Can Morality Be Objective Without God?

Author: MagicAintReal

Posts

Total: 438
#91
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Without a sensible understanding of what constitutes an offense why dies it matter if it is an offense? What is the difference in practical terms? Is it wrong to eat meat? Is it wrong to have a state sanctioned death penalty? Is it wrong to watch pornagraphy? And more importantly, much more importantly for the purposes of our discussion, what makes them weight or wrong? You see that is what I am looking for. The basic underlying principle. What non subjective standard are you judging by.
#92
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
I'm sorry to keep on this point but the answer has the potential for great utility in discovering whether we can say whether or not some objective morality exists and yet observe human epistemology. The only way to procede is for you to present a non subjective standard so that we can explore the idea further. If you are unable or unwilling then you have not presented evidence that there must be an objective morality. Because an objective morality is unnecessary to the physical operations of the universe and because we have no evidence beyond gut feelings that this is right and that is wrong (both subjective distinctions) occam's razer would suggest that we dismiss it as unlikely. 

Topic's author
#93
MagicAintReal
MagicAintReal's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 258
1
3
7
MagicAintReal's avatar
MagicAintReal
1
3
7
-->
@secularmerlin
Again, you have to understand that morality is about the others we behave toward. If our actions destroy the others toward whom we behave, then it's behavior detrimental to morality itself.
#94
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
--> @Fallaneze
If you brutally kill a puppy in front of an 8 year old
In certain societies it would simply be lunch. Proving without doubt that morality is subjective.

#95
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@MagicAintReal
And again this would be considered immoral by humans and as far as I know humans only. That makes it subjective. An objective standard would be independent of human opinions.
#96
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
We don't need to build a moral framework...
Yes we do.  Without an explicit moral framework, your moral intuition (gut instinct) is little more than an opinion.

Some moral intuitions are widely accepted (but rarely universal) and others are not.
#97
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
You still have not told me what non subjective standard we are using to make judgements like innocent or guilty.
Moral intuition.

Topic's author
#98
MagicAintReal
MagicAintReal's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 258
1
3
7
MagicAintReal's avatar
MagicAintReal
1
3
7
-->
@disgusted
I had said:
"Again, you have to understand that morality is about the others we behave toward. If our actions destroy the others toward whom we behave, then it's behavior detrimental to morality itself."

"And again this would be considered immoral by humans and as far as I know humans only. That makes it subjective. An objective standard would be independent of human opinions."
The status of the others toward whom we behave is objective and the others toward whom we behave don't have to be human.
#99
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MagicAintReal
Hypothetical question.
Atrocious atrocities are atrocious.

Consensus atrocities do not equal "objective morality".

Without a comprehensive (logically coherent) framework, you are merely arguing for CONSENSUS MORALITY (which nobody is disputing).
#100
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
Then it falls to fallaneze to present his case for an objective moral standard.
100% true.
#101
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
If you brutally kill a puppy in front of an 8 year old I have no question they would be morally outraged or mortified at your behavior. An 8 year old doesnt need to first go through an academic exercise where they build their moral foundation. It's intuitive. Why can't we know of facts using our intuition? 
If you very humanely kill a chicken, a cow, a pig, or a goat in front of an 8 year old, you will get the same reaction (moral outrage), unless that 8 year old grew up on a farm.

You only get moral outrage if that child has never seen animals (properly and humanely) slaughtered before.
#102
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
Innocent means not having committed the offense. Guilty means having committed the offense. 
So now you're talking about legal terms?

What happened to morality?
#103
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
'psychy' is 'psyche', btw.

The only way to procede is for you to present a non subjective standard so that we can explore the idea further.
I hope that isn't the only way!

I think we can agree that feeling something is moral or immoral is not something we decide consciously.  We don't have to think about rape or gencide to feel it is wrong -its a semi-hardwired response (semi because it can be reprogrammed albeit with considerable effort).   As making moral judgements is an unconscious process we 9(or fallaneze)don't know what criteria are used - but we can guess with good confidence it is related to an estimate of its impact on Darwinian fitness.

But we can't expect that estimate to be spot on in every instance - evolution will mean it is better than random but we can expect cases where it  goes very wrong and flags the best dawinian option as immoral or (more often) something finess-neutral as very immoral.

As a social species any fitness estimate has to take account of the society concerned.  What is fitness-engancing in one human society may not being another due to historical accidents.  

So what we sense as the morality of something is a rough estimate of its contribution to fitness.  The contribution to fitness is objective (but difficult to quantify), the feeling of that things (im)morality is its subjective manifestation, parallel to the way subjective colours are used to encode
objective wavelengths.



#104
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
Inflicting a penalty on a person who committed no offense is immoral. 
The fact that nobody is disputing this statement only proves consensus, not objectivity.

#105
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
I'm actually more interested in moral realism versus moral non-realism. The only thing that matters is which one is more rational to believe.
Define your terms and present a logical statement.
#106
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@MagicAintReal
Ok but what makes a thing immoral if not humans judging it immoral? What non subjective standard is at work here? It is not generally considered immoral to harm a human (or a non huuman) accidentally. A crocodile is rarely judged as immoral even when it does great harm to humans (or non humans). A volcano is even less often judged by this standard. Doesn't that sound like a subjective standard to you? If harm were an objective standard unintentionally harming humans (or non humans) would be immoral and if intention is a part of our standard then crocodiles harming humans (or nonhumans) would be immoral. 
#107
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
Physical well being is objectively measurable mental well being less so.
With proper equipment, mental well-being is scientifically quantifiable.


#108
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@MagicAintReal
Who are you quoting and responding to?
#109
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MagicAintReal
towards whom I use morality, is not arbitrary, in fact, necessary.
Please present your comprehensive logically coherent moral framework.

Everyone agrees generally that we should be nice.

But that doesn't make everyone a spineless pacifist.

You need to fill in every possible detail explicitly (zero exceptions and or loopholes) in order for your moral standard to be considered objective (like gravity).
#110
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
Are they? If I think violent video games are harmful to a young person's psychy and you disagree how do we go about determining which of us is correct if indeed either of us is?

Serum serotonin level was a significant predictor of callous-unemotional traits; levels were significantly lower in boys with high callous-unemotional traits than in boys with low callous-unemotional traits.[LINK]

#111
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
Having nothing tangible to compare something to does not mean that the truth of the matter is subjective.
Having nothing tangible to compare something to does mean that the truth of the matter is (functionally indistinguishable from) subjective.


You are trying to make an appeal to ignorance.

You are trying to claim 100% benefit of the doubt for your argument only.

You are basically saying "you can't prove it's NOT objective".

And at the same time you imagine the exact same argument does not EQUALLY apply to the opposition.

For example, "you can't prove it's NOT subjective" stands just as strongly (if not more strongly) as your preferred version.

The key problem here is that the very definition of "objective" includes "indisputable", "not subject to opinion", and "identical to all possible observers".

If you claim objectivity and that objectivity is disputed, your only option is to demonize and discredit your opponents with ad hominem attacks.

Demonization - Characterization of individuals or groups as irredeemably and purely evil, disingenuous, "fundamentally and incurably stupid and/or evil", or intellectually deaf and blind. A "black and white" "my way or the highway" point of view that casts all possible human participants as either "the good guys" or "the bad guys".
#112
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
Innocent of what? By what standard? What if punnishing an innocent person has the ney effect of discouraging immoral behavior? Do we then measure it by the immorality of punishing the innocent or by the measure of the moral good derived from preventing future immorality?
And really none of that matters unless we know whether the thing the inoccentbperson is accused of is even an immoral act.
Now please present your non subjective standard unless this has just been one long non sequitur. 
Some people might consider deporting an unaccompanied refugee child back to a war zone, "punishing an innocent".
#113
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
It's a principle. We needn't get into the specifics of what constitutes an offense in order for it to be factually true.
Please present your (comprehensive, objective, logically coherent) moral PRINCIPLE.
Topic's author
#114
MagicAintReal
MagicAintReal's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 258
1
3
7
MagicAintReal's avatar
MagicAintReal
1
3
7
-->
@secularmerlin
"Ok but what makes a thing immoral if not humans judging it immoral?"
The effect on the net well being of those toward whom the thing is acting.


"What non subjective standard is at work here?"
The measurable effects on the well being.

"It is not generally considered immoral to harm a human (or a non huuman) accidentally."
That's because intending for the maintenance of well being isn't immoral.

 "A crocodile is rarely judged as immoral even when it does great harm to humans (or non humans)."
Crocodiles make moral decisions too, and if it's the case the crocodile could have maintained more well being by not consuming the human, then it would be immoral, if it's the case that the only way for more well being to be maintained was for the crocodile to eat the human, then it would be moral.

A volcano is even less often judged by this standard. Doesn't that sound like a subjective standard to you?
Well, the volcanoes can't make a decision between what activity would bring about the greater maintenance of well being, so whether or not its "behavior" can be considered moral is in't indicative of whether or not the volcano is actually behaving towards others.

"If harm were an objective standard unintentionally harming humans (or non humans) would be immoral."
Except that intending to maintain well being is moral.
If we learn that particular actions, though well intended, are harming the well being of others, then when one intends to behave towards others and doesn't consider this fact, one would be behaving immorally.
Truly intending, with the best of your knowledge and ability, to maintain well being is moral, and learning about actions that impede this end is moral, because it serves to avoid that recently realized detriment to potential well being for the future.

"and if intention is a part of our standard then crocodiles harming humans (or nonhumans) would be immoral"
It depends if there were other options of greater well being.
See above.
Topic's author
#115
MagicAintReal
MagicAintReal's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 258
1
3
7
MagicAintReal's avatar
MagicAintReal
1
3
7
-->
@3RU7AL
See the debate in the OP
#116
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MagicAintReal
Again, you have to understand that morality is about the others we behave toward. If our actions destroy the others toward whom we behave, then it's behavior detrimental to morality itself.
Often people who experience trauma are driven to great accomplishment.

How many doctors and CEOs grew up with emotionally distant, overly-critical parents?

Who knows what long term effects our actions may produce?
#117
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MagicAintReal
See the debate in the OP
The homeostasis principle is a nice general outline, but it is by no means comprehensive.

Topic's author
#118
MagicAintReal
MagicAintReal's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 258
1
3
7
MagicAintReal's avatar
MagicAintReal
1
3
7
-->
@3RU7AL
The homeostasis principle is a nice general outline, but it is by no means comprehensive.

Why not?
#119
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MagicAintReal
The homeostasis principle is a nice general outline, but it is by no means comprehensive.
Why not?
Already explained.

Yeah sort of.
Any way, I think we all strive for homeostasis, no?
Only those who value contentment strive to maintain it.

Those who have very little and those who have more than enough are often driven by something far beyond the simple desire to maintain their current status.


Topic's author
#120
MagicAintReal
MagicAintReal's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 258
1
3
7
MagicAintReal's avatar
MagicAintReal
1
3
7
-->
@3RU7AL
"Only those who value contentment strive to maintain it."
The body maintains homeostasis whether you value contentment or not.
Your body values contentment.

Those who have very little and those who have more than enough are often driven by something far beyond the simple desire to maintain their current status.
Not really.
Both of those types of people, whether they strive for materialistic products or not, are inherently trying to survive on the cellular level and this is universal.