Isn't morality just supersition?

[(Q)]

Yeah, exactly! I didn't think you knew what you were saying in that last post. But now I know it!

Baron Max

Good for you, Baron! Huzzah!

 

[Simon Anders]

Simon,

I am confused.

You are saying that objective morality is fantasy ?

I think to say that is throwing out the baby with the bath water. There are clearly things that apply here. If we do not eat we will die. Me telling my child that he needs to eat and drink is fantasy ? How would you view me if I let me child starve to death ?
There are fundamental things that are required to function in reality. These are the same the world over. All people will die if they don't injest fluids, water etc. All people will die if they don't take in nutrients. They will die or cause great harm to themselves if they jump off a cliff.

In that sense objective morality is not fantasy. However, making assumptions that there is good and evil and that I should be able to make such a claim is a slippery slope. One that delves into subjective morality, which is a creation by the individual or group or thought about what should be or is. Correct ?

In other words, me telling my child to drink water is not subjective, it exists outside of what I think. If he does not he will die. There is cause and effect of not taking such actions.

I should not kill someone, yes ? But should I not protect myself and yes maybe kill someone if they are about to kill me. This is reality.

Telling you that you should kill someone if they are trying to kill you is not fantasy because there is cause and effect. If you fail to act you will be killed.

Sounds like you are confusing practical statements and suggestions with moral claims.

 

[Simon Anders]

Same difference. By nitpicking everything I say, you delay answering the question, and you damn well know what the question is already. So that's being elusive.

I have answered your questions.

Wrong. If you have morals, you believe that certain things are bad and certain things are good. There's no fantasy involved. If at the very least the "intensity" of your morality is determined by the physical structure of your brain, then that makes it as real as anything else. You seem to take issue with folks who actively try to enforce their morals on others, and I agree that those people are assholes, but just because they do that does not mean that their morality is a fantasy.

Moral claims cannot be verified empirically. Not the axioms. Just the way axioms in a religion cannot be verified. Once you have the axioms one use deduction to see if one is being moral, but you have to hallucinate those first steps. The only reason people are defending this is because these are fantasies that you are attached to.

And I'm saying you're wrong. You're taking the argument too far. These people don't take their morals from a religious book; the morals of the religious book come from an ancient and very man-made society. There's no fantasy involved. Now, people who say their morals are divine...yes, that's fantasy...but only because they claim it to be divine.

There is no evidence that objective morals exist. Secular claims must meet the same criteria as any other claims.

Thanks for the lecture, Doctor Anders.

Racism is not based on fantasy, by the way.

Well, start a thread and explain how it is empirically based judgments of other races.

You're underestimating how real morality is to people. Isn't there something that absolutely makes you want to puke? As in, if you watched a baby get snuffed out by an adult for no good reason, wouldn't that just make you sick to your stomach? Literally? For you, that morality is physically real. The difference between you and some other people could very well be your ability to see that yours is just that--yours.

Of course we react, just as other animals do, to things we do not like. I feel empathy for those who suffer. Likes, dislikes, needs. An honest person will speak about these things. A person who is fantasizing will make moral claims. Animal mothers will freak out when there children are harmed and even sacrifice their own lives for them. And no point does that animal mother make moral claims. It is an unnecessary claim.

Don't mistake this back-and-forth with the war waged on science by theists.

Irrationality is irrationality. Each person has their sacred irrationalities: free will, a self that continues through time, nationalism, the existence of objective morals. People get upset when faced with the fact that there is no evidence their claims about these things are true.

You keep giving examples of how people think morally or react to certain situations. I am not denying that people think this way - imagine an argument defending religion by saying that religion is very important to people. I am certainly not denying the feelings, nor is there any problem, from a scientific standpoint, in protecting a child from harm. What can a scientist say about someone doing something they want to do? A scientist can however point out to someone making moral claims, that there is no way to test the assumptions that person is making about the existence of objective morality. Where does it exist? What is it made of? We cannot appeal to popular notions, which is a fallacy. What if we meet an alien race that outnumbers us and has what we consider a harsh morality where it is good to torture? Are they right because they outnumber us? There would be no evidence we could supply them with to show they are wrong. We could struggle with them because we don't like what they do, but that is it? To make some claim that they are objectively wrong is to engage in fantasy.

Like I said, it isn't fantasy. It's completely real.

Then tell me how you would demonstrate it to the aliens.

Nononono. That doesn't fly. Empathy doesn't equate to morality in animals, but it obviously does in humans. Our brains our more advanced, and we have abilities that other animals don't. Just because a chimp can show empathy but not morality does not mean that it's possible to do the same in a human.

Humans can come up with religions also.

 

[Simon Anders]

Making the decision to conduct oneself with the outlook of not intentionally doing harm to others is a moral decision.

Labeling morality as the distinction of "goodness and evil" has little meaning outside of scriptures.

Your first statement has the concept of goodness in it for most people. The word harm has value judgments in it.

Of course one can decide to do anything without engaging in moral claims. However if you say someone should do this and not that (in the moral sense of should). Or think it is wrong if people do _____________ and right when people do ______________, you are making moral claims.

Perhaps you do not think in terms of good and bad, and right and wrong, morally.

But when others do, they are building up judgments based on fantasy.

What testing protocol would you design to determine one should not do harm?

And remember, you cannot have moral criteria in this testing, since that simply begs the question.

I know, of course, that one could develop a test that would show that coke bottles with sharp edges on the opening would damage the mouths of people who drank from the bottle.

But what is the test that would show that one should, morally, avoid this?

 

[Simon Anders]

So, the decision of the engineer to allow the products to be sold or not knowing it will kill people is not a moral decision?

It does not have to be. It usually is. Fantasy is everywhere.

 

[Simon Anders]

Violent crime statistics?

No. One can certainly study rates of crime. But this is studying what is. You cannot go from those statistics to what one ought to do without making some claim based on fantasy such as It is good to reduce crime and a moral government would take steps to reduce it. Hallucination.

 

[(Q)]

Your first statement has the concept of goodness in it for most people. The word harm has value judgments in it.

What value judgments?

Of course one can decide to do anything without engaging in moral claims. However if you say someone should do this and not that (in the moral sense of should). Or think it is wrong if people do _____________ and right when people do ______________, you are making moral claims.

Where did I say one SHOULD be doing anything?

Perhaps you do not think in terms of good and bad, and right and wrong, morally.

But when others do, they are building up judgments based on fantasy.

Most likely from scriptures, then.

What testing protocol would you design to determine one should not do harm?

Why would you need a test protocol?

I know, of course, that one could develop a test that would show that coke bottles with sharp edges on the opening would damage the mouths of people who drank from the bottle.

But what is the test that would show that one should, morally, avoid this?

That isn't a moral decision to make.

 

[(Q)]

It does not have to be. It usually is. Fantasy is everywhere.

I fail to see fantasy anywhere in that decision. Please explain.

 

[(Q)]

No. One can certainly study rates of crime. But this is studying what is. You cannot go from those statistics to what one ought to do without making some claim based on fantasy such as It is good to reduce crime and a moral government would take steps to reduce it. Hallucination.

I might agree that would be a hallucination, but I wouldn't agree that would be a claim one would make from simply studying crime statistics.

 

[Simon Anders]

What value judgments?

Harm often means damage that one should avoid doing to others?

Where did I say one SHOULD be doing anything?

If there was neither an explicit or implicit should, then you are not engaging in objective moralizing and are not engaging in fantasy.

It seemed you were disagreeing with me. That you were asserting one could have an objective morality. Morality includes 'should'. But I seem to have been mistaken about your position. Which is fine now that it is clear.

 

[(Q)]

Harm often means damage that one should avoid doing to others?

Harm means damage, injury or trauma, usually due to violence. Who said anything about "should" other than you?

Morality includes 'should'.

That might be another false assertion on your part, as I don't see the word "should" in any definition of morality.

 

[jpappl]

Sounds like you are confusing practical statements and suggestions with moral claims.

Well isn't objective morality what is understood as good or bad period, without a personal judegment of a behavior. Call it practical statements or objective morality but there are things that are good for us and bad for us regardless of how we think or view the world. Correct ?

 

[Baron Max]

Well isn't objective morality what is understood as good or bad period, without a personal judegment of a behavior.

Good or bad ....for whom? All people? If so, name one of those things.

Call it practical statements or objective morality but there are things that are good for us and bad for us regardless of how we think or view the world. Correct?

Name something that you think is considered "moral" for all of the people on Earth. From your statements, I should think it would be simple for you.

Baron Max

 

[jpappl]

Baron,

Here from my earlier post.

"There are clearly things that apply here. If we do not eat we will die. Me telling my child that he needs to eat and drink is fantasy ? How would you view me if I let me child starve to death ?

There are fundamental things that are required to function in reality. These are the same the world over. All people will die if they don't injest fluids, water etc. All people will die if they don't take in nutrients. They will die or cause great harm to themselves if they jump off a cliff."

So these exist outside of how we view the world. Unless you are suggesting that your way of thinking allows you to live without eating and drinking or jumping off a cliff. They are also fundamental things we express to our children the world over.

 

[Balerion]

I have answered your questions.

Just keep ducking, Simon.

Moral claims cannot be verified empirically. Not the axioms. Just the way axioms in a religion cannot be verified. Once you have the axioms one use deduction to see if one is being moral, but you have to hallucinate those first steps. The only reason people are defending this is because these are fantasies that you are attached to.
There is no evidence that objective morals exist. Secular claims must meet the same criteria as any other claims.

You're making two contrary assumptions here. First, you're saying that moral claims cannot be verified empirically. Second, you're saying that there is no evidence that objective morals exist. So what are you saying? You can't be saying both, because the first implies the second is moot.

You don't know what we can and can't prove, Simon. If I see a baby get stabbed to death, there's a good chance that that moral is hard-wired into me, and the reason the baby is being stabbed to death is because the guy doing it is missing something in his brain physically. We already know that there's at least some circumstantial evidence that morality itself is governed by a physical part of the brain, so why wouldn't the moral axioms? You're saying it isn't possible? Or are you saying we haven't seen the evidence yet?

Oh, that's right...you're saying both...

Well, start a thread and explain how it is empirically based judgments of other races.
Of course we react, just as other animals do, to things we do not like. I feel empathy for those who suffer. Likes, dislikes, needs. An honest person will speak about these things. A person who is fantasizing will make moral claims. Animal mothers will freak out when there children are harmed and even sacrifice their own lives for them. And no point does that animal mother make moral claims. It is an unnecessary claim.

Dude, that whole paragraph is moot because it relies on the claim that morals are fantasy because animals don't make moral claims. Again, real loud so you can hear it, animals can't make moral claims!

Irrationality is irrationality. Each person has their sacred irrationalities: free will, a self that continues through time, nationalism, the existence of objective morals. People get upset when faced with the fact that there is no evidence their claims about these things are true.

Speaking of irrationality, you've argued against this so hard that you've contradicted yourself. You're just convinced that morality isn't objective, and you refuse to hear any evidence that may speak to the contrary. THAT is a fantasy, Simon.

You keep giving examples of how people think morally or react to certain situations. I am not denying that people think this way - imagine an argument defending religion by saying that religion is very important to people. I am certainly not denying the feelings, nor is there any problem, from a scientific standpoint, in protecting a child from harm. What can a scientist say about someone doing something they want to do? A scientist can however point out to someone making moral claims, that there is no way to test the assumptions that person is making about the existence of objective morality. Where does it exist? What is it made of? We cannot appeal to popular notions, which is a fallacy. What if we meet an alien race that outnumbers us and has what we consider a harsh morality where it is good to torture? Are they right because they outnumber us? There would be no evidence we could supply them with to show they are wrong. We could struggle with them because we don't like what they do, but that is it? To make some claim that they are objectively wrong is to engage in fantasy.

Just because we don't know what it's made of today doesn't mean we won't someday, and it certainly doesn't mean that it's not possible to know. All you've done here is make assumptions based on your already-formed belief that morality isn't objective. You literally are shoving everything else aside. Why even have this discussion, Simon, if your mind is already so made up?

Then tell me how you would demonstrate it to the aliens.

Are their brains like ours?

 

[Baron Max]

If I see a baby get stabbed to death, there's a good chance that that moral is hard-wired into me, and the reason the baby is being stabbed to death is because the guy doing it is missing something in his brain physically.

It's been relatively common practice in history to sometimes kill baby girls because the family/tribe/whatever wanted sons. There was/is nothing wrong "physically" with those cultures or societies.

We already know that there's at least some circumstantial evidence that morality itself is governed by a physical part of the brain, ...

I think you tried that same bullshit around here before, Dawg, and I didn't let you get away with it then, and I won't let you get away with it here. You're wrong, plain and simple!

You're just convinced that morality isn't objective, and you refuse to hear any evidence that may speak to the contrary.

You don't have any evidence to show that morality IS objective. Your example above was just easily refuted ....would you like to try again?

Name/outline some "morals" that you think are objective ...that every human on Earth would agree is not "moral". Go ahead, try it.

Baron Max

 

[Simon Anders]

Just keep ducking, Simon.

I am not ducking. I said I was going to be fussy and I was. The reason I was fussy with your poorly worded question was that there was no need for the pejorative Bronze Age comment, which was also a poor generalization. I, for example, am not a follower of any Bronze Age religion. Other than my being cranky around your wording there I have responded to every point you have made. I do not see my posts as ducking, at all.

You're making two contrary assumptions here. First, you're saying that moral claims cannot be verified empirically. Second, you're saying that there is no evidence that objective morals exist. So what are you saying? You can't be saying both, because the first implies the second is moot.

Those two assertions are made against theists: God cannot be falsified. (this argument is often put forward as based on the idea that God is beyond evidence either for or against, given certain theists assertions about God) There is no evidence of God. I am happy however to throw out the falsifiability issue and stick with my assertion that there is no evidence.

You don't know what we can and can't prove, Simon. If I see a baby get stabbed to death, there's a good chance that that moral is hard-wired into me, and the reason the baby is being stabbed to death is because the guy doing it is missing something in his brain physically.

Desire, emotion, reaction, sure. Moral. No. To say something is good or bad must be in terms of some individual. But people are always talking about morals as if they are general rules. Swarms thread, earlier, about the inconsistancy of morals, culture to culture, should be a warning to anyone who thinks that morals are universal or objective. They are simply the preferences of individuals which get spread via cultures.

If you meet someone from another culture does things that you consider bad, you cannot provide evidence it is bad. You can provide evidence of consequences, but not of the moral claim.

We already know that there's at least some circumstantial evidence that morality itself is governed by a physical part of the brain, so why wouldn't the moral axioms? You're saying it isn't possible? Or are you saying we haven't seen the evidence yet?

We can find evidence in brains of all sorts of things, this does not mean that there are objective correlates.
If people have specific brain wave patterns when they believe they are experiencing God, does that mean God exists?

Oh, that's right...you're saying both...

As do atheists. But now I have dropped it. I am saying only that there is no evidence there are objective morals. You are now backing up claims that individuals have moral reactions and that this is reflected in the hardware of their brains. I do not contest that. People also think that the world is filled with color - but in fact the colors are just in their minds

see qualia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

I am not contesting the fact that morals exists. They are simply subjective opinions that are projected onto the universe by people. Of course their brains have related phenomena. Hallucinations will have brain correlates. dreams have brain correlates. CAn I draw conclusions about the nature of the universe by using my dreams (and the fact that my dreaming causes or is caused by changes in my brain) as evidence?

Dude, that whole paragraph is moot because it relies on the claim that morals are fantasy because animals don't make moral claims. Again, real loud so you can hear it, animals can't make moral claims!

Obviously I know that. My point is that animals are capable of doing the same things we do. They just don't go an label it objectively. We label things objectively so they will spread, so we can make others do them also.

Speaking of irrationality, you've argued against this so hard that you've contradicted yourself. You're just convinced that morality isn't objective, and you refuse to hear any evidence that may speak to the contrary. THAT is a fantasy, Simon.

I could say the same thing about you. You have not agreed with me, you have not accepted my arguments that your evidence is not relevent to the issue of objective morality, so you must be irrational. But to say that is simply to say "I still disagree". Which is what you are doing here.

Just because we don't know what it's made of today doesn't mean we won't someday, and it certainly doesn't mean that it's not possible to know.

A theist could make this argument.

All you've done here is make assumptions based on your already-formed belief that morality isn't objective. You literally are shoving everything else aside. Why even have this discussion, Simon, if your mind is already so made up?

I assume from this statement that your mind is not made up, otherwise it would be a strange accusation. Is this true? Are you not sure whether there are objective morals or not? What leads you to doubt their existence? I haven't noticed you acknowledge any of the points I made, so I am curious what it is that leads you to not be sure.

Are their brains like ours?

Sure, fairly similar. But their morality is extremely harsh. They kills most of their babies. They do not consider other intelligent life forms to have any intrinsic value. Rape is the rule.

When you present your morals to them, they simply laugh.

How will you prove to them NOT that morality exists. They notice they have a morality - mostly might makes right - and that you have one.

I think this is place you are misunderstanding every time.

Of course morality is real. But no set of rules. No moral rule is objective.
Of course some people thinking killing is wrong.
But some think it is fine.
No moral rule is objective. Though if you can provide evidence........


Do you understand? Morals exists, yes. Objectively. But an objective list, like the ten commandments does not exist.

Rape is OK
and
Rape is wrong
both exist as morals, objectively.

There is no objective way to prove one is right and one is wrong.

So I am not contending that people do make moral judgements nor am I contending that there will be brain phenomena associated with this.
I am contending that these judgments are objective.

I hate coffee. (and brain imaging shows a pattern associated with disike)
My neighbor love coffee. (and brain imaging shows a pattern of like)
Neither of us can claim to be right in some objective way. We are however most likely quite correct about our own tastes.

The moment I dislike moves up to the objective it is wrong...fantasy.

But you seem to be getting pissed off at me. So I will drop the argument.

 

[Simon Anders]

Well isn't objective morality what is understood as good or bad period, without a personal judegment of a behavior. Call it practical statements or objective morality but there are things that are good for us and bad for us regardless of how we think or view the world. Correct ?

If you are eliminating morality from the issue and making simply practical claims: this leads to this, isn't that a whole other discussion.

Besides, for all we know, humans are bad, a parasite, that the majority of the universe is right now voting on about the best method to eradicate us.

I am not making the above as an assertion of truth, of course, but using it as a thought experiment to show the problem with objective moral claims.

What is good for us might be bad for most species. (this claim is a little less merely a thought experiment)

When two cultures clash over morals there is no objective authority one can go to to arbritrate. Certainly scientists cannot.

 

[Balerion]

I am not ducking. I said I was going to be fussy and I was. The reason I was fussy with your poorly worded question was that there was no need for the pejorative Bronze Age comment, which was also a poor generalization. I, for example, am not a follower of any Bronze Age religion. Other than my being cranky around your wording there I have responded to every point you have made. I do not see my posts as ducking, at all.

See, when you don't have an argument, you nit-pick and insult. I expected way better than that from you. Truth is, calling the Abrahamic religions Bronze Age myths isn't pejorative, it's true. And again, you knew exactly what I was talking about, and decided instead to play games.

Those two assertions are made against theists: God cannot be falsified. (this argument is often put forward as based on the idea that God is beyond evidence either for or against, given certain theists assertions about God) There is no evidence of God. I am happy however to throw out the falsifiability issue and stick with my assertion that there is no evidence.

God cannot be falsified yet. There's no saying what science will know in time.

And yes, your best bet is to stick with the argument that there is no evidence for objective morality. Even though that's not necessarily true.

Desire, emotion, reaction, sure. Moral. No. To say something is good or bad must be in terms of some individual. But people are always talking about morals as if they are general rules. Swarms thread, earlier, about the inconsistancy of morals, culture to culture, should be a warning to anyone who thinks that morals are universal or objective. They are simply the preferences of individuals which get spread via cultures.

It's pretty obvious that morals are shared, isn't it? If more than one person can have the same morals, then why is it impossible that it's objective? There must be something about it that says it's more than subjective, right? For all we know, in order to have the same morals, you have to have equal-sized frontal lobes. The inconsistencies you speak of could literally equate to something like the size of your amygdala.

If you meet someone from another culture does things that you consider bad, you cannot provide evidence it is bad. You can provide evidence of consequences, but not of the moral claim.

The consequences are the moral claim. Just because you can use some external circumstances to justify a behavior doesn't mean you are actually justified.

We can find evidence in brains of all sorts of things, this does not mean that there are objective correlates.
If people have specific brain wave patterns when they believe they are experiencing God, does that mean God exists?

That's misdirection, Simon. All this would mean is that "God" is a part of our physical brain, and that's the real question that should be asked, and the one that is relevant to this discussion.

As do atheists. But now I have dropped it. I am saying only that there is no evidence there are objective morals. You are now backing up claims that individuals have moral reactions and that this is reflected in the hardware of their brains. I do not contest that. People also think that the world is filled with color - but in fact the colors are just in their minds

So moral reactions as a result of hard-wiring you don't contest...you simply contest the morals themselves? That I don't agree with. I think there may be something to this, and you'll be eating your hat when the research is done.

Wait...the color is all in our mind? So these color cones in my eye (one of which I'm missing, actually) are just for props? The world is not made of color, I'm just imagining it? Wow. Thanks for that. I needed a good laugh.

I am not contesting the fact that morals exists. They are simply subjective opinions that are projected onto the universe by people. Of course their brains have related phenomena. Hallucinations will have brain correlates. dreams have brain correlates. CAn I draw conclusions about the nature of the universe by using my dreams (and the fact that my dreaming causes or is caused by changes in my brain) as evidence?

Yes, actually, you can. Einstein solved Relativity by having a dream.

And no, I'm becoming more convinced that morals are not merely opinions, but results of the hard-wiring of the brain.

Obviously I know that. My point is that animals are capable of doing the same things we do. They just don't go an label it objectively. We label things objectively so they will spread, so we can make others do them also.

They can't label it objectively. Wow. I can't believe you're trying to argue that objective morality doesn't exist because you don't see animals saying that.

I could say the same thing about you. You have not agreed with me, you have not accepted my arguments that your evidence is not relevent to the issue of objective morality, so you must be irrational. But to say that is simply to say "I still disagree". Which is what you are doing here.

More mudslinging. Come back when you have some substance to add.

A theist could make this argument.

Yes they could, but they wouldn't have anything to base it on. At least in this case, we have some tangibles to start with. They don't.

I assume from this statement that your mind is not made up, otherwise it would be a strange accusation. Is this true? Are you not sure whether there are objective morals or not? What leads you to doubt their existence? I haven't noticed you acknowledge any of the points I made, so I am curious what it is that leads you to not be sure.

I'm not going to make the mistake you're making. I'm not intellectually bankrupt. I have doubts, but only because there isn't enough evidence to be positive about it. You, on the other hand, won't be bothered with that. You're too busy using the moral silence of animals as "evidence".

Sure, fairly similar. But their morality is extremely harsh. They kills most of their babies. They do not consider other intelligent life forms to have any intrinsic value. Rape is the rule.

They are still lesser beings. They aren't as advanced as we are, even in the most ancient and primal parts of our brain. And rape is not the rule. I don't know where you get that. If rape was the rule, there would not be the complex, ritualistic mating routines that we see in the wild.

When you present your morals to them, they simply laugh.

One problem with that; we can't present our morals to them.

How will you prove to them NOT that morality exists. They notice they have a morality - mostly might makes right - and that you have one.

How do you know they are aware of their own morals? How do you know they are aware of ours? See, you're assuming (for whatever ridiculous reason) that objective morality has to mean the same thing for every living being on the planet. That notion is ludicrous, and you should be ashamed of yourself for putting it forward. Human morality can and should be absolutely different that that of other species--even if that only means being more complex.

Why would an ape have the morals of a human? Our morals would handcuff them.

Of course morality is real. But no set of rules. No moral rule is objective.
Of course some people thinking killing is wrong.
But some think it is fine.
No moral rule is objective. Though if you can provide evidence........

The "some" that think it's fine have been shown to be severely lacking in physical aspects of the brain, such as the amygdala. So explain that before you make such ridiculous statements.

 

[Baron Max]

And no, I'm becoming more convinced that morals are not merely opinions, but results of the hard-wiring of the brain.

So are all humans "hard-wired" in exactly, precisely the same way?

See? They'd have to be in order for your ideas of objective morality to be true.

Baron Max