Morality is not subjective

[Nous]

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

It isn't my scenario, it's Artie's. I'm asking questions about it.

 

[McBell]

It isn't my scenario, it's Artie's. I'm asking questions about it.

My apologies.

I was pointing out it is not MY scenario.
All I am doing is answering your questions based upon the build up of the scenario.

 

[ArtieE]

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

Of course if everybody stole from each other it would decrease the survivability of the society. Why do you think we say stealing is immoral?

 

[Nous]

My apologies.

I was pointing out it is not MY scenario.
All I am doing is answering your questions based upon the build up of the scenario.

Got it. Not apologies necessary.

 

[Nous]

Of course if everybody stole from each other it would decrease the survivability of the society.

Why do you say that? How would it decrease the survivability of a society? Undoubtedly there was a time in human prehistory when stealing was common. Obviously humans survived anyway.

Why do you think we say stealing is immoral?

I imagine "we" consider stealing immoral for the same reason I do: because I don't want others to steal from me. Stealing from others doesn't conform to the Golden Rule. It's immorality has nothing to do with the survivability of a society. As I noted, lots of human cultures have disappeared. There is nothing that goes against the universe for a group of humans to die out.

 

[ArtieE]

I imagine "we" consider stealing immoral for the same reason I do: because I don't want others to steal from me.

Because it would reduce your chances of survival and by extension the chances of survival for the society you are a part of.

 

[Nous]

Because it would reduce your chances of survival and by extension the chances of survival for the society you are a part of.

No, if I were to collapse and die because someone stole from me, it obviously would not threaten the survival of the human species or my society.

 

[ArtieE]

No, if I were to collapse and die because someone stole from me, it obviously would not threaten the survival of the human species or my society.

If everybody stole from everybody else and every victim of theft collapsed and died how many do you think would be left of your society or the human race?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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?

Fortunately, we can look at biology, math, and history and know such a thing would be a disaster of epidemics (possibly even pandemics), poverty, crime, and widespread mass-level suffering. Not too mention the violated rights of all the raped women, and the stigmas that can come along with being a "rape child."

 

[Augustus]

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

But if you go to the Islamic State such behaviour is considered exemplary rather than criminal.

 

[Mickdrew]

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.

It holds true only given human context. I agree there is no human context where rape could be considered moral.

That does not make it objective.

 

[Mickdrew]

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.

I agree entirely, and have said something very similar before

 

[VioletVortex]

Even of morality was objective, why would it matter? The objectivity is not within my mind, I don't care. My personal values are rooted in my opinions rather than the opinions of others.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Even of morality was objective, why would it matter?

It would matter, because then it would mean morality would have a "formula" of sorts, it would be unchanging, and would remain a constant like the laws of gravity.

 

[Nous]

But if you go to the Islamic State such behaviour is considered exemplary rather than criminal.

And your point is?

 

[Nous]

If everybody stole from everybody else and every victim of theft collapsed and died how many do you think would be left of your society or the human race?

What purpose is this question supposed to serve? People do not die due to being the victim of a theft.

 

[Nous]

I agree there is no human context where rape could be considered moral.

That does not make it objective.

Why is there "no human context where rape could be considered moral"?

What would be a context where it would be moral for an intelligent, competent adult who can discern moral from immoral acts to rape a 4-year-old child?

 

[Mickdrew]

Why is there "no human context where rape could be considered moral"?

Because:

some rules objectively let us live better in society. Allowing murder to be moral would kill off any species or culture stupid enough to endorse it. Nonetheless, these rules not independent of minds, they are the result of them.

Think of morality as a result of the evolutionary process - a set of guidelines we develop over time to better adapt and survive in our environment.

What would be a context where it would be moral for an intelligent, competent adult who can discern moral from immoral acts to rape a 4-year-old child?

I just said there is no human context where rape would be moral.

Unless you can think of a way which raping a 4 year old helps society and helps us live peacefully, then what you're saying makes no sense.

 

[VioletVortex]

It would matter, because then it would mean morality would have a "formula" of sorts, it would be unchanging, and would remain a constant like the laws of gravity.

Then, obviously, by our definition of morality, there is no inherent set of moral laws.

If the moral laws don't physically or psychologically restrict me, then I have no reason to follow them if they conflict with my will.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If the moral laws don't physically or psychologically restrict me, then I have no reason to follow them if they conflict with my will.

You realize that is actually a symptom of a psychotic disorder, don't you? Just because there are no moral laws doesn't mean people aren't programed to not "feel" them. I really don't even concern myself with morality, but I do concern myself if my actions will harm someone. There is no cosmic law dictating that or god commanding that I do or anything else like that, but it is the basic-level "response" for being a social animal, and it there are also mutually-benefiting exchanges, which enhance the survival rating of all involved.
It is this inert drive of morality that the position of objective morality is based on, but the argument dies after its first step because it can't be proven that morality is objective, but rather we have evidence that is has evolved as a survival mechanism in social animals, because even other social animals have their rules, practices, and social do's-and-don't's.