Isn't morality just supersition?

[Baron Max]

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

Works best for whom? ...the criminals or the victims or the future victims?

"Being nice"? Said the rapist to his victim.

And I won't even comment on the "...in the long run" part!

And from your comment, aren't we right back to the idea that the majority determines morality for that group? So if the majority thinks that same-gender sex is immoral, then it is?

Baron Max

 

[Simon Anders]

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

Or not worked. How can we evaluate its effectiveness? What is the control group?
What would the word effectiveness be based on? How do we keep value - iow fantasy - out of that term?

 

[(Q)]

So, if I say my morals are that which I wouldn't inflict on another the same as what I wouldn't want inflicted upon me, fantasy?

 

[Baron Max]

So, if I say my morals are that which I wouldn't inflict on another the same as what I wouldn't want inflicted upon me, fantasy?

Fantasy? Sure ...unless your ideals/moral somehow "force" others not to smack the shit outta' you just for the fun of it. Just because YOU hold such wonderous morals is no sign that others will abide by those same ideals.

And thus we're back to everyone in a society being FORCED to hold the same ideals/morals/values/ethics. That's why we have cops all over the place ...to enforce society's rules.

Baron Max

 

[(Q)]

Fantasy? Sure ...unless your ideals/moral somehow "force" others not to smack the shit outta' you just for the fun of it. Just because YOU hold such wonderous morals is no sign that others will abide by those same ideals.

Then, I would suspect that those others would want to be smacked around for the fun of it, as well?

And thus we're back to everyone in a society being FORCED to hold the same ideals/morals/values/ethics. That's why we have cops all over the place ...to enforce society's rules.

Perhaps, but that doesn't demonstrate that morals are superstitions, as Simon is asserting.

 

[one_raven]

Works best for whom? ...the criminals or the victims or the future victims?

"Being nice"? Said the rapist to his victim.

If there was no base moral code, there would be no such thing as criminals.

 

[Roman]

Cognitivism fails to sufficiently reject the null, imo.

 

[Baron Max]

If there was no base moral code, there would be no such thing as criminals.

Exactly. But I fail to see how that proves anything about morality?

All I see is it's the majority forcing their will on the minority. And we've shown that to be a fairly nasty thing for people to do ...like how we treated the slaves, for example.

Baron Max

 

[Enmos]

Sigh..

 

[Balerion]

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

No, not at all. Both are people believing in a 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.

Just because it isn't objective doesn't mean it's meaningless or abstract. Can you tell me that when I cried for the dead squirrel when I was five that I was simply brainwashed into believing that squirrels were anything more than glorified rats?

You are gliding past my point.

If I am, it's unintentional. But I don't think I am.

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.

OK, now you're just making stuff up. How do you know that morality isn't part of the human psyche? How do you know that I'm not born with an idea of what is right and what is wrong? Maybe I was born with a distaste for death, which translates to being anti-war and anti-capital punishment? Maybe others are born with far less of a distaste for it, which is why they can justify both where I cannot?

The actions may not objective, but that certainly doesn't make them a superstition.

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.

That's a bit of strawman, Simon. We don't know if we can scientifically prove it. That doesn't mean we won't one day be able to. You're assuming that we won't ever be able to, and that is the only fantasy here, my friend.

I doubt I ever used that strange phrase.

You shouldn't ever again.

 

[Balerion]

All I see is it's the majority forcing their will on the minority.

Don't act like you don't participate in that tyranny.

But what I find hysterical is how when YOU happen to be in the minority, the majority is a tyrannical force that needs to be stopped. But when what YOU believe is right is in the majority, you don't want to "buck tradition" or some such nonsense. It's too funny that you're so simple you can't even see how you contradict yourself.

 

[Baron Max]

But what I find hysterical is how when YOU happen to be in the minority, the majority is a tyrannical force that needs to be stopped. But when what YOU believe is right is in the majority, you don't want to "buck tradition" or some such nonsense.

Well, Dawg, if you pay attention and look around, you'll find that everyone is exactly the same way. It's our natural instincts for ego-centricism.

It's too funny that you're so simple you can't even see how you contradict yourself.

Why do you think that isn't intentional?

Baron Max

 

[one_raven]

All I see is it's the majority forcing their will on the minority. And we've shown that to be a fairly nasty thing for people to do ...like how we treated the slaves, for example.

I think that accepted and practiced ethics can be immoral.
Like how we treated the slaves, for example.

By the way, I completely agree with Baron Max (ow! that gives me a little chest pain to say) that the ego is a very large part of what makes us human.

 

[Baron Max]

By the way, I completely agree with Baron Max (ow! that gives me a little chest pain to say) ....

Take two aspirin with a large glass of water, then call me in the morning.

...the ego is a very large part of what makes us human.

Wanna' know something else? That same ego is what prevents most humans to admit that!

Baron Max

 

[one_raven]

Wanna' know something else? That same ego is what prevents most humans to admit that!

Agreed again.
I think I should lie down for a bit.

 

[Simon Anders]

So, if I say my morals are that which I wouldn't inflict on another the same as what I wouldn't want inflicted upon me, fantasy?

No that would be a description of your own morals. If you were to reforumulate it as

One should....
It is good to.....

These would be fantasy statements.

If you engage in one of the various specific ethical topics in the other forums and use your moral described above as part of an argument why this or that should be done/should have been done, then you are engaging in fantasy.

 

[Simon Anders]

Perhaps, but that doesn't demonstrate that morals are superstitions, as Simon is asserting.

Don't confuse Max's approach with mine - not that I am assuming you have, just a little preemptive message.

I am not saying that morals are fantasy in the sense that no one thinks that way. I agree that they are a phenomenon. However when anyone tries to claim that this or that is good or moral - iow that others should believe there is some objective morality - then that person is engaging in fantasy.

 

[Simon Anders]

If there was no base moral code, there would be no such thing as criminals.

Which is a good example of appeals to absolute or objective morals. Bush is a criminal to some and not to others. Kissinger. Heroes for one side are criminals or terrorists to others. We simply have subjective estimations, which, in fact, change over time.

 

[Simon Anders]

No, not at all. Both are people believing in a concept.

Original quote:

Are you trying to compare morality to those of you who believe in bronze age space gods?

Compare 'morality'
with
'those who believe in.....'
Abstract concept compared to people.

Just because it isn't objective doesn't mean it's meaningless or abstract. Can you tell me that when I cried for the dead squirrel when I was five that I was simply brainwashed into believing that squirrels were anything more than glorified rats?

That is not a theory I would put forward.

OK, now you're just making stuff up. How do you know that morality isn't part of the human psyche? How do you know that I'm not born with an idea of what is right and what is wrong? Maybe I was born with a distaste for death, which translates to being anti-war and anti-capital punishment? Maybe others are born with far less of a distaste for it, which is why they can justify both where I cannot?

I am not saying morality isn't a part of the human psyche. In fact I believe it is, in those who have a morality, which is most people. I am saying however that there is no objective right or wrong. No objective good or bad, and so any claim that this or that is good or should be done is engaging in fantasy.

The actions may not objective, but that certainly doesn't make them a superstition.

The actions are not a superstition. The belief that there is an objective good or bad we know about is fantasy.

That's a bit of strawman, Simon. We don't know if we can scientifically prove it. That doesn't mean we won't one day be able to. You're assuming that we won't ever be able to, and that is the only fantasy here, my friend.

Just think of the door you just opened. As Skinwalker pointed out, any claims made by religious people in the religious forum, if we were stringent, should be the first things removed in any moderation, since this is a science forum. Such claims are theology. And so it is with claims that this or that is good or should be done. Either it is fantasy or theology.

On that day that science supports your claim that this or that is good or should be done, then such claims would be acceptable material for a science forum.

You shouldn't ever again.

I've have to use it once before I can avoid using it again.

 

[(Q)]

No that would be a description of your own morals. If you were to reforumulate it as

One should....
It is good to.....

These would be fantasy statements.

I did no such thing nor think it necessary to do so.

If you engage in one of the various specific ethical topics in the other forums and use your moral described above as part of an argument why this or that should be done/should have been done, then you are engaging in fantasy.

That's ridiculous. It isn't fantasy to tell someone not to go into a burning building, it's a statement based on observational evidence that the person would die if they did so. Your stretching here, Simon.