Absolute Morals and evolution - Page 3

jthegreat · #21 10-17-2005, 12:27 PM

There are no gods and morality is objective. Human morality is based on human nature, which has evolved over thousands of years and is objective. Learning this is hard and most people don't bother and cop out with a belief in subjective morality.

*edit - The fact that 99% of humanity share the same core beliefs about right and wrong is great evidence.

RJT · #22 10-17-2005, 12:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There are no gods and morality is objective. Human morality is based on human nature, which has evolved over thousands of years and is objective. Learning this is hard and most people don't bother and cop out with a belief in subjective morality.

*edit - The fact that 99% of humanity share the same core beliefs about right and wrong is great evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we would need 100% to even consider this as evidence.

jthegreat · #23 10-17-2005, 01:40 PM

The other 1% are people with mental defects and have problems such as having no capacity for moral thought, etc...

#24 10-17-2005, 02:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There are no gods and morality is objective.

[/ QUOTE ]
So, how exactly would one measure, calculate, or determine this objective morality?

Would it be right or wrong to purposefully hurt someone's feelings? If, for instance, somebody grew up with their dad always calling them "retard"... and you knew that... so you call them "retard" in order to hurt their feelings. Obviously, most people don't share this personal history that would make them very upset if you were to call them a "retard"... so, it seems pretty subjective and relative to me.

txag007 · #25 10-17-2005, 02:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
* Something is GOOD to the extent that it increases happiness or decreases suffering
* Something is BAD to the extent that it decreases happiness or increases suffering

[/ QUOTE ]
Not all pleasures are good. Not all pain is bad. Therefore, the standard for "good" must come from something else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say pleasure. I said happiness. And, "suffering" being the opposite of that. When you say "not all pleasures are good"... what do you mean by "good"? When I say that, I mean: "not all pleasures increase happiness".

[/ QUOTE ]
I was using pleasure and happiness synonymously. Not all things that bring happiness are accepted as good. Not all things that decrease happiness are accepted as bad. This is why the standard for good must come from eleswhere.

jthegreat · #26 10-17-2005, 03:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So, how exactly would one measure, calculate, or determine this objective morality?

[/ QUOTE ]

Determine it by starting from basic ideas/principles. Rand laid a solid groundwork in this regard.

[ QUOTE ]
so, it seems pretty subjective and relative to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're using the word "subjective" in two different ways here. When we say morality is "subjective", we mean that right and wrong depend on the person acting. That two people could perform the same action in identical circumstances and one would be right and the other wrong... that the beliefs of the actor are what determine right and wrong, not the situation.

Your example merely shows that the same action in *different* circumstances could have different moral results. I'm not arguing against that and that is not the traditional meaning of "subjective morality".

jthegreat · #27 10-17-2005, 03:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Not all things that bring happiness are accepted as good. Not all things that decrease happiness are accepted as bad. This is why the standard for good must come from eleswhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's also important to note that this is an iterative process. Happiness depends on achieving values, but values can change over time. Our brains have feedback mechanisms that allow us to change who we are and what we desire, and therefore change what makes us happy.

#28 10-17-2005, 03:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
* Something is GOOD to the extent that it increases happiness or decreases suffering
* Something is BAD to the extent that it decreases happiness or increases suffering

[/ QUOTE ]
Not all pleasures are good. Not all pain is bad. Therefore, the standard for "good" must come from something else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say pleasure. I said happiness. And, "suffering" being the opposite of that. When you say "not all pleasures are good"... what do you mean by "good"? When I say that, I mean: "not all pleasures increase happiness".

[/ QUOTE ]
I was using pleasure and happiness synonymously. Not all things that bring happiness are accepted as good. Not all things that decrease happiness are accepted as bad. This is why the standard for good must come from eleswhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Note: I'm using the term "happiness" to mean "true happiness" -- not "pleasure" or "bliss"... but a deep, lasting, contenting, type of happiness. Almost by definition, then, those things are "good".

Also of note, I mentioned before that we live in a shared reality. So, what might be "good" for one person, may be "bad" for a multitude. In the utilitarian, sense, then, we would strive to increse the net "good" over the entire population.

If you disagree, please expound. What brings this type of happiness but would be "bad"? What other criteria besides "happiness" would you use to determine what is "good"?

#29 10-17-2005, 03:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so, it seems pretty subjective and relative to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're using the word "subjective" in two different ways here. When we say morality is "subjective", we mean that right and wrong depend on the person acting. That two people could perform the same action in identical circumstances and one would be right and the other wrong... that the beliefs of the actor are what determine right and wrong, not the situation.

Your example merely shows that the same action in *different* circumstances could have different moral results. I'm not arguing against that and that is not the traditional meaning of "subjective morality".

[/ QUOTE ]

If a different person in the same situation is considered a *different* circumstance, then the word "subjective" is meaningless in this context. I am saying that different people, in the same circumstance, might change whether an event/action is "good" or "bad" -- and therefore "right" or "wrong". "Subjective" means particular to a certain person -- personal. If the persons involved must be identical, then subjectivity is removed from the equations. But, in the real world, people are not identical, and therefore morality is sometimes subjective (ie: it depends on the persons involved).

Also, I do think the beliefs of the actors are a factor in deciding if something is "right" or "wrong" (using my previous definitions). If someone believes he is helping someone, but is really hurting them, then I would submit that would not be "as wrong" as someone that was intentionally doing the same action, knowing they were hurting someone.

txag007 · #30 10-17-2005, 04:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Note: I'm using the term "happiness" to mean "true happiness" -- not "pleasure" or "bliss"... but a deep, lasting, contenting, type of happiness. Almost by definition, then, those things are "good".

[/ QUOTE ]
By that definition, I'll agree with that. Here's where we will probably differ, though. I believe that morality is absolute. The joy of which you speak when defining "good" comes directly from God's unchanging nature. He is the source of "true happiness". God, by definition, is good.

[ QUOTE ]
Also of note, I mentioned before that we live in a shared reality. So, what might be "good" for one person, may be "bad" for a multitude. In the utilitarian, sense, then, we would strive to increse the net "good" over the entire population.

[/ QUOTE ]
It begs the question to say that moral right is that which brings the greatest good. Either "right" and "good" are defined in terms of each other, which is circular reasoning, or they must be defined according to some standard beyond the utilitarian process. This takes us back to "true happiness" or "joy" and ultimately to God.