Morality is not subjective

[Mickdrew]

Depends on how you define murder: I define in such a way as to include ritual human sacrifices.

It's true that what classifies as murder can, at times, be very subjective.
Like I said, I see morality as "quasi-objective" - meaning it seems objective, but it's not really.

I don't know of any objective fact that has a location in space.

You know that is not what I meant.
If you asked me to show you physics in the universe outside of Earth, I would point to other gravitational orbits or gravitational wells bending space/time.
If you asked me to show you chemistry in the universe outside of Earth, I could point to hydrogen fusing to give us stars and the sun.

So, show me anywhere else in the universe where certain moral facts hold constant. These other cases don't exist because morals are not natural laws, they are concepts that living things think up - and unfortunately, Earth is the only place we know so far that has sentient or intelligent life.

 

[ArtieE]

So, show me anywhere else in the universe where certain moral facts hold constant. These other cases don't exist because morals are not natural laws, they are concepts that living things think up - and unfortunately, Earth is the only place we know so far that has sentient or intelligent life.

When vampire bats share their food with starving roost mates it's not because sharing food is a moral concept the vampire bats have thought up. It's a natural behavior that evolved because it enhances chances of survival. "Moral" and "immoral" are just words we use to describe behaviors that are beneficial and detrimental to the survival of society and the people in it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's a natural behavior that evolved because it enhances chances of survival.

That's probably the some reason we have a sense/concept of morality.

 

[Nous]

I don't know of any objective fact that has a location in space.

You know that is not what I meant.
If you asked me to show you physics in the universe outside of Earth, I would point to other gravitational orbits or gravitational wells bending space/time.
If you asked me to show you chemistry in the universe outside of Earth, I could point to hydrogen fusing to give us stars and the sun.

So, show me anywhere else in the universe where certain moral facts hold constant.

I am unaware that there is "anywhere else in the universe" where there exist any other intelligent beings like humans who can perceive moral facts and for whom moral propositions are either true or false. I don't make moral judgments about the acts of the non-human animals on earth.

Nevertheless, the proposition, "Rape of a 4-year-old child is an immoral act," states an objective moral fact that "holds constant" for all humans who can and do act knowingly.

 

[Nous]

"Moral" and "immoral" are just words we use to describe behaviors that are beneficial and detrimental to the survival of society and the people in it.

So if a society needs more people, you would say that rape of fertile women would be moral?

 

[Nous]

Do you consider that throwing a homosexual off a tall building does not qualify as killing with 'malice aforethought'?

No, I didn't say or imply any such thing.

 

[ArtieE]

So if a society needs more people, you would say that rape of fertile women would be moral?

Well, say all fertile men go around raping all the fertile women do you think those actions and their results would be beneficial or detrimental for the society in the long run?

 

[Nous]

Well, say all fertile men go around raping all the fertile women do you think those actions and their results would be beneficial or detrimental for the society in the long run?

If the society is in need of increasing its population, there would surely be more pregnancies and more offspring if fertile men raped fertile women as often as possible. And according to what you've said, that would apparently be moral for men to do so.

I suppose likewise, if the planet is overpopulated with humans (which it is), it would be moral to do a lot of indiscriminate killing, according to you. Right?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well, say all fertile men go around raping all the fertile women do you think those actions and their results would be beneficial or detrimental for the society in the long run?

It definitely wouldn't be pretty with another population growth explosion.

 

[ArtieE]

If the society is in need of increasing its population, there would surely be more pregnancies and more offspring if fertile men raped fertile women as often as possible. And according to what you've said, that would apparently be moral for men to do so.

LOL the number of individuals isn't the only factor that determines the survivability of a society Nous.

I suppose likewise, if the planet is overpopulated with humans (which it is), it would be moral to do a lot of indiscriminate killing, according to you. Right?

Well, yes of course, the solution to the overpopulation problem is to indiscriminately kill everybody. But wait, wouldn't that lead to just one survivor in the end and not as many survivors as possible?

 

[Nous]

LOL the number of individuals isn't the only factor that determines the survivability of a society Nous.

Let's say there is a society in which there is an absolute critical and urgent need to increase the population or, like carrier pigeons, humans will go extinct, and women are sick and tired of men and are just not putting out. So rape would be moral in that circumstance, according to you?

Why is it supposedly immoral for a human society to not survive? Lots of cultures have died out in the past. Easter Island. What makes it moral to engage in immoral behaviors just so there can be a Wal Mart?

Well, yes of course, the solution to the overopulation problem is to indiscriminately kill everybody. But wait, wouldn't that lead to just one survivor in the end and not as many survivors as possible?

No, there can be a law that when a certain number is reached, the indiscriminate killing stops.

 

[McBell]

No, there can be a law that when a certain number is reached, the indiscriminate killing stops.

Why would there need to be a law?
Once the population stabilized (for lack of a better term) then it would be immoral to kill indiscriminately regardless of a law.

 

[Nous]

Why would there need to be a law?
Once the population stabilized (for lack of a better term) then it would be immoral to kill indiscriminately regardless of a law.

Well, Artie implied that it would be inevitable that at some point only one human would be left. I just noted that there is a way to prevent that from happening.

 

[McBell]

Well, Artie implied that it would be inevitable that at some point only one human would be left. I just noted that there is a way to prevent that from happening.

the act would become immoral long before one person was left.

 

[Nous]

the act would become immoral long before one person was left.

But you're saying that killing is moral as long as there are, say, 20 billion people? Or 7 billion? Or a million? When exactly when does indiscriminate killing begin and stop being moral?

 

[McBell]

But you're saying that killing is moral as long as there are, say, 20 billion people? Or 7 billion? Or a million? When exactly when does indiscriminate killing begin and stop being moral?

it stops being moral when the population stabilizes.
meaning when the world is no longer overpopulated.

 

[ArtieE]

Let's say there is a society in which there is an absolute critical and urgent need to increase the population or, like carrier pigeons, humans will go extinct, and women are sick and tired of men and are just not putting out. So rape would be moral in that circumstance, according to you?

Now you are getting pathetic. The detrimental effects on society of having all the men going around raping the women producing a lot of damaged women and unwanted children is hardly the way to increase the survivability of the society is it?

Why is it supposedly immoral for a human society to not survive?

Ask evolution and natural selection. They evolved our survival instinct which is the reason why we value survival and societies because they increase our chances of survival.

 

[Nous]

it stops being moral when the population stabilizes.

How will anyone know when "the population stabilizes"? Has the human population been "stable" in the past? If so, when?

 

[McBell]

How will anyone know when "the population stabilizes"? Has the human population been "stable" in the past? If so, when?

How would I know.
It is your scenario, not mine.

I sincerely hope you are not assuming that I am doing anything other than entertaining your scenario.

 

[Nous]

Now you are getting pathetic. The detrimental effects on society of having all the men going around raping the women producing a lot of damaged women

Why do you say women are "damaged" by men merely doing something to ensure the continuation of the species?

Ask evolution and natural selection.

Where do I submit my question?

Theft doesn't hinder the survival of the human species, does it? So you would say that stealing is not immoral, right?