Ontology of Morality

[SydneyCarton 48,078]

[Guest]

53 minutes ago, slorch said:

Bullshit.

If I have no problem with nudity/ topless women, but someone else thinks one nip slip is the decline of civilization; neither one of our alleged moralities are "fact."

That statement is not claiming that there are objective moral facts.  It is merely a statement claiming that they either exist or they do not.  It was a response to BrickHorn's claim about pitting "two wrong answers against each other."  It cannot be the case that statements 1 and 2 are both false: 

1. Objective moral facts exist
2. Objective moral facts do not exist

I don't think anyone here believes that something can both exist and not exist, so I'm assuming the objections are based on a miscommunication.  It seems your view is that there aren't any objective moral facts.  If that is correct, then what basis would you use to argue/insist upon for a moral fact you believe is both true & important to a culture that disagrees?

[Rimbo 25,921]

2 hours ago, formermav43 said:

If not angry, irrational.

 

30 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

@formermav43 -- I described the problems with axiom of dumbshittery's poll and comments in my first couple of posts. He missed the points, which only proved mine.

The only winning move is not to play.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, formermav43 said:

So there aren’t objective moral facts in your view. The second option of his alleged “bullshit” statement.

I really don’t understand the reaction to this entire thread. 

Sorry.  I didn’t answer that very fairly.  You are right to question my reaction.   I just don’t feel like morality is factual at all.  It is absolutely subjective. It could even change over time and/ or still revert to its origin.  Did it become immoral during any of that?

Who decides what is and what isn’t moral? Society?  Those are laws we agree to be governed by, and hardly proves they are based in any morality.

Edited October 16, 2023 by slorch

[Guadaloopy 10,960]

[wildcat09 29,349]

It's not that it's not an interesting subject for discussion, but I'm pretty sure 90% of the people who want to have this discussion usually end up using it to bring themselves around to supporting some truly horrific shit. 

[Guest]

59 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

Well this has been an interesting thread. I haven't seen a dogpile like this in a while. OP must have a history.

Other than BrickHorn, who at one time I think it's fair to say we had mutual respect, I have no memory of any of the others who take exception to the thread and don't know why they care.  

 

40 minutes ago, slorch said:

Sorry.  I didn’t answer that very fairly.  You are right to question my reaction.   I just don’t feel like morality is factual at all.  It is absolutely subjective. It could even change over time and/ or still revert to its origin.  Did it become immoral during any of that?

Who decides what is and what isn’t moral? Society?  Those are laws we agree to be governed by, and hardly proves they are based in any morality.

The stock response to this is how to handle extreme examples, such as rape.  Can we agree that rape is objectively immoral?  

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,669]

[nbmishoid 949]

12 hours ago, axiom of foundation said:

Eight posters selected "Moral facts and values are all completely relative and dependent on one's culture," but only two selected false for "There are some moral facts that I am willing to insist are true regardless if another culture disagrees."  For those who believe moral facts are dependent on one's culture but are also willing to insist some facts are true regardless if another culture disagrees, what basis would you use to argue that your moral fact is true?  Genuinely interested in this topic.  

 

I'm surprised by the even split on normative ethics.  I figured there would be more consequentialists.   

Even knowing the relativity of morals, one may choose to insist on a particular moral position for pragmatic, utilitarian, or cause mama said so reasons.

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

Other than BrickHorn, who at one time I think it's fair to say we had mutual respect, I have no memory of any of the others who take exception to the thread and don't know why they care.  

 

The stock response to this is how to handle extreme examples, such as rape.  Can we agree that rape is objectively immoral?  

Depends what she was wearing...*

Not sure.  What if a society believes if you can't stop it, it's not wrong?  It's arbitrary as hell.

['stache 21,802]

[Neonmoon 38,129]

2 hours ago, axiom of foundation said:

I don't think anyone here believes that something can both exist and not exist

[SydneyCarton 48,078]

1 hour ago, BeardIP said:

Well this has been an interesting thread. I haven't seen a dogpile like this in a while. OP must have a history.

Yes. A long and storied history of bullshit, bad faith posting, and as Wildcat nailed, typically in defense of some of his own personal shittastic beliefs. 

[bernorange 8,359]

2 hours ago, axiom of foundation said:

... It cannot be the case that statements 1 and 2 are both false: 

1. Objective moral facts exist
2. Objective moral facts do not exist

The shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line

The shortest distance between 2 points is not a straight line

Both can be true.  Both can also be false.  It depends upon the framework(s) in which they are being considered. 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/football-science-hypotenuse/

 

[bernorange 8,359]

56 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

.. Can we agree that rape is objectively immoral?  

Know how I know that you are not Baylor alumni?

[Nivek 16,923]

[Nivek 16,923]

The stock response to this is how to handle extreme examples, such as rape.  Can we agree that rape is objectively immoral?  

What if some Thanos creature wanted to jerk off while watching you rape a 13 yr old boy against his will. If you don’t, he snaps his fingers and half of all life disappears in an instant. Possibly the boy’s life. So if you don’t rape him, he might get killed. If you do, you are a pedophile. What a moral quandary!

[Wally Fairway 5,543]

1 hour ago, axiom of foundation said:

Other than BrickHorn, who at one time I think it's fair to say we had mutual respect, I have no memory of any of the others who take exception to the thread and don't know why they care.  

 

The stock response to this is how to handle extreme examples, such as rape.  Can we agree that rape is objectively immoral?  

You have given 1 example of something that you call objectively immoral - and yet there are times in history that rape has been one of the tools of war. All the way back to Genghis Khan, who I have read that genetic testing says that 1-200 are descendants. While I find it abhorrent, as I do murder, slavery, etc., I believe that cultural/religious influences determine "normal"

To use the above nudity example, and expand on it - where is the objective moral status of extra-marital sexual relations, bi-sexual relation, inter-racial marriage, slavery, homosexuality, etc. Many people use historical guidelines, such as the laws of God (Torah, Bible, 10 commandments, Koran/Quron, Vedas, the Tibetan Book of the Dead, Mein Kampf? All have/had many followers.

The earth is the center of the universe, nope the Sun is the center of the universe, and so on - if science can change or recognize new information, then does not the same thing hold true to moral?
Can we judge all people based upon the current moral climate (seems like we do, or at least some of us do).

[Guest]

1 hour ago, nbmishoid said:

Even knowing the relativity of morals, one may choose to insist on a particular moral position for pragmatic, utilitarian, or cause mama said so reasons.

Agreed that one may choose to do so, but to me it seems inherently inconsistent.  Doesn’t appealing to any of the given reasons imply the existence of an objective basis?

 

1 hour ago, slorch said:

Depends what she was wearing...*

Not sure.  What if a society believes if you can't stop it, it's not wrong?  It's arbitrary as hell.

Whatever a given society believes is independent of whether you believe it is objectively wrong or not. 
 

50 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Can you give an example of something that simultaneously exists and doesn’t exist?

 

41 minutes ago, bernorange said:

The shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line

The shortest distance between 2 points is not a straight line

Both can be true.  Both can also be false.  It depends upon the framework(s) in which they are being considered. 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/football-science-hypotenuse/

 

That’s easily resolved with the common foundation of modern mathematics, which has excluded middle.  If you are that interested in the topic, we can discuss on another thread. 

['stache 21,802]

2 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

You have given 1 example of something that you call objectively immoral - and yet there are times in history that rape has been one of the tools of war. All the way back to Genghis Khan, who I have read that genetic testing says that 1-200 are descendants. While I find it abhorrent, as I do murder, slavery, etc., I believe that cultural/religious influences determine "normal"

To use the above nudity example, and expand on it - where is the objective moral status of extra-marital sexual relations, bi-sexual relation, inter-racial marriage, slavery, homosexuality, etc. Many people use historical guidelines, such as the laws of God (Torah, Bible, 10 commandments, Koran/Quron, Vedas, the Tibetan Book of the Dead, Mein Kampf? All have/had many followers.

The earth is the center of the universe, nope the Sun is the center of the universe, and so on - if science can change or recognize new information, then does not the same thing hold true to moral?
Can we judge all people based upon the current moral climate (seems like we do, or at least some of us do).

I'd submit an even more complicated example, arranged marriages. The parties involved have no say, the women in particular, but are expected to generate children. The "consent" in those situations is pretty tough to determine. 

Edited October 16, 2023 by 'stache

['stache 21,802]

Also, what does the science of birds have anything to do with the topic?

 

(/s/sarcasm font in case it wasn't obvious)

[SydneyCarton 48,078]

"That seems incredibly inconsistent." Let me go ahead and break this down for this unfamilar with the OP. In the book Mosquito Coast, and I think the movie too, there's a wonderful line where the brilliant scientist father, finally seeing the breadth of his mistake, says what I consider to be a great line: "Nature is crooked. I wanted right angles and straight lines."

Everything you need to know about the OP is that he wants right angles and straight lines, but instead of in relation to science and advancement, he wants it based on religion and zealotry. That, and unlike the character in the book, he's not brilliant. Everything he posts will make a lot more sense when you realize he's attempting to use very vague philosophical arguments to try and catch posters in a position where he can hammer them with his own personal morality and worldview. 

Again, the only winning move is not to play. 

Edited October 16, 2023 by SydneyCarton

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

Also the life in the cat, in Schrodingers cat, both exists and does not exist at the same time, until it is observed.

https://philarchive.org/archive/MCBWQM#:~:text=The law of excluded middle,that it isn't dead.

[formermav43 4,606]

I’d like to understand the third way proposed by those objecting to the premise of the thread.  Every detailed explanation of the supposed “false dichotomy” so far has just been a defense of moral relativism. Which is one of the options in the poll.

Im not sure what I’m missing.

[SydneyCarton 48,078]

3 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

Do you want to parse out some of the critical text or pen a brief synopsis for those of us without the time to really focus on reading a 14 page paper?

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

Do you want to parse out some of the critical text or pen a brief synopsis for those of us without the time to really focus on reading a 14 page paper?

Page 166-168.  It’s a short read.

[BrickHorn 18,219]

44 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

I’d like to understand the third way proposed by those objecting to the premise of the thread.  Every detailed explanation of the supposed “false dichotomy” so far has just been a defense of moral relativism. Which is one of the options in the poll.

Im not sure what I’m missing.

OP’s framing sets up a false dichotomy. “Moral facts exist objectively, independently from anyone’s personal beliefs” and “Moral facts and values are all completely relative and dependent on one's culture” are not two opposites that exhaust the range of possibilities.

For example, in my view morality is not objective in the sense that it exists independent of human beings. Only humans (and maybe some higher mammals) have morals. Morality is a behavioral trait: we do certain things, refrain from other things, and react when others do or don’t do things. Absent man in the universe, morality has no meaning, no purpose, and no source.

But that does not mean that morality is “completely relative and dependent on one’s culture.” Many moral concepts are universal among human cultures. That’s not surprising because, as a behavioral trait, morality has been subject to evolutionary pressure. As a result, moral precepts most important to group survival show up pretty much everywhere, while others that are less critical vary between groups. It’s the same for other evolved behaviors, such as religion. 

[formermav43 4,606]

4 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

OP’s framing sets up a false dichotomy. “Moral facts exist objectively, independently from anyone’s personal beliefs” and “Moral facts and values are all completely relative and dependent on one's culture” are not two opposites that exhaust the range of possibilities.

For example, in my view morality is not objective in the sense that it exists independent of human beings. Only humans (and maybe some higher mammals) have morals. Morality is a behavioral trait: we do certain things, refrain from other things, and react when others do or don’t do things. Absent man in the universe, morality has no meaning, no purpose, and no source.

But that does not mean that morality is “completely relative and dependent on one’s culture.” Many moral concepts are universal among human cultures. That’s not surprising because, as a behavioral trait, morality has been subject to evolutionary pressure. As a result, moral precepts most important to group survival show up pretty much everywhere, while others that are less critical vary between groups. It’s the same for other evolved behaviors, such as religion. 

This is a reasonable answer. Thanks.

[Bookman 4,639]

You can't judge my fetishes!

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

OP’s framing sets up a false dichotomy. “Moral facts exist objectively, independently from anyone’s personal beliefs” and “Moral facts and values are all completely relative and dependent on one's culture” are not two opposites that exhaust the range of possibilities.

For example, in my view morality is not objective in the sense that it exists independent of human beings. Only humans (and maybe some higher mammals) have morals. Morality is a behavioral trait: we do certain things, refrain from other things, and react when others do or don’t do things. Absent man in the universe, morality has no meaning, no purpose, and no source.

But that does not mean that morality is “completely relative and dependent on one’s culture.” Many moral concepts are universal among human cultures. That’s not surprising because, as a behavioral trait, morality has been subject to evolutionary pressure. As a result, moral precepts most important to group survival show up pretty much everywhere, while others that are less critical vary between groups. It’s the same for other evolved behaviors, such as religion. 

This is the same view given by Chomsky in the linked video.  It’s just a type of moral objectivism, not a special third type of thing. 

[Wally Fairway 5,543]

1 minute ago, axiom of foundation said:

This is the same view given by Chomsky in the linked video.  It’s just a type of moral objectivism, not a special third type of thing. 

let me summarize AoF stance to these conversations

[BrickHorn 18,219]

7 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

This is the same view given by Chomsky in the linked video.  It’s just a type of moral objectivism, not a special third type of thing. 

No. There is no basis for determining objective moral truth in my view. There are moral systems that exist and, because they all result from running the same process under similar enough circumstances, they share common features. 

But that doesn’t mean those common features are “right” in any objective sense or that different circumstances would not produce very different moral rules. 

You set up a false dichotomy. Seems like everyone pretty much saw right through it. 

Edited October 16, 2023 by BrickHorn

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

No. There is no basis for determining objective moral truth. There are moral systems that exist and, because they all result from running the same process under similar enough circumstances, they share common features. 

But that doesn’t mean those common features are “right” in any objective sense or that different circumstances would not produce very different moral rules. 

You set up a false dichotomy. Seems like everyone pretty much saw right through it. 

You wrote “Many moral concepts are universal among human cultures. That’s not surprising because, as a behavioral trait, morality has been subject to evolutionary pressure.” This is a moral universalism claim, which is also called moral objectivism, which is opposed to moral relativism.  
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism

It’s also the same view given by Chomsky in the video I linked initially, not any new ground. 

[SydneyCarton 48,078]

Excellent. We've now reached the "I'm going to try and force everyone who has posted to fit within the rules of the game I have rigged, even if they're just rejecting my game entirely" part of the thread. 

[MissingInAction 25,039]

Advantage: aggy

[BrickHorn 18,219]

32 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

You wrote “Many moral concepts are universal among human cultures. That’s not surprising because, as a behavioral trait, morality has been subject to evolutionary pressure.” This is a moral universalism claim, which is also called moral objectivism, which is opposed to moral relativism.  
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism

It’s also the same view given by Chomsky in the video I linked initially, not any new ground. 

I used “universal” in a far more limited sense. It’s limited to the set of moral systems we observe. It isn’t universal in some metaphysical sense, as if the entire cosmos is filled with uniform morality rules. It’s just that the overwhelming majority of human cultures generally agree on the same basic principles. So the idea that morality differs culture to culture and is thus “relative” in that sense just doesn’t play out in fact… even though it’s also not objective. 

And another thing: depending on how you define the bounds of a “culture,” morality differs more within any given culture than between cultures. Psychopaths, for example, employ a very different morality than do the rest of us. 

[956 Worldwide 34,705]

The frame of this debate seems to track with how we went through the major ethical systems in my undergrad ethics class some many years ago. I remember getting kind of taken with virtue ethics as an idea. 
 

I do think that slavish devotion to philosophical concepts that are ultimately unknowable means you paint yourself into corners you then have to fight out of. And that’s a mixed metaphors I’m proud of. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, BrickHorn said:

I used “universal” in a far more limited sense. It’s limited to the set of moral systems we observe. It isn’t universal in some metaphysical sense, as if the entire cosmos is filled with uniform morality rules. It’s just that the overwhelming majority of human cultures generally agree on the same basic principles. So the idea that morality differs culture to culture and is thus “relative” in that sense just doesn’t play out in fact… even though it’s also not objective.  

I’m happy to extend the typical benefit of the doubt clarification (e.g. what exactly you meant by universal) required for good faith discussion; that’s much more interesting than assuming motives. Why not extend the same to me and drop the false dichotomy insistence?  I gave the normal definitions to set up the discussion.  
 

“Universalism holds merely that what is right or wrong is independent of custom or opinion (as opposed to moral relativism).… Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance.”

If there is disagreement or clarification is needed, I’m happy to do so.  I never stated nor implied that morals exist in “some metaphysical sense, as if the entire cosmos is filled with uniform morality rules,” so that would have been easy to clear up. 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, axiom of foundation said:

 

 

Whatever a given society believes is independent of whether you believe it is objectively wrong or not. 
 

 

Could not agree more with this.  Some laws allow for actions I believe to be immoral, but I do not have a problem with society drawing that line in the sand/ allowing it.  Abortion is one of these.

Some laws prohibit things I do not believe to be immoral at all- drinking before 10 on Sunday.  Casino gambling in Texas.  They are simply prohibitions of liberty due to other folks' insecurities.

[Rimbo 25,921]

5 hours ago, formermav43 said:

I’d like to understand the third way proposed by those objecting to the premise of the thread.  Every detailed explanation of the supposed “false dichotomy” so far has just been a defense of moral relativism. Which is one of the options in the poll.

Im not sure what I’m missing.

What you're missing has already been covered: That this is a disingenuous attempt to generate intelligent discussion at best. Real, legitimate philosophical discussion does not begin with a poll sounds like a fundraising email from a political party. There might be room for doubt, except (1) he then dragged Albuquerque Balloon Festival Champion (Flying Without a Burner Division) Noam Chomsky into it, and (2) he has a history.

There's plenty of room for intelligent discussion. But not here, not like this.

3 hours ago, MissingInAction said:

Advantage: aggy

 

3 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

The frame of this debate seems to track with how we went through the major ethical systems in my undergrad ethics class some many years ago. I remember getting kind of taken with virtue ethics as an idea. 
 

I do think that slavish devotion to philosophical concepts that are ultimately unknowable means you paint yourself into corners you then have to fight out of. And that’s a mixed metaphors I’m proud of. 

goddammit MIA, you summoned him

[Nivek 16,923]

Excellent. We've now reached the "I'm going to try and force everyone who has posted to fit within the rules of the game I have rigged, even if they're just rejecting my game entirely" part of the thread. 

Bro, what is the difference between shooting someone with a gun vs giving them an iron supplement, the earth’s rotation is close to 1000 miles per hour…..

Hey, if you and your wife are standing 1 foot apart. You agree that the space between 1 feet can be divided infinitely. How do you hug your wife, by crossing infinite space?

Immmm soooo smarrrtttttt

[Wally Fairway 5,543]

47 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

 

damnitall - now I have to determine if I am the bubba idiot Dickbutt or the jedi master Dickbutt

4 hours ago, Bookman said:

You can't judge my fetishes!

well that depends if you are a priest with diddle the little boys fetish
or the you pay money to see nekked girls with sharpies in the butt on only fans fetish

Edited October 17, 2023 by Wally Fairway

[ryskey 447]

Taken to an extreme, moral relativism would tend to require extreme accountability to oneself (our "highest self" or whatever is equivalent in your belief system), otherwise it inevitably becomes a tool for justification of self interest.

But the accountability to self requires some absolutes.  I believe in 2, and one is arguably a corollary of the other.  English does not have a word to describe the first, but at its most pure, the best description I can conjure is unfathomable grace.  Agape, one of the Greek expressions of love, is probably close.  Divine love for those who view this through a religious lens.  This grace has unconditional reverence for all creation (including Self) without judgment or attachment.  I believe all humans, regardless of culture or background or belief system, are capable of brief moments of this when they are at their best.  Most of us, including me, fail 99.9999% of the time, but that is the entire point, otherwise we would not have the human experience.  Why am I here?  To live a human experience.  I think the virtues most of us recognize are just expressions of this grace contextualized through human experience.  It nearly always has to catch a ride on something familiar for us to recognize it.  And then all of those virtues can be perverted when one spends too much time on the context or dogma and not the intention behind it.

And that leads to the 2nd absolute, which is free will.  I do not believe this exists in a vacuum, but on a continuum from a simple organism behaving according to its programming (like a bacterium), to humans, which are furthest along on that continuum.  Humans possess the ability to observe ourselves and choose/evaluate/discern more than any other species.  But the aforementioned failure rate (despite knowing better a lot of the time) creates evolution and infinite perspective, and it is from those infinite perspectives that destroys the universality of most (all but 2) moral judgments.

I believe a community of humans living according to these 2 absolutes, with superhuman accountability to themselves, would create utopia, and that utopia would be expressed arbitrarily through whatever culture they happen to share or create.  But unfortunately (or fortunately?), the practical requirements of life get in the way, so the ability to sustain an existence of unfathomable grace is.....difficult.

This is my worldview based on my own biased perspective and I don't expect anyone to agree. 

Or, Dickbutt.

[Bookman 4,639]

41 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

well that depends if you are a priest with diddle the little boys fetish
or the you pay money to see nekked girls with sharpies in the butt on only fans fetish

Do you judge the action or the fetish?

[Jatrain 288]

Is this going to end up being a long winded way (with a significant amount of mental masturbation included) for the OP to “prove” that God* exists?  If so could he just cut to the chase?

*God = whatever flavor of religion, most likely Christianity, that he favors 

[MonkeyDoughnut 10,232]

8 minutes ago, Jatrain said:

Is this going to end up being a long winded way (with a significant amount of mental masturbation included) for the OP to “prove” that God* exists?  If so could he just cut to the chase?

*God = whatever flavor of religion, most likely Christianity, that he favors 

I've always wondered if a "God" exists, why are there so many religions.

[bernorange 8,359]

30 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

I've always wondered if a "God" exists, why are there so many religions.

Ironically, there was a time when there fewer religions with many gods.

[Rimbo 25,921]

37 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

I've always wondered if a "God" exists, why are there so many religions.

 

Because religions are a human invention, not God's? Pretty easily explained. Next question...

 

1 hour ago, Wally Fairway said:

damnitall - now I have to determine if I am the bubba idiot Dickbutt or the jedi master Dickbutt

 

lol i just realized dumbfuck OP's poll allows multiple answers

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

I guess we might could say that, but not sure why we would. It's just as correct to say that the cat is both alive and dead.

In that section he is addressing excluded middle, not the law of noncontradiction (LNC is addressed in the previous section), and so he gives the argument as “neither alive or dead.”  Excluded middle states that for any proposition p, at least one of the statements “p is the case” or “p is not the case” holds.  In your quoted section he is giving the argument based in QM against LEM and then goes on to refute it. 

46 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

Suppose we don't grant that it is true merely because it's convenient for the argument and maintain that the cat can be both alive and dead, before it is observed?

It doesn’t matter the reasons why it is granted.  The point is that even if it is granted, LEM still holds:

“Being in a superposition… isn’t equivalent to either being alive or being dead. The law of excluded middle continues to hold: either the cat is in that superposition or it isn’t; either the cat is alive or it isn’t; either the cat is dead or it isn’t. If the cat is in a superposition, then we can conclude that it isn’t alive and that it isn’t dead.”

Regarding the cat being both alive and dead, that is addressed on page 167 in the LNC section. 

[Nicole44 22,059]

But what is the punchline? What is the point of this? Say what you want to say man!