seems to be a fun activity. Sure, it's ultimately meaningless, but what seems to be pleasurable is what I'll do. But, what is seemingly pleasurable to others may not be to me. Why should I care?

Another self contradictory statement. If the activity of debating were 'ultimately meaningless' then there would be no reason to debate. Obviously we are trying to determine what is meaningful, and what is true, from a confused collection of your opinions and real world fact. If there were no meaning involved then there would be no point in debating at all. There would be no point in you even making the statement that it is meaningless, because your statement would have no meaning. Obviously it is meaningful and I prove that by deriving meaning from your statement and replying in a meaningful way. The second you even made that argument you conveyed meaning, thus defeating your own argument.

 

[Shredderbeam]

So can the laws of physics and the nature of reality. It does not mean we should discard our understanding of the universe because the universe may change its nature at some point in the future.

The odds of that happening are very, very low.

How humans behave and why they behave that way are both valid areas of analysis in this debate. But ultimately, to examine morals objectively, you must look purely at how they act and the tendencies they tend to exhibit.

If that is what morality is based upon, then I do not consider it to be morality. I consider it to be the most preferred way of living.

Another self contradictory statement. If the activity of debating were 'ultimately meaningless' then there would be no reason to debate. Obviously we are trying to determine what is meaningful, and what is true, from a confused collection of your opinions and real world fact. If there were no meaning involved then there would be no point in debating at all. There would be no point in you even making the statement that it is meaningless, because your statement would have no meaning. Obviously it is meaningful and I prove that by deriving meaning from your statement and replying in a meaningful way. The second you even made that argument you conveyed meaning, thus defeating your own argument.

If a person does not live by a particular logical argument, then that does not logically invalidate it. The logic proposed, though not followed by me, has not been disproved by you.

 

The odds of that happening are very, very low.

Fundamental human nature has not changed in a very long time. Regardless of how rapid something changes in nature this remains a null argument. The argument that you 'reject' a syllogistic argument on the basis it may no longer be the same, or may no longer be true, in 1000 years, based solely on your perception of what may or may not be in 1000 years, is a false argument. It is your opinion, not a logical contradiction to the arguments put forward.

If that is what morality is based upon, then I do not consider it to be morality. I consider it to be the most preferred way of living.

Well then you have no place arguing here. Just as if 'your definition' of physics were 'harry potter magic' you'd have no place arguing on a physics forum.

If a person does not live by a particular logical argument, then that does not logically invalidate it. The logic proposed, though not followed by me, has not been disproved by you.

Your statement was disproved. All self contradictory statements are syllogistical fallacies. And the fact you refuse to accept that;
a) these two statements made by you about the 'meaning of the debate' are indeed self contradictory and therefore false; and
b) your opinion about what the definition of 'morality' should be has no relation to the debate;
places you in a defeated position. I have proven you are incorrect in your argument and irrational in your beliefs; therefore you lose the debate.

The oxford definition of morality:

morality


• noun ([SIZE=-1]pl.[/SIZE] moralities) 1 principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. 2 moral behaviour. 3 the extent to which an action is right or wrong. 4 a system of values and moral principles.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Fundamental human nature has not changed in a very long time. Regardless of how rapid something changes in nature this remains a null argument. The argument that you 'reject' a syllogistic argument on the basis it may no longer be the same, or may no longer be true, in 1000 years, based solely on your perception of what may or may not be in 1000 years, is a false argument. It is your opinion, not a logical contradiction to the arguments put forward.

Yet still it changes! And, if it changes, morality cannot be absolute, for the morality of time hence will not be the same of time past.

Well then you have no place arguing here. Just as if 'your definition' of physics were 'harry potter magic' you'd have no place arguing on a physics forum.

Nobody really defines physics as Harry Potter magic, yet how you are defining morality is basically just coming up with a nice, neat pattern for humans to live by, and invoking the word "morality" to accuse them of being immoral if they disagree. Yet, if that's what you think morality is, then why not be immoral? To help another inconveniences myself, as does any form of sacrifice. If I manage to steal a large sum of money from a corporation, what of it? Should I feel bad?

Your statement was disproved. All self contradictory statements are syllogistical fallacies. And the fact you refuse to accept that;
a) these two statements made by you about the 'meaning of the debate' are indeed self contradictory and therefore false; and
b) your opinion about what the definition of 'morality' should be has no relation to the debate;
places you in a defeated position. I have proven you are incorrect in your argument and irrational in your beliefs; therefore you lose the debate.

You haven't actually disproved it. Why not live without meaning? Why even consider it? Why not just stop everything, and cease to think?

 

You should stop posting in this thread as you have rejected the oxford definition of morality and therefore are not talking about the same thing I am debating. Any further debate with you is pointless.

 

[Shredderbeam]

You should stop posting in this thread as you have rejected the oxford definition of morality and therefore are not talking about the same thing I am debating. Any further debate with you is pointless.

The definition is not fully clear.

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

Why are some things right or wrong, good or bad? Is it just what humans decide is good or bad? Why, then, can I not form my own definition, and proceed from there? Or, if a majority is required, what if I convince enough people that my definition is correct, and that intruding upon others rights without cause is justified?

 

Why are some things right or wrong, good or bad? Is it just what humans decide is good or bad? Why, then, can I not form my own definition, and proceed from there? Or, if a majority is required, what if I convince enough people that my definition is correct, and that intruding upon others rights without cause is justified?

The keyword is behaviour.

morality
• noun ([SIZE=-1]pl.[/SIZE] moralities) 1 principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. 2 moral behaviour. 3 the extent to which an action is right or wrong. 4 a system of values and moral principles.

 

[Shredderbeam]

The keyword is behaviour.

Right, behavior. All things that humans do is behavior. What makes that behavior right or wrong? Why can I not form my own definition of it?

 

Right, behavior. All things that humans do is behavior. What makes that behavior right or wrong? Why can I not form my own definition of it?

Well why can't I form my own definition of matter then walk into a physics debate and tell them they are all wrong?

Just leave. You don't want to debate the logic, all you want to do is mince words and try to wiggle as much subjectivity into the language as possible. I gave you a definition early on, and you waste my time by continuing to argue only to revert to 'oh I never accepted the definition'. Well then why did you continue to argue?

good


• adjective (better, best) 1 to be desired or approved of. 2 having the required qualities; of a high standard. 3 morally right; virtuous. 4 well behaved. 5 enjoyable or satisfying. 6 appropriate. 7 (good for) beneficial to. 8 thorough. 9 at least.

To answer your question (although I don't know why I should bother) the reason you cannot 'make up your own definitions' is because good is a word in the english language with a formal definition, as given above.

As I have already alluded to, if you are going to throw out every word in the language to avoid admitting you are wrong then I don't want to debate you on any topic at any time in the future.

 

[Sin666]

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.

It starts by assuming an initial difference between right and wrong, with truth being, as you suggest, "a moral position...that is right and just," and a lie, being "an immoral position...which is "wrong and unjust." However, there is no base difference between a truth and a lie, and the only reason either of you make that distinction is that it's something you've been taught since you were five.

The preference of truth over falsehood expressed in making the proposition does not imply that there's a fundamental difference. If speech made something either true or false, I should say that there is no such thing as "nothing", because in naming it, I have found something to describe. Therefore, there is no such thing as nothing. Again, poor logic.

Further, if you do not believe in God, how can you create a law of good and bad that apply only to mankind? It is only in religion that we are the divine race, deserving of the special attentions of the world. In science, we're highly evolved monkeys, and therefore, to create an idea that - as you said, is only applicable to the relations of humans - is to suggest that nature created right and wrong just for us. For, you say aggressive force is immoral: if so, how is the lion excused from killing a gazelle? Why should it apply only to humans, if you do not believe we are governed by higher laws?

 

It starts by assuming an initial difference between right and wrong, with truth being, as you suggest, "a moral position...that is right and just," and a lie, being "an immoral position...which is "wrong and unjust." However, there is no base difference between a truth and a lie, and the only reason either of you make that distinction is that it's something you've been taught since you were five.

Based on the actions and reactions of humans, as studied objectively, it is possible to determine behaviours which are universally preferrable and behaviours which are universally unpreferrable. Taking it one step further, we discover that all humans have terms that are consistently used to describe the difference between these behaviours, just as birds have calls to describe different states in their mating habits. Thus we may fairly equate the human english term 'good' with universally preferred behaviour, and the human english term 'bad' with universally unpreferred behaviour.

Remember that we did conclusively prove that preferred behaviour does exist. And here we have shown that preferred behaviour is recognized and understood by all humans. Thus for you to say that the distinction is made subjectively is false. All humans make the distinction in the same manner, with the exception of psychopaths.

The preference of truth over falsehood expressed in making the proposition does not imply that there's a fundamental difference. If speech made something either true or false, I should say that there is no such thing as "nothing", because in naming it, I have found something to describe. Therefore, there is no such thing as nothing. Again, poor logic.

No, the logic in the statement I put forward was perfectly valid. It is your logic that is self contradictory and therefore false:

'The preference of truth over falsehood expressed in making the proposition does not imply that there's a fundamental difference.' In making this statement you assert that I am incorrect, that my statement is untrue. If there were no fundamental difference between truth and falsehood there would be no reason to ever make such a statement, because you would already agree with me. If there is no difference between something that is true and something that is false then there is no reason to debate, or indeed communicate, because everything anyone ever said about anything would have no value. We would be unable to say 'yes that sounds correct' because correct and incorrect would have no definition.

To assert, as you are asserting, that there is no difference between true and false is to assert that your statement is in-fact true and therefore not false, and in the action of doing this you destroy your own proposition!

Further, if you do not believe in God, how can you create a law of good and bad that apply only to mankind? It is only in religion that we are the divine race, deserving of the special attentions of the world. In science, we're highly evolved monkeys, and therefore, to create an idea that - as you said, is only applicable to the relations of humans - is to suggest that nature created right and wrong just for us. For, you say aggressive force is immoral: if so, how is the lion excused from killing a gazelle? Why should it apply only to humans, if you do not believe we are governed by higher laws?

You reject the definition of morality, of the debate, in making this statement. Morality only exists between humans. Therefore all counter-arguments as to how it might be applied to animals or ... matter are void. If it is between animals (and not humans) then it is not morality and hence you are no longer debating within the scope of the subject of the debate.

But, granting a concession for the freedom to explore your proposition further, let us examine what you have asked:
"For, you say aggressive force is immoral: if so, how is the lion excused from killing a gazelle? Why should it apply only to humans, if you do not believe we are governed by higher laws?"

Why should the laws of physics only apply to physical reality? Why should biology only apply to animals? Why should mathematics only apply to symbols on paper?

Why would physics apply to someone's dreams? Why would biology apply to inorganic matter? Why would psychology apply to the nuclear processes of atomic fission?

To answer your question: Morality only applies to humans because that is the scope of its study and application.

 

[Music Makes Me Pwn]

But then Shredder, and can be used for the good side too. Id rather take a young member of my family and subject him / her to a life without pain and greif, where the only thing they know is to be happy.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Bah, I have no intention of arguing whether truth is to be preferable over falsehood. Yes, those that argue that neither is preferable are using a meaningless argument, since that indicates a preference for truth, but I can understand where they are coming from. I cannot use logic to show them why they are 100% wrong, yet I don't really see the need to. I doubt that people who truly adhere to that philosophy actually exist, and if they do, then I have no problem with them clinging to a meaningless argument. They can go start a colony in Siberia for all I care.

I suppose my main argument, Sythe, is that things that do not apply to all humans can still be moral. Let me return to the example of CPS. Say that humans decide upon an objective set of rights for all, using logic, reason, etc. If included in this logic is the moral obligation to aid those who request it, or are incapable of aiding themselves, then I would prefer to see people who can handle such a situation properly go in as opposed to some redneck who kicks down the door.

 

Bah, I have no intention of arguing whether truth is to be preferable over falsehood. Yes, those that argue that neither is preferable are using a meaningless argument, since that indicates a preference for truth, but I can understand where they are coming from. I cannot use logic to show them why they are 100% wrong, yet I don't really see the need to. I doubt that people who truly adhere to that philosophy actually exist, and if they do, then I have no problem with them clinging to a meaningless argument. They can go start a colony in Siberia for all I care.

What a load of irrational tripe. There is no such thing as a meaningless argument. An argument must have meaning or putting it forth would be irrational. A statement which is self contradictory is simply false.

I suppose my main argument, Sythe, is that things that do not apply to all humans can still be moral. Let me return to the example of CPS. Say that humans decide upon an objective set of rights for all, using logic, reason, etc. If included in this logic is the moral obligation to aid those who request it, or are incapable of aiding themselves, then I would prefer to see people who can handle such a situation properly go in as opposed to some redneck who kicks down the door.

If I study all matter and derive principles which govern the way matter interacts, is that not a set of rules that apply to all matter.

If I study humans and derive principles which govern the way humans interact naturally, is that not a set of rules that apply to all humans?

Any use of violence, at any time, to 'correct' an 'evil' (this includes CPS) is a fallacy. To state that 'initiation of force is moral' is in itself is a fallacy, and two immoral actions can never combine to create a moral action.

Lets break this down for you.

What is CPS?

CPS is a group of people who will make a decision about whether or not to take your kids, and if they decide that they deserve your kids more than you do then they will point a gun at you and say "give me your kids".

Now I don't care how you put it. This can never be a moral action. Both the act of aggression and the act of kidnap are unpreferred behaviour and therefore immoral.

To state that the CPS people have this moral authority is to state that person A may have a higher claim to person B than the person A has themselves. Your proposition rejects self ownership and supports slavery and violence. It is not moral.

 

[Shredderbeam]

What a load of irrational tripe. There is no such thing as a meaningless argument. An argument must have meaning or putting it forth would be irrational. A statement which is self contradictory is simply false.

Then why, logically, is the earlier argument of "life is ultimately meaningless, and truth is not always inherently preferable to falsehood" wrong?

If I study all matter and derive principles which govern the way matter interacts, is that not a set of rules that apply to all matter.

Yes, it is.

If I study humans and derive principles which govern the way humans interact naturally, is that not a set of rules that apply to all humans?

I suppose it's a set of rules that humans generally interact by. It's not necessarily the way they should act, though.

Any use of violence, at any time, to 'correct' an 'evil' (this includes CPS) is a fallacy. To state that 'initiation of force is moral' is in itself is a fallacy, and two immoral actions can never combine to create a moral action.

I suppose this would be a case where I feel that the ends justify the means. Sure, it's easier to have an absolute set of morals, but meh, things don't always work out that way in reality. I seem to have an innate "moral compass" that directs me to strive to prevent suffering in others to a reasonable extent. Yet, I think your dislike of a system where there are no absolute morals

CPS is a group of people who will make a decision about whether or not to take your kids, and if they decide that they deserve your kids more than you do then they will point a gun at you and say "give me your kids".

Now I don't care how you put it. This can never be a moral action. Both the act of aggression and the act of kidnap are unpreferred behaviour and therefore immoral.

To state that the CPS people have this moral authority is to state that person A may have a higher claim to person B than the person A has themselves. Your proposition rejects self ownership and supports slavery and violence. It is not moral.

Actually, I'd go so far as to say that it supports self-ownership. A child whose rights are being violated is not "owning" themselves.