Objective Moral Truth

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Murder is usually a significant part of communities being built. The USA wouldn't be if not for the murders of Native Americans.

 

[swarm]

It's only best to work together as a group if you're in a situation that has a "Nash equilibrium". Not all systems do; sometimes it's best to compete. Particularly in situations were there's finite resources that are already being used.

Not all games have a Nash Equilibrium but it does apply to non cooperative games.
Nash, John (1951) "Non-Cooperative Games" The Annals of Mathematics 54(2):286-295.
http://www.cs.tau.ac.il/~kempe/TEACHING/SEMINAR-LENS-SPRING08/Nash51.pdf

 

[swarm]

Originally Posted by James R
Universal agreement isn't necessary to establish objectivity. There'll always be some nuts out there who you can't reason with.

Boy doesn't that make it easy.

I just declare you a nut, discard your position and we have objective verification of the morality for eating meat.

Declaring people with opposing opinions "some nuts" was quite a boon you nut.

 

[one_raven]

Murder is usually a significant part of communities being built. The USA wouldn't be if not for the murders of Native Americans.

And?

What does that have to do with whether or not it is moral? :shrug:

 

[swivel]

Murder is usually a significant part of communities being built. The USA wouldn't be if not for the murders of Native Americans.

We wouldn't be here if it weren't for the willingness of some Natives to be enlisted in the service of killing other Natives. They were murdering each other before we came with our diseases (which wiped out more than murder) and our guns and horses (which took care of most of the rest).

The horror you feel at this turn of events goes a long way towards answering my original post. Even people participating in these events had their doubts. The rest employed some level of justification for their behavior.

And it is this justification process that leads me to believe that an Objective Moral Truth exists. Where are the cultures in which one can murder another for no reason at all? It seems that the further we stray from the OMT the more dire our explanations must be. Killing a virgin is going to mean a larger crop, keeping dozens of us from starving. Killing this murderer will prevent more murders and give solace to the victims family.

We also seem to stray from the OMT with indirect proportion to our chances of getting caught. KNOWING right from wrong does not mean that we have a natural impulse to sacrifice for the group. This is the genesis of our lying habits and guises, our shame and embarrassment, all universal emotions.

Customs and Morals are not the same things. Whether you shake hands or wave or kiss a cheek, the immoral thing to do is to violate these arbitrary customs. I think this confusion leads many people astray. What we do not find is cultures with no customs that everyone feels pressure to adhere to. And our genetic history seems to guide all ethical thought, good and bad. It is a shared genetic history and it seems to have resulted in an Objective Moral Truth that we approximate more and more closely the more we are freed from the abuses of power that we are all guilty of, which derail us from this progress.

 

[swivel]

iceaura, James R:

It might be (and in fact probably is) objectively true that there are certain elements of moral philosophy that are shared by most or all human cultures. But that doesn't mean that those morals are objectively "true" in any sort of fundamental, cosmic sense like the gravitational constant or the mass of a proton. It merely means that many people share them, and/or that they tend to promote stable, prosperous societies. So while I certainly agree that it's objectively true that some morals are very popular, that doesn't mean that the morals themselves are objectively "correct".

I think "correct" is the wrong word. It implies judgment. "True" seems better.

One of the human experiences that seems universal is a system of social accounting that fuels our awareness of "Fair" and "Not-Fair". Maybe it was evolved for nothing more than the distribution of meat after a hunt. Other animals have the same awareness and stratify their "cultures" largely on this knowledge.

This fairness seems to be the thing driving our worldwide ethics towards the OMT. The only places that we seem to violate the Golden Rule and stray from the OMT are where we are successful at rationalizing an exception. Women are inferior, blacks are sub-human, gays are sinners, murderers deserve vengeance, the decrepit need to be put down, etc...

When we honestly view another as someone who is of our own worth, the OMT shows itself. I think, over the years, the gradual rise in individual freedom has allowed more and more people to voice their opinion of being equal to the alpha-males. And our application of our ethics has steadily approached the OMT.

 

[scott3x]

I'm speaking of what God means to me. If you don't want to respect my definition of what God means, I don't think there's really much point in talking about it.

Definitions aren't fantasies. Whether what's defined exists is another matter. However, I think that most people agree that everything exists.

I would think that you define a lump of sh$$ as a diamond. I may think that you'd be better off using the word sh$$ but I'd respect your definition.

Your definitions are your fantasies.

Definitions are descriptions of things; whether what is being described exists in the 'real world' or doesn't is another matter. In other words, you can define a fantasy, but that doesn't make the definition a fantasy; it's something that describes something else (in the case of a fantasy, something that isn't in the real world). I think that most people agree that everything exists, so most people would agree that my definition of God describes something that is actually real.

I define god as me.

If that's the way you'd like it, it's fine by me. Ofcourse, I think that most people would consider God to be a bit bigger then a single person, but to each their own.

 

[scott3x]

I'm speaking of what God means to me. If you don't want to respect my definition of what God means, I don't think there's really much point in talking about it.

I think you are engaged in special pleading. You are expecting me to make a special exception concerning god and to grant you special rights one would not expect ordinarily when discussing a topic.

I'm certainly not the only person who defines God as everything. And while some may not go quite so far, I believe that Star Wars' idea of the 'force' runs along the same vein. I wasn't even aware of it myself until, but it appears that my belief has been labelled pantheism.

I don't know if this is intentional because there is a long history of people expecting exceptions for this topic, but I don't really see why I should grant you these privileges.

You're free to argue that my pantheistic views are heresy; I really don't care all that much. I'm not going to change how I define God just because you don't like it .

If we were talking about string theory and I complained you weren't giving me proper respect when I spoke of what string theory means to me, I suspect you would not be impressed with that argument. I doubt you would respect my definition of what string theory means either.

Look, ultimately what we're debating is words. If you were to decide that 2 meant 1 and 1 meant 2, mathematical equations would look different with your method, but things would still work out fine so long as you were consistent in switching the 2 numbers meanings. When it comes to religion, unfortunately, people have not even agreed to definitions and one frequently finds that people are arguing about a word that means different things to the participants in the discussion. Because of this, it can frequently be quite a messy thing to discuss.

If your ideas have merit on their own I will duly respect them. But just because they are your ideas or just because they are about god? No.

Well all I can say is that I tend to respect people who respect me. I too would love it if we could all agree on what God should mean. But since we don't and some people refuse to accept certain definitions for the term, I find that many times we simply have to stop discussing the matter.

Definitions aren't fantasies. Whether what's defined exists is another matter. However, I think that most people agree that everything exists.

Oh come on. Everything exists as itself. So "god" or "unicorn" exist as concepts and instances of words on a page. But as nouns they can also have actual referents. "Rock" for example can refer to actual rocks. "God" and "unicorn" have no actual referent.

God, for me, means everything. If you don't like my definition, perhaps we should just leave this discussion here. Believe me, when it comes to religion, you certainly wouldn't be the first person who I've found it's best to simply agree to disagree.

Now if by defining "god" you are saying it has no referent and its only existence is as a word or concept, then we have agreement.

The term God means many things to many people. I personally don't think that everyone's right that the God they believe in actually exists exactly the way they believe eir to. I personally make no claim that I'm exactly sure what God/everything looks like myself, or how much of eir is conscious. But if there's one thing I've learned, it's to generally be respectful of the beliefs of others, up until the point that their beliefs may be harming themselves or others; at that point, I begin to think that some type of intervention may be warranted, depending on the severity of the harm and the repercussions of the intervention.

 

[scott3x]

Seconded. But most importantly (for this thread), I think we have an answer as to whether there is objective moral truth- the answer is, yes.

The answer is NO.

Sigh. I guess it was too much to hope that we could get everyone to agree . Btw, Stranger, I just took out Stranger in a Strange Land from the library. I've read one of Heilein's books in the past and look forward to reading Stranger, which I've definitely heard about and who definitely seems to enjoy bringing up poly situations in his novels.

 

[ancientregime]

Yes. But there are two fundamental similarities and differences that must be considered to understand my answer.

Morality and law are based upon the same premise. They both create rules of behavior that are classified as wrong. In order for a behavior to be wrong the behavior must harm someone (or create a real threat). That is the criteria used to find if a moral or a law has objective truth to it. The objective truth is whether someone is hurt (or threatened) or not due to the prohibited behavior.

What makes a Law and a Moral different has to do with evidence.

The law is set up in a scientific way to find guilt. If enough evidence exists that makes an inductively strong argument for guilt, a person is found to be guilty. If evidence doesn't provide a basis for an inductively strong argument, then a person is found innocent. A person may really be guilty in either case, but the law only cares about what it can scientifically prove. The law can't care about whether or not a person is really guilty or not, because logically, a reasonable or scientific verdict of guilt can only be found through evidence.

Now morality requires no evidence. A person guilty of a crime who lies and gets off is being immoral. He is immoral because he still harmed someone, but technically didn't break a law. He broke a moral. If a person found a wallet with a thousand dollars in it and flipped through the pictures and saw a man with a family who looked to be poor and kept the money would most likely be doing something immoral. He may have taken a house payment or rent money and put the poor family out on the street when he could have gone a little out of his way to get the wallet and money back to the man.

 

[swivel]

If that's the way you'd like it, it's fine by me. Ofcourse, I think that most people would consider God to be a bit bigger then a single person, but to each their own.

Where in the hell did I ever say this? It wasn't in this thread. Is this a typo on your part? If so, edit your post and correct it immediately. If not, please source and give context for the quote you attribute to me.

 

[ancientregime]

We wouldn't be here if it weren't for the willingness of some Natives to be enlisted in the service of killing other Natives. They were murdering each other before we came with our diseases (which wiped out more than murder) and our guns and horses (which took care of most of the rest).

90% of the Indians died due to diseases we had become resistant to but they hadn't been exposed to. Howard Zinn Interview

 

[ancientregime]

There are societies where this is accepted.

It is really hard to find things which every known society prohibits.

All I can think of off hand is sex with an infant.

Wrong.

The Siriono of eastern Bolivia are one of the several peoples for whom "parents may masturbate their own children" and "open self-masturbation of children is accepted and taken for granted" (Barnouw 1975, An Introduction to Anthropology, p. 284) - Exotic Defiance, Robert E. Bartholomew

 

[scott3x]

If that's the way you'd like it, it's fine by me. Ofcourse, I think that most people would consider God to be a bit bigger then a single person, but to each their own.

Where in the hell did I ever say this? It wasn't in this thread. Is this a typo on your part? If so, edit your post and correct it immediately.

Not a typo (that would be where I mispelled a word), but rather a misatrribution due to me getting mixed up as to who I was responding to. The person who said it is the same person that the first quote in that post was from. I've corrected it now.

 

[scott3x]

Yes. But there are two fundamental similarities and differences that must be considered to understand my answer.

Morality and law are based upon the same premise. They both create rules of behavior that are classified as wrong. In order for a behavior to be wrong the behavior must harm someone (or create a real threat). That is the criteria used to find if a moral or a law has objective truth to it. The objective truth is whether someone is hurt (or threatened) or not due to the prohibited behavior.

This is pretty good. The worst stumbling block, in my view, is all of that sadomasochistic stuff. I don't like it, but I can't get myself to simply call it 'bad' and be done with it. Perhaps what I'm trying to say is that it makes it harder to define what is truly harmful to a person or atleast that it's hard to say when the harms outweigh the benefits in certain cases; however, I still think that true harm is bad.

What makes a Law and a Moral different has to do with evidence.

The law is set up in a scientific way to find guilt. If enough evidence exists that makes an inductively strong argument for guilt, a person is found to be guilty. If evidence doesn't provide a basis for an inductively strong argument, then a person is found innocent. A person may really be guilty in either case, but the law only cares about what it can scientifically prove. The law can't care about whether or not a person is really guilty or not, because logically, a reasonable or scientific verdict of guilt can only be found through evidence.

Now morality requires no evidence. A person guilty of a crime who lies and gets off is being immoral. He is immoral because he still harmed someone, but technically didn't break a law. He broke a moral. If a person found a wallet with a thousand dollars in it and flipped through the pictures and saw a man with a family who looked to be poor and kept the money would most likely be doing something immoral. He may have taken a house payment or rent money and put the poor family out on the street when he could have gone a little out of his way to get the wallet and money back to the man.

I agree for the most part. The only disagreement I have with this, I've voiced to you before- that is, if there's a bit of a tossup as to whether a person is guilty or not concerning an issue, it may be best to do a compromise ruling; that is, if someone is accused of trying to kill someone, but there isn't sufficient evidence, I agree that the person shouldn't go to jail but perhaps a restraining order could be placed on them in regards to being close to the person who they allegedly tried to kill.

 

[swarm]

I'm certainly not the only person who defines God as everything.

Um, so?

And while some may not go quite so far, I believe that Star Wars' idea of the 'force' runs along the same vein.

The force is fiction and not a god.

I wasn't even aware of it myself until, but it appears that my belief has been labelled pantheism.

I'm familiar with pantheism and find it an explanation in want of something to explain.

You're free to argue that my pantheistic views are heresy

Your sense of your view's importance is over inflated.

Look, ultimately what we're debating is words.

Actually we are debating if a concept is justified or not.

Well all I can say is that I tend to respect people who respect me.

Respect for you doesn't mean your claims and ideas get a free pass.

some people refuse to accept certain definitions for the term

Useless, meaningless, inconsistent or incoherent definitions should not be accepted simply because the term is "god."

God, for me, means everything. If you don't like my definition

Yes, I got that. Everything, shit, Hitler, death camps, zits, everything.

I still see no justification for using a biased and even less precise tern when "everything" works just fine for meaning everything and we also have such terms as "universe, "Nature" and "all."

Also by making god everything you rob it of any distinguishing characteristics or real meaning. God is everything. So what? What does this do for us? Nothing really.

I personally make no claim that I'm exactly sure what God/everything looks like myself, or how much of eir is conscious.

Then your proclamation that god is everything seems at best premature.

But if there's one thing I've learned, it's to generally be respectful of the beliefs of others, up until the point that their beliefs may be harming themselves or others; at that point, I begin to think that some type of intervention may be warranted, depending on the severity of the harm and the repercussions of the intervention.

Welcome to the intervention. Asking that your ideas be granted undeserved respect is damaging to both your integrity as a thinker and your ability to form sound ideas.

 

[swarm]

Wrong.

The Siriono of eastern Bolivia are one of the several peoples for whom "parents may masturbate their own children" and "open self-masturbation of children is accepted and taken for granted" (Barnouw 1975, An Introduction to Anthropology, p. 284) - Exotic Defiance, Robert E. Bartholomew

I might have guessed you would be all about this one.

But we had already discussed the matter. The matter was refined to adult penetration of the infant.

 

[ancientregime]

This is pretty good. The worst stumbling block, in my view, is all of that sadomasochistic stuff. I don't like it, but I can't get myself to simply call it 'bad' and be done with it.

I haven't given it much thought, but my first impression is people like pain because of the chemical rush that follows. I remember reading in a psychology book once about some ancient artwork where the men ran into battle fully erect. I remember sometimes when I was younger getting in trouble and the surprise of it caused a bit of a hard on. I'm not into SM, but maybe I should have an open mind about it. Maybe I can find some big German girl to give me a real hard stinging spanking before we get down to it.:shrug:

I agree for the most part. The only disagreement I have with this, I've voiced to you before- that is, if there's a bit of a tossup as to whether a person is guilty or not concerning an issue, it may be best to do a compromise ruling; that is, if someone is accused of trying to kill someone, but there isn't sufficient evidence, I agree that the person shouldn't go to jail but perhaps a restraining order could be placed on them in regards to being close to the person who they allegedly tried to kill.

I disagree. I don't think doubt in any scenario is something to base actions upon in terms of the law.

When considering your scenario, a restraining order is just a piece of paper, it's not a shield of protection. Since the law should act only upon objective evidence, they will not jail the person without proof of attempted murder. You can't expect the court to just believe anyone who goes around making statements like this without evidence that proves guilt. Since the law shouldn't act without reason and a restraining order isn't really physical protection, the person needs to think about making sure the other person cannot kill them without relying on the court.

The court issuing a restraining order is smearing the person's record without objective proof of the claim against them. If person is involved in a domestic dispute where their partners lies (very common), it can result in an immediate restraining order. It may ruin their chances of getting a job or moving into a rental. All these orders should be removed and harassment or stalking charges should be the focus.

 

[ancientregime]

Wrong.

The Siriono of eastern Bolivia are one of the several peoples for whom "parents may masturbate their own children" and "open self-masturbation of children is accepted and taken for granted" (Barnouw 1975, An Introduction to Anthropology, p. 284) - Exotic Defiance, Robert E. Bartholomew

I might have guessed you would be all about this one.

But we had already discussed the matter. The matter was refined to adult penetration of the infant.

Just a fact from the Wacky World of Human Behavior.

You said sex with infants. Sex includes all activities where genitals are manipulated to be aroused.

 

[swarm]

Just a fact from the Wacky World of Human Behavior.

You said sex with infants. Sex includes all activities where genitals are manipulated to be aroused.

So what? The masturbating point was brought up so the point was refined to take this into account. What of it?

Do you know of a society that permits adult penetration of infants?

You are way into the pedophilia thing aren't you?