Morals

[Omni]

Not to mention the fact that many nations became very successful by doing things that most people would find morally reprehensible.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Morals are, as Matt said, not concrete. I believe there is also an innate difference between morals and codes of law. Laws are enacted to keep society functioning and to reduce the amount of entropy in a society (for obvious reasons). Murder causes various undesirable things to society (you lose someone who can work, people grieve which can cause them to be unproductive in the society, etc.), and so it's against the law.

It sounds like you're just looking for words to substitute for "morality". Why would laws even exist if we didn't have some concept of morality in the first place?

The laws of science are arbitrary and relative to its constituency. They are not "the laws of science" because of its own force of authority, they're the laws simply because those are the general characteristic traits that we have been able to identify that have been produced by the select circumstances we see in our (or some other) universe.

Not sure what your point is here. I'm well aware that science is inextricably founded upon observations. In that sense, virtually everything we could ever consider to be "knowledge" or "fact" is relative. I'm pretty sure that's not the same sense of "relative" in which people are referring to morality here.

My point was that there could be some moral values we hold that are just as universal as our laws of science.

I have major problems with this. Science and morality are very different subjects. Morality is not based on observation and data-collection, while science is. Science is true wholly because we rely on its findings being correct so that we can function on a daily basis. Morality is subject to no such scrutiny.

I understand that moral statements are more philosophical in nature, but I don't think that means that there cannot be moral values which are as universal as our laws of science.

If science and ethics were the same, none of us would have a problem with the Zimbardo experiment, or anything else subjecting humans to "objectivity".

I didn't say they were the same, or that the facts of ethics (if there are any) could be arrived at by the same methods as scientific facts are. I don't see how that rules out the possibility of moral objectivity, though.

 

[Zephyrus]

There cannot be moral objectivity so long as more than one human being exists. Society by its very nature rules out a natural convenient code of ethics for every person.

 

[Omni]

There cannot be moral objectivity so long as more than one human being exists. Society by its very nature rules out a natural convenient code of ethics for every person.

The one remaining human being's opinion on morality wouldn't be any more objective than the morality of any currently living human individual.

 

[Dak]

And what does that have to do with objective, or "concrete," morality?

If there is a concrete morality, this is something akin to laws of nature, and must be adhered too for peaceful living. Excluding the aspect of a diety to tell us what they are, we can still find them out through trial and error.

By trying various combinations of laws based on trying to find this balance you can over time discard ones that have a negative or non-impact.

Since we have thousands of years of human history to study at this point, we should be able to quickly discard plenty of "obvious" ones. Unfortunately, people still want to do things that are damaging either to themselves (longterm) or others for (usually short-term benefit) selfish reasons.
So what a person may want to do really shouldn't play into it, but whether they would want it done to them/ be on the other "end".

Looking at things from that viewpoint can cause a lot of clarity, to an unpleasant degree for those honest with themselves.

 

[Zephyrus]

With only one subject, it's practically an object. But yes let's be realistic.

 

[skeptik]

Not sure what your point is here. I'm well aware that science is inextricably founded upon observations. In that sense, virtually everything we could ever consider to be "knowledge" or "fact" is relative. I'm pretty sure that's not the same sense of "relative" in which people are referring to morality here.

Scientific laws and morality are not "universal" or "relative" in the same sense as the other. A "universal" moral guideline is merely one that it has been collectively agreed upon is right, for whatever reason. A universal scientific law (well, a scientific law is universal by its nature) is one that is the only possible answer that can be derived from the given value data. There is no interpretation. The data itself provides you with the answer. This is completely unlike morality in ways that I hope I don't have to explain.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Morals are an invention of mankind, and they differ between social groups or individual people due to differences in values and beliefs. There's no objective measure of what is wrong or right, since everyone has different morals. Even if everyone in the world agreed on the same morals, it would just be humans sharing an opinion as there is no accurate way to determine the validity of one's moral views. Morals are just the personal beliefs and opinions of humans, whether as a group or as individuals.

Doesn't the validity of moral views come from the basic human desire to live free from harm and pursue one's interests? Just because morality is based upon human desires doesn't mean those desires aren't universal.

 

[Dak]

Excuse me. Rome fell because of the imposition of unreasonably high moral standards in the form of Christianity. An empire forged by a bestial nature must maintain that nature to ward off external pressures. Christianity diminished the will to individualism (such as the great conquerors like Caesar and Trajan) and instilled a slave morality in its people, leaving them weak and vulnerable to barbarian invasions. They handed the reins from strong leaders to weak bishops.

The Roman Empire would have lasted much longer if it maintained "looser" moral standards, celebrating military and sexual spirit, rather than the opposite which Christianity champions.

Rome was already on the decline prior to that point, Constantine attempted to use religion to "rally" the empire. Obviously it failed to maintain the empire, but on the flip side the religion itself was quite successful longterm, regardless of how un-ethical some of it's practices were. But then again it exercised the supposed backing of a diety, which we are excluding here.
Edit: Constantine most definitely still maintained the "military spirit". he just tried to give it "holy cause" instead of national.

 

[Omni]

Doesn't the validity of moral views come from the basic human desire to live free from harm and pursue one's interests? Just because morality is based upon human desires doesn't mean those desires aren't universal.

Moral views are personal values and opinions, and not objective facts. Not all human beings desire the same things anyway. There is no objective measure for wrong or right, as it's based solely upon our opinions of what is and is not acceptable, and it differs radically in different societies and between individuals.

Even if everyone agreed, it would be a sharing of opinions, and not any type of objective measure. There is no data or factual evidence to consider morals as anything more than personal views of what is wrong or right.

 

[skeptik]

If there is a concrete morality, this is something akin to laws of nature, and must be adhered too for peaceful living. Excluding the aspect of a diety to tell us what they are, we can still find them out through trial and error.

By trying various combinations of laws based on trying to find this balance you can over time discard ones that have a negative or non-impact.

Since we have thousands of years of human history to study at this point, we should be able to quickly discard plenty of "obvious" ones. Unfortunately, people still want to do things that are damaging either to themselves (longterm) or others for (usually short-term benefit) selfish reasons.
So what a person may want to do really shouldn't play into it, but whether they would want it done to them/ be on the other "end".

Looking at things from that viewpoint can cause a lot of clarity, to an unpleasant degree for those honest with themselves.

Whether or not a pragmatic set of moral edicts can be deduced by all people has no bearing on whether not they are objective. The only way that they could be objective would be if there was a creator who placed them there, and even then I'm not sure how that standard of objectivity would even be measured outside of divine punishment. The fact of the matter is that you're speaking belligerently and without basis. You have no evidence to support the conception of a morality that is "concrete," let alone a definition of "concrete morality" and whether or not it's synonymous with "objective morality."

 

[King Richard]

HERE WE GO BOYS, GETCHA POPCOWN REEDAAYYYY!

I apologize for not adding anything to this discussion. It's just more fun to read it.

 

[Dak]

Whether or not a pragmatic set of moral edicts can be deduced by all people has no bearing on whether not they are objective. The only way that they could be objective would be if there was a creator who placed them there, and even then I'm not sure how that standard of objectivity would even be measured outside of divine punishment. The fact of the matter is that you're speaking belligerently and without basis. You have no evidence to support the conception of a morality that is "concrete," let alone a definition of "concrete morality" and whether or not it's synonymous with "objective morality."

1. I figured that their synonymity would be a given.
2. So does that mean that because there are scientific laws there had to be a creator?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Scientific laws and morality are not "universal" or "relative" in the same sense as the other. A "universal" moral guideline is merely one that it has been collectively agreed upon is right, for whatever reason. A universal scientific law (well, a scientific law is universal by its nature) is one that is the only possible answer that can be derived from the given value data. There is no interpretation. The data itself provides you with the answer. This is completely unlike morality in ways that I hope I don't have to explain.

Yes, I understand that morality is subject to interpretation where science is not. But to call morality "relative" and "a matter of opinion" seems to me to indicate little more than a discomfort for using the powers of pure reason to arrive at objective knowledge. If every rational creature in the world can unequivocally agree upon certain moral views, I think there's more to those views than just collective opinion.

 

[skeptik]

Read my earlier posts.

The laws of science are arbitrary and relative to its constituency. They are not "the laws of science" because of its own force of authority, they're the laws simply because those are the general characteristic traits that we have been able to identify that have been produced by the select circumstances we see in our (or some other) universe.

Scientific laws and morality are not "universal" or "relative" in the same sense as the other. A "universal" moral guideline is merely one that it has been collectively agreed upon is right, for whatever reason. A universal scientific law (well, a scientific law is universal by its nature) is one that is the only possible answer that can be derived from the given value data. There is no interpretation. The data itself provides you with the answer. This is completely unlike morality in ways that I hope I don't have to explain.

 

[Ben_t]

If there is a concrete morality, this is something akin to laws of nature, and must be adhered too for peaceful living.

For someone who argues about the fact that there is a concrete morality, can we assume that your observation of the laws of nature through the thousand of years of data resulted in your belief that guns are essential for a peaceful living.

 

[skeptik]

Yes, I understand that morality is subject to interpretation where science is not. But to call morality "relative" and "a matter of opinion" seems to me to indicate little more than a discomfort for using the powers of pure reason to arrive at objective knowledge. If every rational creature in the world can unequivocally agree upon certain moral views, I think there's more to those views than just collective opinion.

What you think is wrong. You can not "arrive at objective knowledge." The fact that it is agent-relative makes this completely impossible. That all agents in question reached the same conclusion is irrelevant. What would make it "more...than just collective opinion" would be if they actually existed somewhere in the world in the way that scientific laws do. An apple falls to the Earth because of the principles of gravity. We have no opinion about this. There is no judgment here. Stealing things is bad. We do have opinions about this. This is clearly a judgment. If everybody reached the same judgment, it would still be the product of a judgment. Under those circumstances it may act as though it was "universal" or "objective," but that doesn't mean that it is.

 

[Dak]

You can arrive at an understanding of a scientific fact through observation.
You can arrive at an understanding of a objective moral (fact) through observation.

Case for Objective Morality

I think this is a fairly good write-up.

 

[Dak]

For someone who argues about the fact that there is a concrete morality, can we assume that your observation of the laws of nature through the thousand of years of data resulted in your belief that guns are essential for a peaceful living.

 

[Ben_t]

I prefer this fish.