Morality belongs to Science and Reason, not Religion or Individual Opinion

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Objectivity does not flow from within. The object is outside of us, part of the universe. A subjective thing is one which changes depending on the perspective or opinion of the observer... an objective thing exists whether we perceive it, understand it, or agree with it or not. Just because we understand things about electricity and can use it to power our society, that does not mean we invented electricity, we simply understand it better. It existed before we could comprehend it. It is an objective thing.

If morality is a purely human construct, based not on the natural world but on our opinions and beliefs, then it will never be a thing beyond our whims. If morality is based upon the phenomena inherent to the universe itself, such as death, cause and effect, and so on, then it is not merely an idea, but a thing to be studied and observed and quantified as a science, not merely an opinion.

If you are looking for a scientific, reasonable morality, you will not find it in our emotions or belief systems. You will find it in observation of the universe and the society itself.

Again with the universe though. What do the stars and other planets tell us about morality? You would be better off with a microscope than a telescope, and best off with an fMRI. Remember I said it would be based on the natural world (human nature) and not entirely on our opinions and beliefs.

You compare it to electricity, and point out that without us, electrons would still flow. But without us, would it still be wrong to cheat on your wife? There would be no wife and no cheater and no cheating...and no wrong.

thats just survival instinct. and we turn it into morals. it is also in animals but they dont turn it into as extensive systems as ours.

Why do you say survival instinct? We have the brain structure required to make moral judgement, that is why we have morality.


VVVVV well said pizza

[Askthepizzaguy]

Again with the universe though. What do the stars and other planets tell us about morality? You would be better off with a microscope than a telescope, and best off with an fMRI. Remember I said it would be based on the natural world (human nature) and not entirely on our opinions and beliefs.

The microscope studies the universe as much as a telescope does.

When I say Universe I do not necessarily mean "up". I mean existence itself, from the small to the large.

You compare it to electricity, and point out that without us, electrons would still flow. But without us, would it still be wrong to cheat on your wife? There would be no wife and no cheater and no cheating...and no wrong.

Then let us create an object: A robot. It exists independent of us, and is not human. Can morality apply to the robot? Suppose the robot builds a weapon and wipes out all species on some alien planet. Does morality enter into it? I contend that it does. The act is still immoral... doesn't matter if there are humans involved. Certainly morality impacts human beings, and certainly specific examples such as "man cheating on wife" requires people. But I would argue that a truly objective morality would apply to all forms of intelligent beings, naturally, and by extension. It is just a strange circumstance where I can only name humans as intelligent beings in this sense, at least comparably intelligent to humans. I'd imagine that if there were gods, morality would apply to them as well. Greater-than-human beings? If they have intelligence and they commit consequential deeds, then their choices have morality or immorality.

Some people believe in demons and devils. Intelligent non-humans who plot to corrupt and twist and make suffer and destroy. Are these things immoral? Just because we live in a human-centric world, that does not mean that the universal laws which seem to apply only to us especially, necessarily are such. They would apply to any intelligent beings. But if I am a man standing in an empty room, and I have never seen other people, it is difficult to prove my point that other people might also stand in empty rooms. I don't have evidence of any universal truth here, but that does not mean it does not exist.

[The Stranger]

The microscope studies the universe as much as a telescope does.

When I say Universe I do not necessarily mean "up". I mean existence itself, from the small to the large.



Then let us create an object: A robot. It exists independent of us, and is not human. Can morality apply to the robot? Suppose the robot builds a weapon and wipes out all species on some alien planet. Does morality enter into it? I contend that it does. The act is still immoral... doesn't matter if there are humans involved. Certainly morality impacts human beings, and certainly specific examples such as "man cheating on wife" requires people. But I would argue that a truly objective morality would apply to all forms of intelligent beings, naturally, and by extension. It is just a strange circumstance where I can only name humans as intelligent beings in this sense, at least comparably intelligent to humans. I'd imagine that if there were gods, morality would apply to them as well. Greater-than-human beings? If they have intelligence and they commit consequential deeds, then their choices have morality or immorality.

Some people believe in demons and devils. Intelligent non-humans who plot to corrupt and twist and make suffer and destroy. Are these things immoral? Just because we live in a human-centric world, that does not mean that the universal laws which seem to apply only to us especially, necessarily are such. They would apply to any intelligent beings. But if I am a man standing in an empty room, and I have never seen other people, it is difficult to prove my point that other people might also stand in empty rooms. I don't have evidence of any universal truth here, but that does not mean it does not exist.

if there were no humans there would be no one to say that it is wrong. if suddenly humans appear and hear of it and say it is wrong, it is wrong because there are humans to say it is. this proves no point, because it is a human saying so. i would only be convinced if a martian pink hippo would tell it to me.

[The Stranger]

if there were no humans there would be no one to say that it is wrong. if suddenly humans appear and hear of it and say it is wrong, it is wrong because there are humans to say it is. this proves no point, because it is a human saying so. i would only be convinced if a martian pink hippo would tell it to me.

it indeed does not prove it does not exist. but it also no real argument for it. moral objectivity can exist, it might not exist. untill we find out when we look at the world all we see is moral diversity guided by a few apparantly universal apriori structures.

[Myrddraal]

Then why do we not attempt to define these axioms?

That's what we've been doing all thread. You are claiming that you have some way to decide which moral axioms are right, but this is subjective by definition. It is not a case of missing terminology or lack of equipment. You cannot objectively differentiate between entirely subjective concepts such as 'right' and 'wrong'.

[The Stranger]

Again with the universe though. What do the stars and other planets tell us about morality? You would be better off with a microscope than a telescope, and best off with an fMRI. Remember I said it would be based on the natural world (human nature) and not entirely on our opinions and beliefs.

You compare it to electricity, and point out that without us, electrons would still flow. But without us, would it still be wrong to cheat on your wife? There would be no wife and no cheater and no cheating...and no wrong.



Why do you say survival instinct? We have the brain structure required to make moral judgement, that is why we have morality.


VVVVV well said pizza

yes that doesnt change a thing. we the moral judgement brain structure adds morality to what is survival instinct. if we did not have that moral structure we would be like animals in that respect (or atleast our current conception of animals and their possibilities) a baboon has pretty much the same survival instinct as we do, yet a dominant baboon male killing an infant is not doing anything wrong. while if a human would do so, most people would say that he is doing something wrong.

the most basic (often referred to as objective, because they are found in almost if not every culture) moral claims are to be traced back to these instincts. they are not outside us, but they are inherently in us. if morality was something objective, outside us, within the universe (or why not also outside the universe, surely then things would still be moral if the universe would cease to exist) than it would also have to be shared atleast in some respect by other intelligent alien lifeform. not only that, but also to the gods.

and im very much doubting that.

[Askthepizzaguy]

A baboon may not understand the consequences of his actions. While the actions might be defined in moral terms, the baboon isn't competent enough to understand right and wrong. At least, that is the defense that we might come up with.

I do not expect a plant to understand morality, nor a fish, nor a duck. I don't expect a baboon to understand consequences and morality. People are advanced enough to begin to comprehend it.

Perhaps we are the first advanced life on this planet capable of even having this discussion. Does that mean that we shouldn't have it? Does that mean that other species, sufficiently advanced, couldn't do so?

What of children? At what point do they become understanding and sentient enough to understand morality?

Further, without such a science of morality, how can we even say that we understand morality? Perhaps it is too large a concept for even us to grasp, like a baboon trying to design a gasoline engine. But I feel it is worth a try.

[The Stranger]

A baboon may not understand the consequences of his actions. While the actions might be defined in moral terms, the baboon isn't competent enough to understand right and wrong. At least, that is the defense that we might come up with.

I do not expect a plant to understand morality, nor a fish, nor a duck. I don't expect a baboon to understand consequences and morality. People are advanced enough to begin to comprehend it.

Perhaps we are the first advanced life on this planet capable of even having this discussion. Does that mean that we shouldn't have it? Does that mean that other species, sufficiently advanced, couldn't do so?

What of children? At what point do they become understanding and sentient enough to understand morality?

Further, without such a science of morality, how can we even say that we understand morality? Perhaps it is too large a concept for even us to grasp, like a baboon trying to design a gasoline engine. But I feel it is worth a try.

so becuase he doesnt understand right and wrong in the way humans (or intelligent rational creatures) would right and wrong do not apply to it. you can say what u want but that is the same as for the baboon it does not exist. so morality is inherent to intelligent and rationility which corresponds to our type. because sure dolphins are intelligent, probably also rational (if i understand the definition right) but no one is applying moral rules to them.

i dont say we shouldnt have the discussion. dont confuse there is no objective right and wrong with there is no reason to talk. or even because i claim it it doesnt mean that i am not open to arguments that will convince me otherwise. just because im a moral subjectivest doesnt make me a global subjectivist. and even if i was a global subjectivist i would still discuss it because i want my truth to be the universal truth.

the question of the children is not one for me to answer. i dont care when they become sentient enough. i think its a more urgent question for objectivism.

there is also a difference between a science of morality, one which objectively talks about morality and documents all the moral codes and such and an ethical scientificbased theory. such as that of dawkins.

[Megas Methuselah]

A baboon may not understand the consequences of his actions. While the actions might be defined in moral terms, the baboon isn't competent enough to understand right and wrong.

I'm not sure about this in a very amusing sort of way. You see, my dog knows what is right and what is wrong, because I drilled it into his little brain. He knows that taking a piss inside the house is bad; he doesn't do it because he knows I'll punish him for it. Likewise, he knows that doing whatever I tell him to do (sit, lay down, etc.) is the right thing to do.

You know what? He lives a pretty sad life. His sense of morality: right = obeying me. wrong = disobeying me.

Just felt like adding this in when ATPG underestimated inferior beings a bit too much. Go on with your serious discussion, bro's.

[The Stranger]

I'm not sure about this in a very amusing sort of way. You see, my dog knows what is right and what is wrong, because I drilled it into his little brain. He knows that taking a piss inside the house is bad; he doesn't do it because he knows I'll punish him for it. Likewise, he knows that doing whatever I tell him to do (sit, lay down, etc.) is the right thing to do.

You know what? He lives a pretty sad life. His sense of morality: right = obeying me. wrong = disobeying me.

Just felt like adding this in when ATPG underestimated inferior beings a bit too much. Go on with your serious discussion, bro's.

ur life aint better. good = obeying morality and bad = disobeying morality. the sadder part is morality doesnt even live. it doesnt really exist.

[Viking]

ur life aint better. good = obeying morality and bad = disobeying morality. the sadder part is morality doesnt even live. it doesnt really exist.

We can define it to exist, and so we have it. It's just like math. Differentiating the cosine function has an inherent meaning to me - differentiation does exist.

I assume that you meant "objective morality" though, which I agree that do not exist. There is nothing about morals that can be defended, because there is no objective starting point. Bringing science and "reason" into this is absurd.

--
I want to state something:

"It is immoral to pluck flowers."

If morals belong to reason and science; then either I can prove this to be correct, or anyone else can prove it to be wrong; hypothetically.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I have found the answer to all the great questions in this thread on epistemological issues, and chartered the evolution of human understanding...

[The Stranger]

srry doublepost.

[Megas Methuselah]

Wait, wait, wait... I has morality?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The microscope studies the universe as much as a telescope does.

When I say Universe I do not necessarily mean "up". I mean existence itself, from the small to the large.

Then let us create an object: A robot. It exists independent of us, and is not human. Can morality apply to the robot? Suppose the robot builds a weapon and wipes out all species on some alien planet. Does morality enter into it? I contend that it does.

But you are now postulating two other kinds of life forms. If they have morality it comes from them, and is particular to them--they might even have no use for it. So it seems to me like your are really arguing that morality is inherent to humanity, which is what I'm saying...

the most basic (often referred to as objective, because they are found in almost if not every culture) moral claims are to be traced back to these instincts. they are not outside us, but they are inherently in us. if morality was something objective, outside us, within the universe (or why not also outside the universe, surely then things would still be moral if the universe would cease to exist) than it would also have to be shared atleast in some respect by other intelligent alien lifeform. not only that, but also to the gods.

and im very much doubting that.

I don't see why you go from "inherently in us" to "therefore: subjective". We can observe our inherent internal phenomena can't we?

[Askthepizzaguy]

But you are now postulating two other kinds of life forms. If they have morality it comes from them, and is particular to them--they might even have no use for it. So it seems to me like your are really arguing that morality is inherent to humanity, which is what I'm saying...

I challenge you on that. Other beings, sufficiently advanced, could understand chemistry and mathematics. Those are objective things. If there is an objective definition for morality, a scientific one, then that definition can apply to all intelligent sentient life. I agree with you on a thousand points, but I challenge you that morality is purely a human construct, because you are basing that on observation alone. If there are underlying universal principles, they would apply to everyone and everything that it applies to, human or not. I don't have any proof of that, but we are talking theory. If you want a scientific morality, based in reason, then you're talking about one based on things which are not merely human opinions, but functions of our existence. If there is ever to be any morality based on something besides anger or joy or belief, which does not equal morality, then it has to be based on objective things.

Objective things exist outside of humanity and would apply to all sentient life.

If we one day met an intelligent, alien species, but they enslaved other intelligent beings against their will, we might have a universal basis for showing them why it is immoral, based on universal, actual principles.

I wouldn't agree with any form of moral theory was broken simply because now we aren't talking about humans anymore. Then it simply becomes our opinions again. I don't think that science should be based on solely that.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I challenge you on that. Other beings, sufficiently advanced, could understand chemistry and mathematics. Those are objective things. If there is an objective definition for morality, a scientific one, then that definition can apply to all intelligent sentient life.

But could these being understand neuroscience? You are assuming that a moral system is necessary for these beings. If there is no life, there is no morality. Chemistry would not be a valid discipline if nothing that it related to existed. You may as well argue that "buy low, sell high" is an inherent law of the universe.

If we one day met an intelligent, alien species, but they enslaved other intelligent beings against their will, we might have a universal basis for showing them why it is immoral, based on universal, actual principles.

If they don't have the moral feelings we do, they will not be convinced.

Critters in the forest can hear the tree fall, and we can observe that using scientific instruments.

They don't hear it fall if there is "no one to hear it fall" as the saying usually goes.

Sound is a very real physical phenomenon which I could prove to any alien species, just as I can prove it to you.

I'm afraid not. Look out your window, and then describe what you see to a blind man. Describe "blue" to him. Sound is not an inherent phenomena, only the bouncing of air molecules is.

[The Stranger]

I challenge you on that. Other beings, sufficiently advanced, could understand chemistry and mathematics. Those are objective things. If there is an objective definition for morality, a scientific one, then that definition can apply to all intelligent sentient life. I agree with you on a thousand points, but I challenge you that morality is purely a human construct, because you are basing that on observation alone. If there are underlying universal principles, they would apply to everyone and everything that it applies to, human or not. I don't have any proof of that, but we are talking theory. If you want a scientific morality, based in reason, then you're talking about one based on things which are not merely human opinions, but functions of our existence. If there is ever to be any morality based on something besides anger or joy or belief, which does not equal morality, then it has to be based on objective things.

Objective things exist outside of humanity and would apply to all sentient life.

If we one day met an intelligent, alien species, but they enslaved other intelligent beings against their will, we might have a universal basis for showing them why it is immoral, based on universal, actual principles.

I wouldn't agree with any form of moral theory was broken simply because now we aren't talking about humans anymore. Then it simply becomes our opinions again. I don't think that science should be based on solely that.

no. just because one can understand it doesnt make it true. everyone can understand christianity surely. but that does not make it true. everyone can understand the idea of the earth being flat but that does not make it true. I'm sure there are more people having a hard time understanding maths than christianity, does this make christianity more truthful than maths? mathematics is comprehensible yes, it is a very neat system, but it is only true when you accept the system, it is only true within the system. in the same way that god is true when you accept the religion.

and why is science so neccesarily objective when it is still being performed by humans. nothing humans produce can ever be 100% objective.

bah scientists and priests... both metaphysici.

how can you explain the change from sentient to intelligent. surely if morality is objective it is as wrong to kill a human infant as it is to kill a infant cow (calf). or does the moral objective rule only apply to killing within ones species. against which i again take the baboon infant killer example. and if the baboon is not intelligent enough is it accounted for a species or individual. if accounted for as a species, than would the case arive that an superintteligent baboon would do all kinds of stuff morally wrong for humans it is not wrong for him because his species as a whole are deemed outside morality. if accounted for indivually, than also the stupid humans would fall outside morality.

[The Stranger]

I don't see why you go from "inherently in us" to "therefore: subjective". We can observe our inherent internal phenomena can't we?

i didnt mention subjective at all. im just saying i doubt it is objective. the point about it being inherently in us is only to prove wrong the idea that morality is outside us. it could be objectively in us, though even that i doubt.