Are Objective Standards for Morals Superior in Practice to Subjective Standards for Morals?

[Nous]

ROTFL male lions obviously "don't abide by the moral precepts that humans do" because they are lions and not humans...

But lions and other non-human animals have every bit as much "fight or flight" instinct as humans do. There is simply no connection between that instinct that kicks in during dangerous circumstances and the moral precepts that humans attempt to conform their behavior to.

 

[ArtieE]

But lions and other non-human animals have every bit as much "fight or flight" instinct as humans do. There is simply no connection between that instinct that kicks in during dangerous circumstances and the moral precepts that humans attempt to conform their behavior to.

So there's no connection between saying that killing people is wrong and immoral and the fact that people have a survival instinct and don't want to be killed? It has never occurred to you that people say killing is wrong and immoral because they don't want to die?

 

[Nous]

So there's no connection between saying that killing people is wrong and immoral and the fact that people have a survival instinct and don't want to be killed?

You obviously haven't been able to identify any such connection--besides the fact moral precepts such as the Golden Rule entail the morality or immorality of endless numbers of other acts than just murdering another person.

You obviously haven't been able to show that there is any connection between the fight-or-flight instinct and male lions' acts of killing cubs sired by other males.

 

[ArtieE]

You obviously haven't been able to identify any such connection

Now you are getting so pathetic that your posts aren't worth answering.

 

[Nous]

Now you are getting so pathetic that your posts aren't worth answering.

It isn't my fault that you are unable to argue that the fight-or-flight instinct that all animals apparently have somehow provides objective moral rules. The reason that you are unable to argue your idea is because there is no connection between the two whatsoever. The fight-or-flight instinct is the height of an egotistical response to a dangerous situation, in which people engage in all manner of immoral acts (e.g., cutting ahead of someone else in order to get on the last lifeboat when the ship is sinking). There is just no rhyme or reason to your nonsense idea.

 

[Milton Platt]

Suppose there were objective standards for morality. Putting aside, for the moment, just how problematic that would be (after all, what would it mean, an "objective standard"?), do you think the existence of objective standards for a morality would be any more effective in practice at getting people to comply with that morality than subjective standards for the same morality? Why or why not?

I don't see why it matters at all in that regard. How could morals exist in and of themselves, anyway???

 

[Milton Platt]

Absolutely, yes.
Dealing with black and white is simpler, and allows society to very simply apply peer pressure without the need to contextualise.

So you'd end up with clear and consistent morality (more commonly).

The world would be 'more moral' based on that objective standard, and far less moral against my admittedly subjective beliefs.

For a pop/parody version of this, consider the movie Pleasantville.

Unfortunately, life is not all "black and white".

 

[shunyadragon]

Now you are getting so pathetic that your posts aren't worth answering.

I already found that out a while ago. Walls make better conversation.

 

[Nous]

The genetic relationship to the survival instinct and purpose in humans as well as all animals and plants in the history of life is documented in the thousands of academic books and journals

Just cite the studies. We already know you can make that claim. What you have failed to do with substantiate that your claim is true.

So you couldn't come up with even one study--out of the "thousands"?

I generally assume it's lack of education that causes people to make claims about science that just have no basis in reality.

 

[ArtieE]

It isn't my fault that you are unable to argue that the fight-or-flight instinct that all animals apparently have somehow provides objective moral rules. The reason that you are unable to argue your idea is because there is no connection between the two whatsoever.

So you don't think that the reason people say killing people is wrong and immoral is that people don't want to die... no connection?

The fight-or-flight instinct is the height of an egotistical response to a dangerous situation, in which people engage in all manner of immoral acts (e.g., cutting ahead of someone else in order to get on the last lifeboat when the ship is sinking). There is just no rhyme or reason to your nonsense idea.

If the fight-or-flight instinct is the height of an egotistical response to a dangerous situation you are calling all the people in the life boats egotists... so all the people in the lifeboats must be immoral egotists because they didn't give their seats to somebody else? For example to the person who was trying to cut ahead?

 

[Nous]

So you don't think that the reason people say killing people is wrong and immoral is that people don't want to die... no connection?

Objective moral facts are obviously not somehow magically created by animals' instinct to fight or flee in dangerous situations. That is true not just because there are plenty of immoral acts that do not entail killing another human.

If the fight-or-flight instinct is the height of an egotistical response to a dangerous situation you are calling all the people in the life boats egotists... so all the people in the lifeboats must be immoral egotists

False. I didn't say or imply any such thing as that it is immoral to get on a lifeboat.

 

[ArtieE]

Objective moral facts are obviously not somehow magically created

I said: "So you don't think that the reason people say killing people is wrong and immoral is that people don't want to die... no connection?"

You said: "Objective moral facts are obviously not somehow magically created by animals' instinct to fight or flee in dangerous situations. That is true not just because there are plenty of immoral acts that do not entail killing another human."

You deliberately avoided answering the question because if you answered "no connection" you would look like an idiot. Then you say that "objective moral facts are obviously not somehow magically created". Of course they aren't and I never said they were either. That's called creating a straw man and shooting him down. It's a fallacy.

Then you say: "I didn't say or imply any such thing as that it is immoral to get on a lifeboat. " Also a straw man. I never said it was immoral to get on a lifeboat. I said: "all the people in the lifeboats must be immoral egotists because they didn't give their seats to somebody else?"

You avoided answering that question too. You are good at deflection.

 

[Nous]

I said: "So you don't think that the reason people say killing people is wrong and immoral is that people don't want to die... no connection?"

You said: "Objective moral facts are obviously not somehow magically created by animals' instinct to fight or flee in dangerous situations. That is true not just because there are plenty of immoral acts that do not entail killing another human."

You deliberately avoided answering the question because if you answered "no connection" you would look like an idiot. Then you say that "objective moral facts are obviously not somehow magically created". Of course they aren't and I never said they were either.

Then what are you claiming about this mysterious alleged "connection" between the fight-or-flight instinct that all animals exhibit, but which only "provides" (the word you used) humans with the objective moral standard?

Again I ask, if the fight-or-flight instinct, which all animals seem to have, including presumably all humans, somehow “provided” humans was objective moral facts, then why do apparently all humans at some point fail to abide by these standards, and why do some people (e.g., Hitler) consistently and dramatically fail to abide by such standards?

Again, I ask: why don't male lions abide by the moral rules concerning killing innocent babies? Male lions seem to have every ounce of fight-or-flight instinct that humans have.

Again, I point out: there obviously is no empirical or logical "connection" between the fight-or-flight instinct and the objective moral facts relating to how a person should treat another person in any given situation. Oftentimes, when people are in gravest danger of dying is when they act the most immorally. Obviously there is no logical or empirical "connection" between the fight-or-flight instinct and objective moral facts relating to stealing or vandalizing another person's property, or relating to rape, etc., etc. Obviously you haven't been able to argue that there is any logical "connection" between that instinct and the moral facts regarding those acts, and obviously you haven't noted any empirical evidence by which to deduce any such "connection".

Your thesis here is incoherent; don't blame me if I somehow misstated it. The burden is on you to prove the your claims are true, not for someone else to prove that your claims are false. But you have avoided answering the above question because you know you would look like an idiot to give truthful answers.

Then you say: "I didn't say or imply any such thing as that it is immoral to get on a lifeboat. " Also a straw man. I never said it was immoral to get on a lifeboat. I said: "all the people in the lifeboats must be immoral egotists because they didn't give their seats to somebody else?"

What does the fight-or-flight instinct demand about me, a 57-year-old male with no dependents, getting on one of the limited number of lifeboats? I can' easily push that young healthy pregnant woman out of the way.

 

[Logikal]

And what you've still failed to answer is the explanation of why those acts are morally wrong...

If you cannot answer that, then your point does not stand, regardless of how assured you may be in your assertion.

You have not paid attention to what I stated then! I specifically stated the facts that I listed indicate the acts are morally wrong. It is not opinion that decides.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Suppose there were objective standards for morality. Putting aside, for the moment, just how problematic that would be (after all, what would it mean, an "objective standard"?), do you think the existence of objective standards for a morality would be any more effective in practice at getting people to comply with that morality than subjective standards for the same morality? Why or why not?

I see morals as an expression of values. It would be weird if everyone's values were exactly the same.

 

[Logikal]

I see morals as an expression of values. It would be weird if everyone's values were exactly the same.

The problem is if morals were subjective they would be useless to society.

The whole point is to have universal rules for EVERYBODY. There is no authority involved in morality. It is not someone's belief or opinion. People who look to kiss up to some authority have this notion some one has to do it. Thus these folk think everything is authoritative and subjective.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The problem is if morals were subjective they would be useless to society.

"Subjective" doesn't mean "arbitrary."

The whole point is to have universal rules for EVERYBODY. There is no authority involved in morality. It is not someone's belief or opinion. People who look to kiss up to some authority have this notion some one has to do it. Thus these folk think everything is authoritative and subjective.

I have no idea what any of this has to do with my post.

 

[Logikal]

"Subjective" doesn't mean "arbitrary."


I have no idea what any of this has to do with my post.

I never claimed subjective meant arbitrary. The issue with something being subjective is that the truth value does not hold 100%. If I say to someone with AIDS that person x prayed to a head of lettuce and was cured of the HIV virus and you can be too, then the same process was done by thousands of other people without that cured result how is the subjective rule helpful? It helped that one individual and no one else.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I never claimed subjective meant arbitrary.

Oh. In that case, you're just wrong.

The issue with something being subjective is that the truth value does not hold 100%.

You expect morals to have a "truth value" that "holds 100%"?

It seems we have very different ideas of what morality is, then. By my understanding of the term, what you're demanding is nonsensical.

 

[Logikal]

Oh. In that case, you're just wrong.


You expect morals to have a "truth value" that "holds 100%"?

It seems we have very different ideas of what morality is, then. By my understanding of the term, what you're demanding is nonsensical.

Then your understanding is awful. There are distinct features when one refers to MORALITY. There is no such term so general. Are you referring to psychology and descriptive ethics (aka applied ethics)? Or are you in a philosophy forum using the PHILOSOPHICAL a definition of morality from normative ethics?

Why would you make something up if you are in a philosophical forum or use a different context for the philosophical word? Just because you can?