Science of Morality

[seer]

I think I can, but again being right or wrong has nothing to do with punishment or reward. Morality has to do with human beings, and what is in best interests of human society, and that has nothing to do with whether an external source exists. There is no need of an external source of morality to exist in order to determine that.

Then make your case - why is the best interest of humanity an objective good, rather than a subjective good? What makes it objective? If all of mankind was destroyed tomorrow by an an alien race, would that be an objectively moral evil? Why? I mean really Jim, even Tass is not buying your argument.

Its not proof, its plain logic. You are the one asserting the existence and necessity of an external source of morality, so it is for you to prove it. What I proved logically is that there is no need of an external source in order to dtermine right and wrong, or what is good and what is evil.

No Jim, I said God is necessary for objective ethics. Objective to humankind, that is not dependent on the whims of men.

Again, it is just plain logic seer. If a thing is neither good or evil in itself, then its goodness or evilness is arbitrary.

Then in your world it is all arbitrary.

Why?

Because that is the way I was brought up and prefer to stay out of prison?

Thats whats silly seer. Believing something to be wrong means nothing, if it isn't actually wrong. When it comes to morality what is right and what is wrong is what is in the best interests of of human life and human society, and that is based on reason and sound logic. But that doesn't mean that we actually know what that is, which is why, just as in the case of your idea of a distinct and objective standard, we don't actually know it.

If objective moral facts do actually exist Jim (and they don't) but if they did - what good are they? What authority do they have? Why do men have an obligation to follow them? What happens if we ignore them?

[seer]

Yes, but this makes no sense. How, in reality, is the Jihadist any more, morally responsible, than the ape? Again, to quote Dawkins:

Concepts like blame and responsibility are bandied about freely where human wrongdoers are concerned. When a child robs an old lady, should we blame the child himself or his parents? Or his school? Negligent social workers? In a court of law, feeble-mindedness is an accepted defence, as is insanity. Diminished responsibility is argued by the defence lawyer, who may also try to absolve his client of blame by pointing to his unhappy childhood, abuse by his father, or even unpropitious genes (not, so far as I am aware, unpropitious planetary conjunctions, though it wouldn't surprise me).

But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment.

http://edge.org/q2006/q06_9.html#dawkins

So do you agree with Dawkins that the very idea of responsibility is nonsense?

[JimL]

Then make your case - why is the best interest of humanity an objective good, rather than a subjective good? What makes it objective? If all of mankind was destroyed tomorrow by an an alien race, would that be an objectively moral evil? Why? I mean really Jim, even Tass is not buying your argument.

What is in the best interests of humanity is an objective good for the same reason that what is not in the best interests of humanity is an objective evil. What makes morality objective is the fact that it is either in the best interest of humanity, or it is not. For instance, the moral against murder, theft, rape etc etc. is in the best intersts of all human beings and so in the best intersts of society as a whole. Thats what makes it objective, not that morals exist in themselves, but they are objective and independent of human subjective belief.

If all of mankind was destroyed tommorow by an alien race, would that be an objectively moral evil?

We are talking about morality with respect to human society and interpersonal relationships within that society. An alien race though, the leaders of which, that would destroy life for its own benefit would destroy their own citizens as well, they could also be destroyed by other aliens, and so on and so on, so they would be immoral to begin with. By adding aliens to the equation, you are simply enlarging the spectrum within which morality applies.

No Jim, I said God is necessary for objective ethics. Objective to humankind, that is not dependent on the whims of men.

Objective ethics are not dependent on the whims of man in the first place, so an authoritative god is not necessary. What is in the best interest of human life and survival is in the best interests of human life and survival independent of what anyone, including a deity, has in their mind.

Then in your world it is all arbitrary.

No, in my world morals are not arbitrary. Morals are just not things that exist in and of themselves, their existence is dependent, but their objectivity is not dependent, upon man. Again, what is in the best interest of life and survival is not dependent upon the subjective beliefs of man, what is in the best interests of life, is in the best interests of life regardless of what anyone might subjectively believe is in the best interests of life. Thats why morality is objective and such objectivity is not dependent on anything or anyone.

Because that is the way I was brought up and prefer to stay out of prison?

So, you only believe things to be true because that is the way you were brought up, or taught to believe.? You don't rely on critical reasoning to come to believe what you believe?

If objective moral facts do actually exist Jim (and they don't) but if they did - what good are they? What authority do they have? Why do men have an obligation to follow them? What happens if we ignore them?

Morals are not things that exist in themselves, they are objective facts not objective existing things, and their existence as facts are dependent upon the existence of living beings. If we ignore them, then we get to live in the world that we deserve.

[seer]

What is in the best interests of humanity is an objective good for the same reason that what is not in the best interests of humanity is an objective evil.

Jim that is a circular justification. It is not rational.

What makes morality objective is the fact that it is either in the best interest of humanity, or it is not. For instance, the moral against murder, theft, rape etc etc. is in the best intersts of all human beings and so in the best intersts of society as a whole. Thats what makes it objective, not that morals exist in themselves, but they are objective and independent of human subjective belief.

Again, why is the best interest of humanity an objective good? What you are offering Jim is the subjective view that the general good is somehow an objective moral truth.

We are talking about morality with respect to human society and interpersonal relationships within that society. An alien race though, the leaders of which, that would destroy life for its own benefit would destroy their own citizens as well, they could also be destroyed by other aliens, and so on and so on, so they would be immoral to begin with. By adding aliens to the equation, you are simply enlarging the spectrum within which morality applies.

What? Why, if this alien race harvested us for food to benefit its own race, would that be immoral? Kind of like us killing and eating cows. They would be helping their own citizens not harming them.

Morals are not things that exist in themselves, they are objective facts not objective existing things, and their existence as facts are dependent upon the existence of living beings. If we ignore them, then we get to live in the world that we deserve.

Right the exact world we have. So objective morals facts makes no difference, they do no better than subjective ethics. They change nothing. Thanks...

[JimL]

Jim that is a circular justification. It is not rational.

No it isn't, you cherry picked the quote.

Again, why is the best interest of humanity an objective good?

Because what is good for humanity and what is bad for humanity is not dependent upon the subjective beliefs of humans. That makes it objective!

What you are offering Jim is the subjective view that the general good is somehow an objective moral truth.

No, my argument is that what the general good is, is not dependent upon a subjective viewpoint of what the general good is. That being the case, the moral system underlying the general good, the morals that would sustain the general good, are also objective and independent of subjective perspectives.

What? Why, if this alien race harvested us for food to benefit its own race, would that be immoral? Kind of like us killing and eating cows. They would be helping their own citizens not harming them.

Seer, we are talking about human morality, morality with respect to the best interests of and within human society. The objectivity of human morality, and it is objective, is understood only with respect to humanity. In other words what is the best moral system under which human beings should behave towards each other in order to insure the best world within which they can survive and live their lives together in peace and dignity. It has nothing to do with cows or aliens who may want to destroy them.

Right the exact world we have. So objective morals facts makes no difference, they do no better than subjective ethics. They change nothing. Thanks...

Thats correct, we are resposible for our own behavior and the world we make.

So objective moral facts makes no difference, they do no better than subjective ethics. They change nothing. Thanks...

Objective moral facts don't do anything seer, they are just facts whether naturally or supernaturally grounded, so to speak. We can find them and follow them or not, but they are only facts which do nothing other than being facts.

[seer]

Because what is good for humanity and what is bad for humanity is not dependent upon the subjective beliefs of humans. That makes it objective!

Jim I understand this is your belief. But again why is what is good for humanity an objective good? Why is it an objective good that we as a species survive?

Seer, we are talking about human morality, morality with respect to the best interests of and within human society. The objectivity of human morality, and it is objective, is understood only with respect to humanity. In other words what is the best moral system under which human beings should behave towards each other in order to insure the best world within which they can survive and live their lives together in peace and dignity. It has nothing to do with cows or aliens who may want to destroy them.

The key word here is survive. If the goal of your moral system is the survival of our species then one needs ask why the survival of the species is an objective moral good. If isn't then the moral system that services that goal is just as meaningless as we are.

Thats correct, we are resposible for our own behavior and the world we make.

Right so whether morals are objective or not is meaningless.

Objective moral facts don't do anything seer, they are just facts whether naturally or supernaturally grounded, so to speak. We can find them and follow them or not, but they are only facts which do nothing other than being facts.

OK, so you have been arguing about something that has no power to change anything, or have any real influence on mankind.

[JimL]

Jim I understand this is your belief. But again why is what is good for humanity an objective good? Why is it an objective good that we as a species survive?

Because goodness is not a thing in itself, morality is not a thing in itself, morals do not exist apart from living beings, so whatever is in the best interests of human life and human society is what we define as good. The problem you are having with this, I think, is that you keep thinking that objective good and evil, i.e. morality, has some kind of existence which is distinct from humanity itself, an ontological ground you call it. It doesn't. Without the existence of living beings, there is no such thing as morality.

The key word here is survive. If the goal of your moral system is the survival of our species then one needs ask why the survival of the species is an objective moral good. If isn't then the moral system that services that goal is just as meaningless as we are.

The obvious purpose of existence is to exist, i.e. to survive, so the moral system that services or sustains that goal is obviously not meaningless, since that is exactly what it does.

Right so whether morals are objective or not is meaningless.

Don't know how you come to that conclusion from anything I said. Morals serve a social purpose, so in what sense are you concluding them to be meaningless?

OK, so you have been arguing about something that has no power to change anything, or have any real influence on mankind.

Right, morals themselves, if thats what your getting at, whether or not they are ontologically and supernaturally grounded, being that they are not existing and actionable things, have no power to do or change anything.
The force of change is in us, not in the morals.

[Tassman]

Yes, but this makes no sense. How, in reality, is the Jihadist any more, morally responsible, than the ape? Again, to quote Dawkins:

So do you agree with Dawkins that the very idea of responsibility is nonsense?

https://danielmiessler.com/blog/dawk...esponsibility/

In short, Dawkins is saying that anti-social behaviour for evolved social animals like us equates to a malfunction of our evolved nature and needs to be rectified, not by retribution and punishments but some other means.

Further to this:

https://danielmiessler.com/blog/free...mor-identical/

[seer]

https://danielmiessler.com/blog/dawk...esponsibility/

In short, Dawkins is saying that anti-social behaviour for evolved social animals like us equates to a malfunction of our evolved nature and needs to be rectified, not by retribution and punishments but some other means.

Further to this:

https://danielmiessler.com/blog/free...mor-identical/

Tass, I did not quote mine, so again do you agree with Dawkins that the very idea of responsibility is nonsense? Those are his words and not mine, and we are speaking of the idea of responsibility here. Whether you want to "fix" a particular behavior is another thing. And Dawkins goes on:

Assigning blame and responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live. http://edge.org/q2006/q06_9.html#dawkins

So again do you agree that the idea of responsibility is merely a useful FICTION?

[seer]

The obvious purpose of existence is to exist, i.e. to survive, so the moral system that services or sustains that goal is obviously not meaningless, since that is exactly what it does.

Jim, in a godless universe humanity is just as insignificant as house flies, so how much less meaningful is any moral system that helps us survive?

Right, morals themselves, if thats what your getting at, whether or not they are ontologically and supernaturally grounded, being that they are not existing and actionable things, have no power to do or change anything.
The force of change is in us, not in the morals.

The point is Jim, even if objective moral facts exist, they don't do a thing. Men can change or not just as well if ethics were subjective. In other words you have spent all this time arguing for a position that makes no difference.

[JimL]

Jim, in a godless universe humanity is just as insignificant as house flies, so how much less meaningful is any moral system that helps us survive?

Meaning has significance only to that which exists, in other words your existence is only meaningful while you exist. The same goes for a moral system, it is meaningless absent existence.

The point is Jim, even if objective moral facts exist, they don't do a thing. Men can change or not just as well if ethics were subjective. In other words you have spent all this time arguing for a position that makes no difference.

And that is what determines the objectivity of morals, their truth can not be changed by subjective opinion. And that means that my position on morals makes a difference.

[Tassman]

Tass, I did not quote mine, so again do you agree with Dawkins that the very idea of responsibility is nonsense? Those are his words and not mine, and we are speaking of the idea of responsibility here. Whether you want to "fix" a particular behavior is another thing. And Dawkins goes on:

retribution as a moral principle is incompatible with a scientific view of human behaviour. See the difference? I suggest you reread the article and try to get it right.

So again do you agree that the idea of responsibility is merely a useful FICTION?

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...ed-like-people

[seer]

retribution as a moral principle is incompatible with a scientific view of human behaviour. See the difference? I suggest you reread the article and try to get it right.

Dawkins is clear as a bell, you just don't like the implications:

But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment.

Tass, do you agree with Dawkins that ideals like blame and responsibility are fictions? Yes or no? And back to the point - when the Muslims, or others, murder or slaughter they are only doing what they are predetermined to do. In your world they are no more morally responsible for killing than a volcano is when it takes human life (both are equally determined). Yet you brought a moral judgement to their (the Jihadists) acts. Which is completely emotional and irrational given your world view - you might as well bring a moral judgement against the volcano.

[seer]

And that is what determines the objectivity of morals, their truth can not be changed by subjective opinion. And that means that my position on morals makes a difference.

No Jim, it makes no actual difference, to anyone. No one I know of changes his moral behavior because he thinks there may be objective moral facts. Facts that have no force or authority.

[JimL]

No Jim, it makes no actual difference, to anyone. No one I know of changes his moral behavior because he thinks there may be objective moral facts. Facts that have no force or authority.

A moral system makes an actual difference if it is adhered to, which is what I have argued all along. If it isn't adhered to then it makes no actual difference, which is why we have a justice system. The force behind either moral system, supernatural or natural, is not in the morals themselves, the force is in the authority behind them. God isn't needed for that to be true, though it helps, which is why we created him. Your argument is that objective morality can't exist, or that they would be meaningless without god. I've shown you that not to be the case.