Morals

[zabu of nΩd]

Psychological and sociological studies only determine trends of opinion, which vary according to the nature of the problem.

So you think that when someone reports having a mental illness they are just stating an opinion?

Like religion, the number of believers in certain types of morals does not shift the burden of evidence toward an objective validity.

I know that. My whole point is that there are some morals which do not change throughout history like religious views or other superfluous morals do.

Morals are ideals that are immediately falsified when any number of people do not subscribe to them 100% of the time.

This is a little tricky to answer. I'll have to think about it some more.

 

[Omni]

Right and wrong comes from what we place value on. If we have evolved psychologically (or are even inevitably disposed) to place unanimous value on a specific thing (i.e. freedom from harm), then I think that's a pretty satisfactory basis for an objective view on right and wrong regarding that thing.

Our opinions are not objective, whether or not we place value on them. To claim that they are isn't even feasible from any type of scientific perspective, as we have no basis to make a claim that the way that we act is right or wrong, but we do know that it is based on our opinions. There are no scientific laws that make our actions objectively right, and none that make actions which contradict with our moral views objectively wrong. Merely our own personal views and opinions, something which you have yet to discount.

 

[Zephyrus]

So you think that when someone reports having a mental illness they are just stating an opinion?

Depends on the neurosis. Many of them are a result of the pressures of society upon the individual, both of which vary psychologically.

But remember that people with serious enough disorders aren't meant to survive in a state of nature. Civilization is an illusion to separate us from beasts.

I know that. My whole point is that there are some morals which do not change throughout history like religious views or other superfluous morals do.

If that's your argument then just accept that morals cannot be objective. Like religion, the proof lies in that fact that the exercise of most morals in society has not been effective, unless they are tyrannically enforced.

This is a little tricky to answer. I'll have to think about it some more.

Before you do that let me clarify that I was talking about morals as ideals. And as ideals, I as a realist am arguing against their objective existence.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Our opinions are not objective, whether or not we place value on them. To claim that they are isn't even feasible from any type of scientific perspective, as we have no basis to make a claim that the way that we act is right or wrong, but we do know that it is based on our opinions. There are no scientific laws that make our actions objectively right, and none that make actions which contradict with our moral views objectively wrong. Merely our own personal views and opinions, something which you have yet to discount.

The value we place on certain actions is crucial to this whole issue, because value is what justifies those actions where scientific laws don't apply. I know we can't make a scientific law to support a moral view - that's trivially obvious. The basis for a universal moral view must necessarily come from something that is universally valuable, to humans or to other living beings as well.

 

[MasterOLightning]

Opinions on what is acceptable and what is not can never be objective, even if every human being agrees that they are good from a moral perspective.

Why has this been so hard for people to understand? Every disagreement in this thread stems from a few people failing to comprehend this.

Also, anyone feel free to find a universal moral. Not a bullshit one either.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I'll just respond to this one for now:

If that's your argument then just accept that morals cannot be objective. Like religion, the proof lies in that fact that the exercise of most morals in society has not been effective, unless they are tyrannically enforced.

Again, please read my previous posts so that you do not overlook the same things that Omni was overlooking earlier. I'm perfectly willing to accept that most morals aren't objective. I'm only talking about ones that stem from fundamental aspects of our psychology.

 

[Zephyrus]

List them.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

For the sake of simplicity, let's go with the desire to be safe from harm for now.

 

[Zephyrus]

The means of which is individually determined.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

You know of someone who would find value in being maimed or killed on a whim?

 

[Zephyrus]

Martyrs.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I think you overlooked the "on a whim" part.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Cannibal tribes consider it an honor to be eaten iirc, so...

edit: why does it matter if it's "on a whim"?

 

[Zephyrus]

Whims absent of environmental and historical factors do not occur.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Cannibal tribes consider it an honor to be eaten iirc, so...

edit: why does it matter if it's "on a whim"?

Because obviously if someone's dying for a purpose, they may believe that there is something of value to be gained which justifies the loss of value in their own life. In that sense, a member of a cannibal tribe could justify their death by the value to be gained in providing food to others in the tribe.

I doubt we have enough of a grasp on the dynamics of cannibal society to really understand what a member of such a society thinks about the act of cannibalism, or whether they'd truly prefer their lot in life over other alternatives. That's going to be a problem with a lot of these scenarios that you guys are bringing up.

Whims absent of environmental and historical factors do not occur.

Those factors aren't the issue. The issue is whether someone could find it inherently valuable to be injured or killed, not as a means to an end but as en end in and of itself.

 

[Zephyrus]

Those factors aren't the issue. The issue is whether someone could find it inherently valuable to be injured or killed, not as a means to an end but as en end in and of itself.

No. There is always a reason beyond its own sake. And even if it did happen, that doesn't justify any objective morality at all.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Just as a side note: sorry if I seem to be hedging my claims here. I'm not sure that my goal should be to explain away every possible case of someone wanting to be injured or killed, and it's easy for me to just keep saying "oh, that person couldn't possibly want to die for no reason" when none of us may know for sure in any specific case. I'm not necessarily expecting this question to be resolvable.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

No. There is always a reason beyond its own sake. And even if it did happen, that doesn't justify any objective morality at all.

Wait, could you rephrase this? It sounds like you're saying that there could never be a case of someone wanting to die for no reason, though I don't know why you would say that since it supports my argument. I doubt we can really even say for sure whether anyone has ever or could ever want to die for no reason.

 

[MasterOLightning]

For the sake of simplicity, let's go with the desire to be safe from harm for now.

This is not a moral. The desire to eat food is not a moral either. Even if you explain in what way this is a moral issue, it's extremely vague. Define safe and define harm, and you're suddenly far from dealing with anything universal.

 

[Dak]

Harm: Serious bodily injury or death. Obviously there are arguably lesser degrees of harm but this one is basic.

No one wants to be subjected to the above defined "harm" without reason, so to cause harm to someone else needlessly would be immoral because it goes against a very universal desire to be alive and well.

@Omni : Not ignoring the posts on the other page, vihris just already answered them.