Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nicoletta Mithra]

The universe is purely amoral. Morality is a human creation, and if we start to say that moral objectivism can be defined in the human frame rather than an universal frame, then we still have amoral people that do not share the same value, or immoral people that share different values, which directly hints at no moral objectivism at the human level.

That the universe is purely amoral is a steep claim, as well as the one that morality is a human creation. That different people hold different things to be morally right or wrong in no way points to categories of morality not existing in an objective sense. Or else the same would be true about e.g. atoms and virtually anything else, because there have always been and are always people who think differently about how things are. That doesn't mean that things aren't objectively one way or the other, but merely that the human capacity to understand how things are is limited.

Or to put it in general terms: Just because there are different beliefs about how things are, doesn't mean that there is no objective truth of how they are: If there is no such truth, then that would imply that things are not the way they are. It is a logical necessity, though, that things are the way they are (that is a trueism). Thus, to infer from a multitude of beliefs about something, that there is no objective truth about this something, is a fallacy.

Normative/objective morality can very well be something that humanity is exploring and discovering, rather than creating it. In fact, as I said above, there are a lot of good reasons to assume the former, rather than the latter - as the latter position has to deal with a lot of logical justification problem the former doesn't have.

[Lyn Farel]

But that's the thing isn't it ? Sansha are evil by our standards, and most standards in New Eden as well, but not all of them. And even if it was all of them doesn't necessarily means that it's absolutely evil objectively either. To them, it's perfectly fine, at least.

The same way your wife cheater may be evil for us, and maybe in his own eyes too, but i'm pretty sure that you will find plenty of people that will hold nothing against it or condone it, because their moral system is just different.

Or because they have none whatsoever. The universe is purely amoral. Morality is a human creation, and if we start to say that moral objectivism can be defined in the human frame rather than an universal frame, then we still have amoral people that do not share the same value, or immoral people that share different values, which directly hints at no moral objectivism at the human level.

Isn't that a little like saying that my concept of a brick is subjective because a brick might mean something else in another culture, though?  It might not use the same standard dimensions or the same standard material, but it's still a brick.

I am just saying that you are applying judgement values on a fact (cheating on a wife) as objective, which is totally contradictory to my understanding of both definitions (judgement value, which is subjective, and cheating, which is objective).

Well, no, it's really a question, in my case.  If it isn't true, then where is the limit of what is objectively right to subjective?  Obviously, some things are evil even if it's allowed, but on the other hand, some things are not allowed that aren't necessarily wrong.  Hence there's an objective right and wrong, it's probably not completely based around our system of morality.  Sizes may change, but a brick is a brick and there's a fundamental definition of what it is that transcends culture before it becomes a bowl of oatmeal or a steam cleaner.

I don't understand the causality effect here. How does the fact that some allowed things being considered evil by someone (or forbidden things that aren't necessarily wrong for someone) does imply that there is an objective right and wrong ?

I really can't grasp the logic, my apologies if that sounds dumb. :/

No, I think we're crossing a communication line.  Cheating is a pretty specific thing.  If you have sex with another woman, and your wife either knows and doesn't care or participates, I can't necessarily say that's wrong.  That's subjective.  I wouldn't do it and I'm against it in practice, but I'm not going to tell two adults how to run their personal relationship.

Cheating is specifically when you're going behind your wife's back and having sex with someone else without her knowing, under the presumption that you aren't.  I can't condone that, even if that kind of thing is culturally expected or acceptable, it's disrespectful, dishonest, and wrong.  If you have promised someone that you aren't going to be sleeping with anyone but them, and you decide to break that promise without telling her, and keep up the pretense that you are still keeping your word, that's pretty universally unacceptable.  It doesn't necessarily make the man in our example a horrible person, but I don't think there's any justification that doesn't make that the wrong thing to do.

More broadly speaking:

Subjective:  You have sex with another woman and your wife is okay with it (I may disagree with the practice, but I wouldn't say it's wrong)

Questionable:  You have sex with another woman, your wife is NOT okay with it and it kills her inside when you do, but she does know about it

Objective:  You have sex with another woman, your wife doesn't know, and you keep up the pretense of the relationship with her for whatever reason you think might justify it.

Horrifying:  The straw man situation, where you have sex with another woman, you don't tell your wife, then if your wife cheats on you and you find out about it, you break every bone in her face with a lamp base.  I think, no matter who you are and what you believe, that constitutes completely f***ed up, and is objectively wrong even if you learned it from watching your father do it to your mother and everyone on your block has a story about it.

I think there's an argument about where the limit to that objective wrong might lay, but I'm just saying that, say, the idea of the Sani Sabik kidnapping people to consume their blood during scarification rituals might be culturally justified to them, but is objectively wrong.  And kids, if you've kidnapped people and consumed their blood during scarification rituals, don't do that.  It's bad.  I don't care who says it's okay.

Well no, that's what I told above. It's not universally unacceptable as you seem to believe. Your subjective world is not the world of everybody.

I may fully agree with you on that specific case, as probably a majority of people and cultures do, but it certainly doesn't mean it's universal nor objective.

That's probably a problem of definition of objectivity then, so the one I use is everything that defines or relates to an object (as opposed to a subject, thus subjectivity). The very description of your case is objective, but the morality applied to it by that definition is purely subjective.

You also admit in your conclusion that you don't care if some think it is okay. The important matter is that some think it is, or might think it is. Which directly relates to moral relativism.

[Lyn Farel]

The universe is purely amoral. Morality is a human creation, and if we start to say that moral objectivism can be defined in the human frame rather than an universal frame, then we still have amoral people that do not share the same value, or immoral people that share different values, which directly hints at no moral objectivism at the human level.

That the universe is purely amoral is a steep claim, as well as the one that morality is a human creation. That different people hold different things to be morally right or wrong in no way points to categories of morality not existing in an objective sense. Or else the same would be true about e.g. atoms and virtually anything else, because there have always been and are always people who think differently about how things are. That doesn't mean that things aren't objectively one way or the other, but merely that the human capacity to understand how things are is limited.

Or to put it in general terms: Just because there are different beliefs about how things are, doesn't mean that there is no objective truth of how they are: If there is no such truth, then that would imply that things are not the way they are. It is a logical necessity, though, that things are the way they are (that is a trueism). Thus, to infer from a multitude of beliefs about something, that there is no objective truth about this something, is a fallacy.

Normative/objective morality can very well be something that humanity is exploring and discovering, rather than creating it. In fact, as I said above, there are a lot of good reasons to assume the former, rather than the latter - as the latter position has to deal with a lot of logical justification problem the former doesn't have.

I am pretty sure that there is objective truth, I just don't believe that subjects - us, anyone - can grasp objective truth. I strongly disagree with the fact that things have to be the way they are. They are just the way they are in the eye of the beholder, and vary sometimes greatly depending on the subject, as well as the space and time location (something might appear different in different circumstances).

That is NOT a trueism to me, quite the contrary indeed. I think that it is a logical necessity to believe in the exact contrary. Believing that one's own subjective interpretation is always the valid and true and objective one sounds dangerous to me. Thus the fallacy is to believe that.

Granted, the claim that the universe is purely amoral is a steep claim. But accepting that it is not pretty much means to me accepting the existence of a superior morality that has basically no substance besides religious belief, which I can't accept. I will never state that such a thing doesn't exist, thus why it was indeed a steep claim, but it directly conflicts with my own premise that we are subjective beings (as per my definition above), and thus cannot claim to know the objectivity of the universe. And even if we could, I still believe there is no objective morality and that both terms are more or less mutually exclusive.


( Why the hell does my post sounds like some SoCT drivel ?  )

[Vic Van Meter]

But that's the thing isn't it ? Sansha are evil by our standards, and most standards in New Eden as well, but not all of them. And even if it was all of them doesn't necessarily means that it's absolutely evil objectively either. To them, it's perfectly fine, at least.

The same way your wife cheater may be evil for us, and maybe in his own eyes too, but i'm pretty sure that you will find plenty of people that will hold nothing against it or condone it, because their moral system is just different.

Or because they have none whatsoever. The universe is purely amoral. Morality is a human creation, and if we start to say that moral objectivism can be defined in the human frame rather than an universal frame, then we still have amoral people that do not share the same value, or immoral people that share different values, which directly hints at no moral objectivism at the human level.

Isn't that a little like saying that my concept of a brick is subjective because a brick might mean something else in another culture, though?  It might not use the same standard dimensions or the same standard material, but it's still a brick.

I am just saying that you are applying judgement values on a fact (cheating on a wife) as objective, which is totally contradictory to my understanding of both definitions (judgement value, which is subjective, and cheating, which is objective).

Well, no, it's really a question, in my case.  If it isn't true, then where is the limit of what is objectively right to subjective?  Obviously, some things are evil even if it's allowed, but on the other hand, some things are not allowed that aren't necessarily wrong.  Hence there's an objective right and wrong, it's probably not completely based around our system of morality.  Sizes may change, but a brick is a brick and there's a fundamental definition of what it is that transcends culture before it becomes a bowl of oatmeal or a steam cleaner.

I don't understand the causality effect here. How does the fact that some allowed things being considered evil by someone (or forbidden things that aren't necessarily wrong for someone) does imply that there is an objective right and wrong ?

I really can't grasp the logic, my apologies if that sounds dumb. :/

No, I think we're crossing a communication line.  Cheating is a pretty specific thing.  If you have sex with another woman, and your wife either knows and doesn't care or participates, I can't necessarily say that's wrong.  That's subjective.  I wouldn't do it and I'm against it in practice, but I'm not going to tell two adults how to run their personal relationship.

Cheating is specifically when you're going behind your wife's back and having sex with someone else without her knowing, under the presumption that you aren't.  I can't condone that, even if that kind of thing is culturally expected or acceptable, it's disrespectful, dishonest, and wrong.  If you have promised someone that you aren't going to be sleeping with anyone but them, and you decide to break that promise without telling her, and keep up the pretense that you are still keeping your word, that's pretty universally unacceptable.  It doesn't necessarily make the man in our example a horrible person, but I don't think there's any justification that doesn't make that the wrong thing to do.

More broadly speaking:

Subjective:  You have sex with another woman and your wife is okay with it (I may disagree with the practice, but I wouldn't say it's wrong)

Questionable:  You have sex with another woman, your wife is NOT okay with it and it kills her inside when you do, but she does know about it

Objective:  You have sex with another woman, your wife doesn't know, and you keep up the pretense of the relationship with her for whatever reason you think might justify it.

Horrifying:  The straw man situation, where you have sex with another woman, you don't tell your wife, then if your wife cheats on you and you find out about it, you break every bone in her face with a lamp base.  I think, no matter who you are and what you believe, that constitutes completely f***ed up, and is objectively wrong even if you learned it from watching your father do it to your mother and everyone on your block has a story about it.

I think there's an argument about where the limit to that objective wrong might lay, but I'm just saying that, say, the idea of the Sani Sabik kidnapping people to consume their blood during scarification rituals might be culturally justified to them, but is objectively wrong.  And kids, if you've kidnapped people and consumed their blood during scarification rituals, don't do that.  It's bad.  I don't care who says it's okay.

Well no, that's what I told above. It's not universally unacceptable as you seem to believe. Your subjective world is not the world of everybody.

I may fully agree with you on that specific case, as probably a majority of people and cultures do, but it certainly doesn't mean it's universal nor objective.

That's probably a problem of definition of objectivity then, so the one I use is everything that defines or relates to an object (as opposed to a subject, thus subjectivity). The very description of your case is objective, but the morality applied to it by that definition is purely subjective.

You also admit in your conclusion that you don't care if some think it is okay. The important matter is that some think it is, or might think it is. Which directly relates to moral relativism.

But that's sort of the point of the example.  Is it really "okay" if someone thinks it's okay?  In the example, it's based around the idea that no one is okay with it except you.  You can justify it, it might not ever hurt anyone because no one might ever find out, but that doesn't mean it was ever the right thing to do.  I think there truly is an objective right in that situation, that if you've promised something, went back on it, and lied, that is wrong whether or not you can shrug it off.

Essentially, being okay with something doesn't make it okay in any kind of objective sense.  At what point are we going from condemning things that aren't our right or business to condemn to excusing things that we shouldn't ever excuse?  As a species, we've done a lot of both, but I think the latter is the one we've done more often.  The worst things we've done as a collective group is that we've allowed some terrible things to happen because we didn't think it was our business.

A more serious historical example might be something like slavery.  It went on in the U.S. until, nominally, 1863.  Plenty of people thought it was okay at the time, in fact some people still practice it in the world and, assumedly, think it's an acceptable thing to do.

That doesn't make it right, nor was it ever the right thing to do.  I may defend it on Constantin Baracca, but it's all character.  Slavery is abhorrent and it was an ignorant practice.  It was common for pretty much every society until relatively recently in human history.  People thought it was a perfectly normal and understandable practice that you could invade another nation-state and set its kidnapped people to working your farms.

It's never been right objectively.  The idea of forcing someone to work in grueling conditions without any compensation for your benefit is in no way the right thing to do, whether you believe in it or not.  We can dress it up and try to make excuses for why it happened and how long it took us to realize it was the wrong thing, it might not have all been horrible people in charge of that system, but it's completely and utterly wrong.  It always was.  It never would be.

But for a long time, in America, the policy of the non-slaveholding states was just to limit its expansion and to not allow it in their part of the country.  It took a long time before a government was elected that would have even limited it to its present boundaries, and it took cessation and a civil war before the government finally released the slaves in America from bondage.

It was never right, it just took us a long time to acknowledge that.  Nowadays, very few people in America would like us to return to enslaving people (and you can bet those people can't say so in government, much less be President).  That doesn't mean it only recently became wrong, it was always wrong.  We just only relatively recently decided to believe so en masse.

[Publius Valerius]

The universe is purely amoral. Morality is a human creation, and if we start to say that moral objectivism can be defined in the human frame rather than an universal frame, then we still have amoral people that do not share the same value, or immoral people that share different values, which directly hints at no moral objectivism at the human level.

That the universe is purely amoral is a steep claim, as well as the one that morality is a human creation. That different people hold different things to be morally right or wrong in no way points to categories of morality not existing in an objective sense. Or else the same would be true about e.g. atoms and virtually anything else, because there have always been and are always people who think differently about how things are. That doesn't mean that things aren't objectively one way or the other, but merely that the human capacity to understand how things are is limited.

Or to put it in general terms: Just because there are different beliefs about how things are, doesn't mean that there is no objective truth of how they are: If there is no such truth, then that would imply that things are not the way they are. It is a logical necessity, though, that things are the way they are (that is a trueism). Thus, to infer from a multitude of beliefs about something, that there is no objective truth about this something, is a fallacy.

Normative/objective morality can very well be something that humanity is exploring and discovering, rather than creating it. In fact, as I said above, there are a lot of good reasons to assume the former, rather than the latter - as the latter position has to deal with a lot of logical justification problem the former doesn't have.

I am pretty sure that there is objective truth, I just don't believe that subjects - us, anyone - can grasp objective truth. I strongly disagree with the fact that things have to be the way they are. They are just the way they are in the eye of the beholder, and vary sometimes greatly depending on the subject, as well as the space and time location (something might appear different in different circumstances).

That is NOT a trueism to me, quite the contrary indeed. I think that it is a logical necessity to believe in the exact contrary. Believing that one's own subjective interpretation is always the valid and true and objective one sounds dangerous to me. Thus the fallacy is to believe that.

Granted, the claim that the universe is purely amoral is a steep claim. But accepting that it is not pretty much means to me accepting the existence of a superior morality that has basically no substance besides religious belief, which I can't accept. I will never state that such a thing doesn't exist, thus why it was indeed a steep claim, but it directly conflicts with my own premise that we are subjective beings (as per my definition above), and thus cannot claim to know the objectivity of the universe. And even if we could, I still believe there is no objective morality and that both terms are more or less mutually exclusive.


( Why the hell does my post sounds like some SoCT drivel ?  )

Just drive by and left a link, because of "cannot claim to know the objectivity of the universe"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_epistemology

Im myself to much a positivist to say such things  , I could never imagne myself standing in front of the natural science (the starting point of modern Aufklärung/Enlightenment movement) department and saying such stuff. 

Maybe a nice starting point for some.... In my youth I was a little in Nietzsche and even in Rawls**, today Im way to far off....

I would suggest start with the Idea of virtue by Socrates:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1WsrS4WaMc
and over Kant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-Crqbu5md4
And go over Nietzsche:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlojPJr4-Vo
After that maybe Rawls.... and maybe one day you are in my far off corner... 

___________
As for the Alignment System.... Meh. I already know what I had in mind for my char. So It is a nice thing for some, for me it is way to restrictive. 





** We all have our young rebel phase    God I sound old. 

[Iwan Terpalen]

That the universe is purely amoral is a steep claim, as well as the one that morality is a human creation.[...]

Show me rocks condemning a sinner, or the rain caring whether it falls on the just or the unjust.

[Vic Van Meter]

That the universe is purely amoral is a steep claim, as well as the one that morality is a human creation.[...]

Show me rocks condemning a sinner, or the rain caring whether it falls on the just or the unjust.

Well, our greed is probably going to cause a lot more rain and our wrath has made it snow the ashen remains of human skin.  I think Nicoletta's point probably isn't about our effect on the physical world, but that there's a lot more to life than rocks and precipitation.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

I am pretty sure that there is objective truth, I just don't believe that subjects - us, anyone - can grasp objective truth. I strongly disagree with the fact that things have to be the way they are. They are just the way they are in the eye of the beholder, and vary sometimes greatly depending on the subject, as well as the space and time location (something might appear different in different circumstances).

So, a proposition of the form "If X, then X=X" is not necessarily true? There are lots of objective truths humans can grasp. Alas, most of them are quite uninteresting analytic truths. (Like the truth that all quadrats have four sides. I know this with absolute certainty. There's nothing subjective about it.)

That the universe is purely amoral is a steep claim, as well as the one that morality is a human creation.[...]

Show me rocks condemning a sinner, or the rain caring whether it falls on the just or the unjust.

Just because rocks and rain aren't the type of things able to give moral judgemants doesn't mean that the universe is purely amoral. Neither rocks nor rain know whether they consist of atoms,nor do they care: But they still do.

Also, yes: there's a lot more to life than rocks and precipitation.

[Elmund Egivand]

I am pretty sure that there is objective truth, I just don't believe that subjects - us, anyone - can grasp objective truth. I strongly disagree with the fact that things have to be the way they are. They are just the way they are in the eye of the beholder, and vary sometimes greatly depending on the subject, as well as the space and time location (something might appear different in different circumstances).

So, a proposition of the form "If X, then X=X" is not necessarily true? There are lots of objective truths humans can grasp. Alas, most of them are quite uninteresting analytic truths. (Like the truth that all quadrats have four sides. I know this with absolute certainty. There's nothing subjective about it.)

That the universe is purely amoral is a steep claim, as well as the one that morality is a human creation.[...]

Show me rocks condemning a sinner, or the rain caring whether it falls on the just or the unjust.

Just because rocks and rain aren't the type of things able to give moral judgemants doesn't mean that the universe is purely amoral. Neither rocks nor rain know whether they consist of atoms,nor do they care: But they still do.

Also, yes: there's a lot more to life than rocks and precipitation.

 

Well, dogs care not whether you are good or evil, just that you feed him the dog biscuits. And tigers think monks and dictators are equally delicious.

Quite frankly, I am under the belief that morality has always been defined by man, not nature. Nature shits on saints and sinners with equal measure. What is right or wrong is defined by us.

[Vic Van Meter]

I am pretty sure that there is objective truth, I just don't believe that subjects - us, anyone - can grasp objective truth. I strongly disagree with the fact that things have to be the way they are. They are just the way they are in the eye of the beholder, and vary sometimes greatly depending on the subject, as well as the space and time location (something might appear different in different circumstances).

So, a proposition of the form "If X, then X=X" is not necessarily true? There are lots of objective truths humans can grasp. Alas, most of them are quite uninteresting analytic truths. (Like the truth that all quadrats have four sides. I know this with absolute certainty. There's nothing subjective about it.)

That the universe is purely amoral is a steep claim, as well as the one that morality is a human creation.[...]

Show me rocks condemning a sinner, or the rain caring whether it falls on the just or the unjust.

Just because rocks and rain aren't the type of things able to give moral judgemants doesn't mean that the universe is purely amoral. Neither rocks nor rain know whether they consist of atoms,nor do they care: But they still do.

Also, yes: there's a lot more to life than rocks and precipitation.

 

Well, dogs care not whether you are good or evil, just that you feed him the dog biscuits. And tigers think monks and dictators are equally delicious.

Quite frankly, I am under the belief that morality has always been defined by man, not nature. Nature shits on saints and sinners with equal measure. What is right or wrong is defined by us.

I guess that depends on whether you believe nature defines humanity, which seems a bit simplistic.  It doesn't matter that chimpanzees will often gather a troop together, wander into the next territory over, and attack their neighbors.  If I went into the next neighborhood over with all my friends, killed and ate everyone there, and stole their houses, I don't think there would be a philosophical debate on whether I was an evil, murderous bastard just because I didn't know any better.

Then again, chimpanzees don't know about heavy industry, organized agriculture, or the nature of electromagnetism.  They're no less natural, they just don't and can't understand.  So they'll never understand that it's probably wrong to invade and cannibalize your neighbors because they can't understand what it would be like to be invaded and eaten until it happens.

We, on the other hand, are capable of understanding when we're doing something wrong and, conversely, we can look at other situations and say that they shouldn't happen.  It isn't really that humanity defines morality, it's that we're the only ones yet that, as far as we know, can think about the long-reaching consequences of our actions to understand.  Rain doesn't care about the precipitation cycle, either, we essentially defined it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't objectively exist.

I just don't think anyone on this board is refraining from murdering the people that annoy them solely because they think they'll get caught.  We, as far as we know alone in the universe, know that killing someone sets up a train of consequences that hurts people who have nothing to do with us, and it's unacceptable.

[Elmund Egivand]

I am pretty sure that there is objective truth, I just don't believe that subjects - us, anyone - can grasp objective truth. I strongly disagree with the fact that things have to be the way they are. They are just the way they are in the eye of the beholder, and vary sometimes greatly depending on the subject, as well as the space and time location (something might appear different in different circumstances).

So, a proposition of the form "If X, then X=X" is not necessarily true? There are lots of objective truths humans can grasp. Alas, most of them are quite uninteresting analytic truths. (Like the truth that all quadrats have four sides. I know this with absolute certainty. There's nothing subjective about it.)

That the universe is purely amoral is a steep claim, as well as the one that morality is a human creation.[...]

Show me rocks condemning a sinner, or the rain caring whether it falls on the just or the unjust.

Just because rocks and rain aren't the type of things able to give moral judgemants doesn't mean that the universe is purely amoral. Neither rocks nor rain know whether they consist of atoms,nor do they care: But they still do.

Also, yes: there's a lot more to life than rocks and precipitation.

 

Well, dogs care not whether you are good or evil, just that you feed him the dog biscuits. And tigers think monks and dictators are equally delicious.

Quite frankly, I am under the belief that morality has always been defined by man, not nature. Nature shits on saints and sinners with equal measure. What is right or wrong is defined by us.

I guess that depends on whether you believe nature defines humanity, which seems a bit simplistic.  It doesn't matter that chimpanzees will often gather a troop together, wander into the next territory over, and attack their neighbors.  If I went into the next neighborhood over with all my friends, killed and ate everyone there, and stole their houses, I don't think there would be a philosophical debate on whether I was an evil, murderous bastard just because I didn't know any better.

Then again, chimpanzees don't know about heavy industry, organized agriculture, or the nature of electromagnetism.  They're no less natural, they just don't and can't understand.  So they'll never understand that it's probably wrong to invade and cannibalize your neighbors because they can't understand what it would be like to be invaded and eaten until it happens.

We, on the other hand, are capable of understanding when we're doing something wrong and, conversely, we can look at other situations and say that they shouldn't happen.  It isn't really that humanity defines morality, it's that we're the only ones yet that, as far as we know, can think about the long-reaching consequences of our actions to understand.  Rain doesn't care about the precipitation cycle, either, we essentially defined it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't objectively exist.

I just don't think anyone on this board is refraining from murdering the people that annoy them solely because they think they'll get caught.  We, as far as we know alone in the universe, know that killing someone sets up a train of consequences that hurts people who have nothing to do with us, and it's unacceptable.

Here's the thing, our sense of rightness and wrongness is more of a product of society, education and indoctrination. If you leave a child in the wild that child is going to pick up the values of whatever animal that decided to adopt him or her. We think and believe in what is right and wrong because we are taught, and what we are taught is a product of society, refined throughout the generations. Society creates this because it's what allows societies to work. Without rules and morality, we wouldn't be able to form a cohesive group and, being social animals, dependent on social structures and the strength of our peers, wouldn't have survived to the modern age.

Moreover, what we collectively think is right or wrong evolves over time, as what allows society to work also changes over time. Until we reached the industrial age, we had always been at the mercy of the elements. Without rules and morality, we can't define when taking too many grains is taking too many grains, and as a result, we wouldn't be sitting here arguing about morality today.

Morality is a human creation. A necessary creation to maintain the cohesion of the group. Without group cohesion, there won't be a group, and without a group, we wouldn't survive.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Well, dogs care not whether you are good or evil, just that you feed him the dog biscuits. And tigers think monks and dictators are equally delicious.

Quite frankly, I am under the belief that morality has always been defined by man, not nature. Nature shits on saints and sinners with equal measure. What is right or wrong is defined by us.

Dog's don't care how exactly they digest the dog biscuits either. And by the way, tigers normally don't eat humans. We're under normal circumstances nottheir prey, but competition. <,<

So, if you say that because dogs and tigers don't seem to care for morality, morality must be a human construct, you'd have to say that because neither dogs nor tigers care for how they digest and neither rocks nor rain carefor what they are made up, that 'the results of science has always been defined by man, not nature. Nature gives shits on whether things are made up from atoms and atoms from subatomic particles and that digestion is realized by a stunningly complex contraption involving specialized enzymes and whatnot with equal measure.'

Also,the idea that nature should reward right action and punish wrong action to not be 'amoral' is a quite childish idea, that seems to stem from a naive idea of God which one hasn't left behind entirely but is emotionally bound to, thus projecting it on arguments of others. The reward of right action lies in doing the right thing, not in being not eaten by tigers. <.< Nature not rewarding right action with extras like that isn't the same as nature 'being amoral'.

But I should stop debating metaethics on the internets. I'll just go back to enjoying The Alignment System Game!

[Vic Van Meter]

I am pretty sure that there is objective truth, I just don't believe that subjects - us, anyone - can grasp objective truth. I strongly disagree with the fact that things have to be the way they are. They are just the way they are in the eye of the beholder, and vary sometimes greatly depending on the subject, as well as the space and time location (something might appear different in different circumstances).

So, a proposition of the form "If X, then X=X" is not necessarily true? There are lots of objective truths humans can grasp. Alas, most of them are quite uninteresting analytic truths. (Like the truth that all quadrats have four sides. I know this with absolute certainty. There's nothing subjective about it.)

That the universe is purely amoral is a steep claim, as well as the one that morality is a human creation.[...]

Show me rocks condemning a sinner, or the rain caring whether it falls on the just or the unjust.

Just because rocks and rain aren't the type of things able to give moral judgemants doesn't mean that the universe is purely amoral. Neither rocks nor rain know whether they consist of atoms,nor do they care: But they still do.

Also, yes: there's a lot more to life than rocks and precipitation.

 

Well, dogs care not whether you are good or evil, just that you feed him the dog biscuits. And tigers think monks and dictators are equally delicious.

Quite frankly, I am under the belief that morality has always been defined by man, not nature. Nature shits on saints and sinners with equal measure. What is right or wrong is defined by us.

I guess that depends on whether you believe nature defines humanity, which seems a bit simplistic.  It doesn't matter that chimpanzees will often gather a troop together, wander into the next territory over, and attack their neighbors.  If I went into the next neighborhood over with all my friends, killed and ate everyone there, and stole their houses, I don't think there would be a philosophical debate on whether I was an evil, murderous bastard just because I didn't know any better.

Then again, chimpanzees don't know about heavy industry, organized agriculture, or the nature of electromagnetism.  They're no less natural, they just don't and can't understand.  So they'll never understand that it's probably wrong to invade and cannibalize your neighbors because they can't understand what it would be like to be invaded and eaten until it happens.

We, on the other hand, are capable of understanding when we're doing something wrong and, conversely, we can look at other situations and say that they shouldn't happen.  It isn't really that humanity defines morality, it's that we're the only ones yet that, as far as we know, can think about the long-reaching consequences of our actions to understand.  Rain doesn't care about the precipitation cycle, either, we essentially defined it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't objectively exist.

I just don't think anyone on this board is refraining from murdering the people that annoy them solely because they think they'll get caught.  We, as far as we know alone in the universe, know that killing someone sets up a train of consequences that hurts people who have nothing to do with us, and it's unacceptable.

Here's the thing, our sense of rightness and wrongness is more of a product of society, education and indoctrination. If you leave a child in the wild that child is going to pick up the values of whatever animal that decided to adopt him or her. We think and believe in what is right and wrong because we are taught, and what we are taught is a product of society, refined throughout the generations. Society creates this because it's what allows societies to work. Without rules and morality, we wouldn't be able to form a cohesive group and, being social animals, dependent on social structures and the strength of our peers, wouldn't have survived to the modern age.

Moreover, what we collectively think is right or wrong evolves over time, as what allows society to work also changes over time. Until we reached the industrial age, we had always been at the mercy of the elements. Without rules and morality, we can't define when taking too many grains is taking too many grains, and as a result, we wouldn't be sitting here arguing about morality today.

Morality is a human creation. A necessary creation to maintain the cohesion of the group. Without group cohesion, there won't be a group, and without a group, we wouldn't survive.

I think my point here is that last part.  There's been a lot of morality that isn't objective (or constructive, for that matter), but I think if there is an essential definition of "good", it's putting aside selfish, individual, animal ideas for the betterment of the surrounding society.  That seems to be pretty objective.  In our cheating example, the idea isn't that having sex outside your marriage is necessarily why cheating is wrong, obviously you can conceivably have a functional polyamorous relationship.  Lying, taking advantage of your family, breaking your word, that seems to be pretty objectively wrong, especially when you're talking about someone who has essentially invested everything into your partnership on the basis of that promise.

So while we, as humans, have defined it, we didn't create it.  Sort of the same way we didn't invent nuclear power; it's been around since the dawn of the universe, at least.  We simply know what it is and that it exists.

I think what you said pretty eloquently demonstrates that point, actually.  Over time, we've been having to confront long-held wrong beliefs (Aristotle said flies had four legs, and he was so trusted that it was hundreds of years before someone bothered to check and found out he was wrong).  A lot of those have been that our understanding of morality wasn't objective enough.  Essentially, it's wrong to enslave people, getting to the other example, even if they would have enslaved you.  Slavery is simply wrong, it always has been, we've simply not understood it until we looked at it in an objective way and said that it is objectively right that all people have equal rights and opportunities (-ish).  It's paid dividends, as many people who might otherwise be laboring manually in a corn field have become inventive contributors to society.

The idea of right and wrong, I don't think, is a new idea, just not one we've always understood well.  The idea of the end of war, and war being Hell, is generally now accepted to be true but was written about as early (as far as I know) as Bronze Age Greece and has been present in the thoughts of great thinkers in very distinct and alien cultures all around the world.  The idea of killing people en masse, especially a country's bravest and brightest, as a means of conflict resolution doesn't make an awful lot of objective sense in the greater scheme of history and the universe.

I think the most prominent example that comes to mind was Sun Tzu's Art of War, which is constantly hammering into your head that the most important thing you can do as a general is to project a show of such strength that your enemies simply never want to fight you.  You would think one of the greatest generals of ancient China would have enjoyed fighting, but he seemed to understand that it was a drain on resources undertaken only when there were no other options (and that attacking an enemy in a position of strength for your usual climactic Peter Jackson battle is almost always a big mistake).  Underpinning that is a highly moral position that his own job, as a warrior and a battlefield commander, was a sometimes-necessary evil and that the best wars are the ones you never fight.

I think we're slowly "getting" morality, but I don't think we can claim to have "invented" it.  As you said, in the end, it isn't like we're thinking up truly revolutionary ideas to define good and evil, we're just figuring out better ways to live together and make each other happy, even if it means our own momentary inconveniences.  It's not something many other animals do, but when you think about it, we're just correcting old mistakes and trying to codify things that generally make sense.  There may be arbitrary parts of our cultural morality, but I do think there are some very objective truths about right and wrong that cross all boundaries.

[V. Gesakaarin]

I think trying to imply right or wrong, good or evil is inherent to the natural world is a bit silly. The natural world remains independent of subjective perception unless you're solipsist. If morality is part of the natural world then by all means provide the formal axioms to describe it, in which case then humans would always behave according to those formal axioms.

But we don't, and never will, because humans don't obey the principles of formal axioms or hell, even rational decisions most times. That's beside the point that the universe appears to be built upon uncertainty, doubt, and frames of reference which seems at odds with a concept of absolute good or evil.

[Publius Valerius]

I am pretty sure that there is objective truth, I just don't believe that subjects - us, anyone - can grasp objective truth. I strongly disagree with the fact that things have to be the way they are. They are just the way they are in the eye of the beholder, and vary sometimes greatly depending on the subject, as well as the space and time location (something might appear different in different circumstances).

So, a proposition of the form "If X, then X=X" is not necessarily true? There are lots of objective truths humans can grasp. Alas, most of them are quite uninteresting analytic truths. (Like the truth that all quadrats have four sides. I know this with absolute certainty. There's nothing subjective about it.)

That the universe is purely amoral is a steep claim, as well as the one that morality is a human creation.[...]

Show me rocks condemning a sinner, or the rain caring whether it falls on the just or the unjust.

Just because rocks and rain aren't the type of things able to give moral judgemants doesn't mean that the universe is purely amoral. Neither rocks nor rain know whether they consist of atoms,nor do they care: But they still do.

Also, yes: there's a lot more to life than rocks and precipitation.

 

Well, dogs care not whether you are good or evil, just that you feed him the dog biscuits. And tigers think monks and dictators are equally delicious.

Quite frankly, I am under the belief that morality has always been defined by man, not nature. Nature shits on saints and sinners with equal measure. What is right or wrong is defined by us.

I guess that depends on whether you believe nature defines humanity, which seems a bit simplistic.  It doesn't matter that chimpanzees will often gather a troop together, wander into the next territory over, and attack their neighbors.  If I went into the next neighborhood over with all my friends, killed and ate everyone there, and stole their houses, I don't think there would be a philosophical debate on whether I was an evil, murderous bastard just because I didn't know any better.

Then again, chimpanzees don't know about heavy industry, organized agriculture, or the nature of electromagnetism.  They're no less natural, they just don't and can't understand.  So they'll never understand that it's probably wrong to invade and cannibalize your neighbors because they can't understand what it would be like to be invaded and eaten until it happens.

We, on the other hand, are capable of understanding when we're doing something wrong and, conversely, we can look at other situations and say that they shouldn't happen.  It isn't really that humanity defines morality, it's that we're the only ones yet that, as far as we know, can think about the long-reaching consequences of our actions to understand.  Rain doesn't care about the precipitation cycle, either, we essentially defined it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't objectively exist.

I just don't think anyone on this board is refraining from murdering the people that annoy them solely because they think they'll get caught.  We, as far as we know alone in the universe, know that killing someone sets up a train of consequences that hurts people who have nothing to do with us, and it's unacceptable.

Here's the thing, our sense of rightness and wrongness is more of a product of society, education and indoctrination. If you leave a child in the wild that child is going to pick up the values of whatever animal that decided to adopt him or her. We think and believe in what is right and wrong because we are taught, and what we are taught is a product of society, refined throughout the generations. Society creates this because it's what allows societies to work. Without rules and morality, we wouldn't be able to form a cohesive group and, being social animals, dependent on social structures and the strength of our peers, wouldn't have survived to the modern age.

Moreover, what we collectively think is right or wrong evolves over time, as what allows society to work also changes over time. Until we reached the industrial age, we had always been at the mercy of the elements. Without rules and morality, we can't define when taking too many grains is taking too many grains, and as a result, we wouldn't be sitting here arguing about morality today.

Morality is a human creation. A necessary creation to maintain the cohesion of the group. Without group cohesion, there won't be a group, and without a group, we wouldn't survive.

Lets get fast through this: "Morality is a human creation. A necessary creation to maintain the cohesion of the group. Without group cohesion, there won't be a group, and without a group, we wouldn't survive."

This is a very utilitarian view or lets say "utilitarian-ish", because I never knew that my collecting of berries is MORAL (my hunter-gatherer thingy).



Now back to the topic. If you dont mind I put numbers on your points: "Morality is a human creation (1). A necessary creation to maintain the cohesion of the group (2). Without group cohesion, there won't be a group, and without a group, we wouldn't survive (3)."

Means you see first morality is done by human.... and if I add ... humans havent done it out of selfishness, but rather to maximizes utility. In your case survival. Are you okay that I reword your stuff? If yes. Great. If no, I explain why I have done it. I have done it because, you had put survival and moral together... Which means a person could argue that: A surviving group is a moral group. Or lets say: The more/more likely a group survives, the more are they moral and visa versa. Which means a positive correlation between moral and survival. Something I dont want to do. So are you okay if I reword your stuff this way: "Morality is a human creation, which says: "Moral is to maximizes utility for any given individual" (1). The more this creation can maximizes utility (for any given subject), the more or stronger is the group cohesion (2). The higher the accumulated utility of a group, the higher the change to survive (3)." That way you havent moral and survival direct together. Me personally Im way to far away from utilitarianism. I dont know if this is bad or good thing.




Off topic.... Would you people agree that there are laws out there. Truths if you like. Even if they are tautological like x=x or a square has four sides, even this tautological things give us information... or lets say a true information... because x=x. Those it give us alot of information? No. Nothing behind the tautological statement, but it gives us a true. Of course there can be more. Is there a chance for falsifiable truths, or laws if you like? Yes of course. Most people would argue that is the point of science, to find those laws/truths. From economic laws (gossen's laws, etc..), over the laws in physics, to laws in social science.... There are laws/truths everywhere around us. So yes I believe there is also a moral law. A formula if you like, and yes it will not be something like most people imagine, or learned in school or in the church. BUT THOSE THIS MEAN THERE ISNT THIS TRUE, THIS LAW OUT THERE? The law of moral if you like. Of course not. It will be just not as you and me desire/wish it is. And this law is most likely not as global/macro-macro as we wish (and a more individual and case by case thingy). For examples:

- Is it right for a individual to kill someone, another individual, in self defense? You threaten my life, can I take yours to protect me?
- Those for this special question matter if there is moral, or lets use our words "this human creation call morals"? No. I could answer this question today, as well as 3000 years ago. Or lets say: This scenario could take place in the state of nature (without morals) or in the state of order (with morals). As the answer YES isnt around the question of moral but rather survival. And we dont need even the creation of moral/groups/societies to answer this question. So yes I think, there are laws of morals out there.

- Are humans born with natural rights or divine rights? Or are they given over a social contract (a person in a social contract has right, person outside dont)? If the latter is true it would mean that natural rights are human creation (A human creation as you said morals are).
- This special question on the other hand deals with more then SURVIVAL. Which makes an answer harder. P.S. I could give know a longer answer why I think we are born with natural rights, but I also dont want to show what a amoral person Im  . Long story short, most likely we will find micro-level/individual laws long before we will find a global law of moral... But just my 50 cents....

I think trying to imply right or wrong, good or evil is inherent to the natural world is a bit silly. The natural world remains independent of subjective perception unless you're solipsist. If morality is part of the natural world then by all means provide the formal axioms to describe it, in which case then humans would always behave according to those formal axioms.

But we don't, and never will, because humans don't obey the principles of formal axioms or hell, even rational decisions most times. That's beside the point that the universe appears to be built upon uncertainty, doubt, and frames of reference which seems at odds with a concept of absolute good or evil.

I think you mix up a little..... I would agree on "trying to imply right or wrong, good or evil is inherent to the natural world is a bit silly." But full heartily disagree with your statement that we as humans are not govern/lead or choose by laws. We are subjects to laws, if you like it or not. Even if you think "don't obey the principles of formal axioms" you do it still. Example: You dont beleive in gravity, doesnt change there is gravity. You dont believe in economics and rational behavior, and want do always exceptions. Even for that are theories and models out there (from asian disease, over loss aversion to RREEMM-Models any other stuff in decision theory... It just means I have to be less lazy, and work less with a pure homo oeconomicus  )

Well, ...

But I should stop debating metaethics on the internets. I'll just go back to enjoying The Alignment System Game!

True. I will better also stop.