Isn't morality just supersition?

[Simon Anders]

Words. Words. Words. Words. - Hamlet

You can justify anything you wish.
In fact it is quite an uncanny gift humans have.
That does not, however, make it true.

If murder is allowed there is not mutual trust, the foundation of community is destroyed.
Without community, humans can not survive.
As Nietzsche said, the basis of the first truth was, "I will not kill you".

Objective morality does not necessarily imply religion.

Words, words, words. -Hamlet
right back at you.
You can justify anything you wish, is perhaps my point.

I made it clear that objective morality is either theology or fantasy. The latter specifically not necessarily being religion.

 

[Simon Anders]

Yes it is.
I believe that would fall under Naturalism.

No it is fantasy. One can categorize ethical statements based on want in naturalism. But to publically assert
this is who I want things done is not ethics.

Most threads and posts in Sciforums do not pass muster.
This is a pretty weak science site.

Then you can see me as a reformer.

 

[Simon Anders]

Morality is a time-tested method of self preservation through group preservation.

This is a perfectly acceptable comment in a science forum. Enmos is describing what he sees as the consequences of morality.

However if he were to say rape is wrong,

he would be fantasizing an objective morality

or practicing theological thinking

and this would be unacceptable.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

It seems to me, at least, that objectivity is just a sham, and mob rule is the reality. If cannibalism were accepted by more people, then cannibalism would be considered moral and good, perhaps even touted as a form of recycling.

 

[Balerion]

Simon, what are you trying to do? Are you trying to compare morality to those of you who believe in bronze age space gods?

Please, don't bother. Everyone has morals.

 

[Baron Max]

Please, don't bother. Everyone has morals.

Yeah, but those morals aren't always the same with different people/cultures.

Which somewhat begs the question of the main topic ...are morals just one more "belief"? I think they are ...taught to us as little kids in no way different to how to eat with a fork and spoon, or to use the toilet instead of shitting in the middle of the sidewalk.

Baron Max

 

[Simon Anders]

Simon, what are you trying to do? Are you trying to compare morality to those of you who believe in bronze age space gods?

Please, don't bother. Everyone has morals.

Going to be fussy here with you JDawg.

I am certainly not comparing morality to a certain subset of theists. That is apples and oranges.

Everyone having morals is both not true and an appeal to majority belief. As is indicated in your first paragraph you are aware that majorities can believe in fantasies, so this is hardly a strong argument in support of objective morality.

Scientific or rational rigor should not be concerned with the degree of fantasy, but rather with the elimination of unfounded claims, period.

One cannot derive ought from is.

Hume discusses the problem in book III, part I, section I of his A Treatise of Human Nature:
“ In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, that expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.

Once you move beyond describing what is and say what ought to be, you are in fantasyland.

 

[one_raven]

You should have continued that cute little sentence ....like this:

"Morality is a time-tested method of self preservation through group preservation that is forced on a society."

Whenever we talk about morality and ethics, we always seem to forget or ignore that those values are forced upon us. And almost everyone would agree that using force on someone is not very nice.

There would be no morals or ethics without the power to enforce them.

Baron Max

Force upon us by whom?
Are we not society?
Ohhh, so you are saying they are forced upon us by the majority? Morality is consensus?

One of these days, I will pin you down Baron...
One minute you say that the world and we would all be much better off if people would "mind their own fuckin' business" and the next you are bitching that everything anyone does affects you, so it IS your business.
One minute you claim that morality is forced upon us, in the next you aim to force your morality upon others.
Seems to me like you are a simple opportunist who will just support any bullshit that serves your needs in that moment, intergrity and honesty be damned.

 

[Enmos]

You should have continued that cute little sentence ....like this:

"Morality is a time-tested method of self preservation through group preservation that is forced on a society."

Whenever we talk about morality and ethics, we always seem to forget or ignore that those values are forced upon us. And almost everyone would agree that using force on someone is not very nice.

There would be no morals or ethics without the power to enforce them.

Baron Max

Forced or not, it works. And it has worked for millennia.

 

[Enmos]

This is a perfectly acceptable comment in a science forum. Enmos is describing what he sees as the consequences of morality.

However if he were to say rape is wrong,

he would be fantasizing an objective morality

or practicing theological thinking

and this would be unacceptable.

Morality is all around, other animals practice it too. Seems to me the capacity for it evolved because it was beneficial.

I'm not sure what you meant by this post though. Are you agreeing or disagreeing ?

 

[leopold]

So the entire site should be cessed, for anything that is not explainable by the tools of science does not belong in a science forum?

everything can be explained, even the origins of life.
proving that explanation is an entirely different matter.

 

[Balerion]

Going to be fussy here with you JDawg.

I am certainly not comparing morality to a certain subset of theists. That is apples and oranges.

It's obviously apples and oranges, but you're still trying to compare the two. You're trying to say that morals are irrational beliefs.

Everyone having morals is both not true and an appeal to majority belief. As is indicated in your first paragraph you are aware that majorities can believe in fantasies, so this is hardly a strong argument in support of objective morality.

I don't support objective morality. But yes, everyone does have morals. Who doesn't? What civilization in the history of this planet has not? And what about morality is fantasy? Just because something isn't universally accepted doesn't mean it doesn't have merit. Perhaps those who started a certain moral revolution felt that killing without reason was wrong. What about that is a fantasy? Just because not everyone thinks so?

Just because you can rationalize every behavior doesn't mean that everyone accepts it.

Scientific or rational rigor should not be concerned with the degree of fantasy, but rather with the elimination of unfounded claims, period.

This coming from a guy who believes in the spiritual realm?

 

[Roman]

However if he were to say rape is wrong,

he would be fantasizing an objective morality

or practicing theological thinking

and this would be unacceptable.

Saying rape is wrong is like saying eating a pizza crust first is wrong.

The sentence "X is a right action" is meaningless without context. Ethics presumes inherency, which is a bullshit presumption. Value systems are subjective. Arguments from inherency are a cop out. Like the person as ends formula. It presumes inherent worth in people.

 

[Baron Max]

Force upon us by whom? Are we not society?

"Society" is not the wonderous, fairy tale, homogenous thing that you seem to think it is. Our society includes you and me, but it also includes the criminals, the drug addicts, the murderers, the rapists, ...., and all other kinds of "misfits" that lurk in the shadows.

So when you talk about "society", please don't forget those people ...they make up a huge part of human society. And I daresay, when you begin to think of those people in your discussions of philosophy and morals and ethics, you'll probably begin to see things in a different light.

Face the worst of "human society" and see how well your ideals of morality and ethics really work.

Ohhh, so you are saying they are forced upon us by the majority?

Yes, essentially. Laws, rules, standards of behavior, dress, driving methods, construction codes, ...., and a gazillion other rules that we're all forced, yes, FORCED, to live by. And if we don't, then "they" throw us in jail. I'd call that "force", woudln't you?

Surely you can see that our morals and ethics aren't forced upon us by the dregs of society, can't you?

Morality is consensus?

One should never, ever, use "morality" and "consensus" in the same sentence! Remember the rapists and thieves and murderers, and such members of human society.

One minute you say that the world and we would all be much better off if people would "mind their own fuckin' business" and the next you are bitching that everything anyone does affects you, so it IS your business.

But those are two separate, distinct minutes!

Are you trying to say that I have to hold to one single set of "whatever" in order to talk about any subject? ...that one who is uncertain about "whatever", that they shouldn't discuss it with others?

Seems to me like you are a simple opportunist who will just support any bullshit that serves your needs in that moment, intergrity and honesty be damned.

Is it required that we all hold staunchly to one particular philosophy, or "whatever", in order to discuss anything? And that Socrates (was that him?) was an idiot for his opposing points of discussion?

One of these days, I will pin you down Baron...

Oh, good heavens! Ya' won't hurt me, will ya'? Remember, I'm an old fart, and I think it's immoral to hurt old farts!

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

Seems to me the capacity for it evolved because it was beneficial.

Ain't beneficial to the criminals of that same society.

See? We're right back to the "ideal" of whoever is the strongest, or the one with the biggest guns, or the one with the power, ....is the one who seems to call the shots!

Baron Max

 

[Simon Anders]

Morality is all around, other animals practice it too. Seems to me the capacity for it evolved because it was beneficial.

I'm not sure what you meant by this post though. Are you agreeing or disagreeing ?

I agreed. Morality exists. I also pointed out that you did not engage in fantasy as most posters do in most of the posts here in EMJ.

You did not use or imply 'should'.

You did not present values.

 

[Simon Anders]

It's obviously apples and oranges, but you're still trying to compare the two. You're trying to say that morals are irrational beliefs

. It is apples and oranges because one is people and the other is an abstract concept.

But we can move past that. Yes, to assert that _____________ is good behavior or One should _____________ (in the moral sense that is) is to engage in irrational belief. There is no objective morality.

I don't support objective morality. But yes, everyone does have morals. Who doesn't? What civilization in the history of this planet has not? And what about morality is fantasy? Just because something isn't universally accepted doesn't mean it doesn't have merit. Perhaps those who started a certain moral revolution felt that killing without reason was wrong. What about that is a fantasy? Just because not everyone thinks so?

You are gliding past my point.

One whose authority can one claim that _____________ is good. There is no way to scientifically prove that something is good or bad. Via science one can only determine what is or what will cause what, etc.

If something cannot be proven scientifically then it is fantasy to believe it exists. People are free to do this of course, but it has no place in a science forum.

This coming from a guy who believes in the spiritual realm?

I doubt I ever used that strange phrase.

 

[Simon Anders]

Saying rape is wrong is like saying eating a pizza crust first is wrong.

The sentence "X is a right action" is meaningless without context. Ethics presumes inherency, which is a bullshit presumption. Value systems are subjective. Arguments from inherency are a cop out. Like the person as ends formula. It presumes inherent worth in people.

thank you.

Every moral code is built on unprovable axioms, which tend to differ between cultures and individuals, precisely because we cannot support or undermine such fantasies except by pointing out that they are, indeed, fantasies.

 

[Enmos]

Ain't beneficial to the criminals of that same society.

See? We're right back to the "ideal" of whoever is the strongest, or the one with the biggest guns, or the one with the power, ....is the one who seems to call the shots!

Baron Max

Group dynamics. Being nice works best in the long run.

 

[Enmos]

I agreed. Morality exists. I also pointed out that you did not engage in fantasy as most posters do in most of the posts here in EMJ.

You did not use or imply 'should'.

You did not present values.

Ah ok
I was uncertain what you meant with the rape/fantasy thing