Objective Morals Debate (Atheists only)

[waitasec]

But does harmony have to be good is the question.

yes.

harmony is good...at least to my ears...what about yours?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Thought it was obvious. The golden rule is what we'd do in our natural state. It's the reason we don't just kill everyone and become cannibals.

Still see no reason why the golden rule is good and kill everyone whilst becoming cannibals is bad.

It was viewed such at the time. Now we have different standards. Why? Because the minority convinced the majority. It's the job of the minority to convince the majority as to why they're right.

I dislike that hierarchy; the majority rules and minority has a lot of work to rule themselves... Sounds a little like-like...

 

[The Sum of Awe]

yes.

harmony is good...at least to my ears...what about yours?

It is to mine also, but there may be some people who don't think it sounds good. Kinda sounds like an oxymoron, I know, but it's just as possible as the 'ugly-fetish' in which the person is turned on by the unattractive.

 

[Penumbra]

It's not a fact that it is not better than the other one... I read the whole thing, it's still merely an opinion.

It's not objectively true that one house is "better" than the other by vague undefinable standards, but it is objectively true that one of the houses has met my goal objectively better than the other one. It's measurable rather than an opinion.

Exactly, it depends on what the goal is, and the goal among humans isn't always to bet he same.

True. But they don't need to all have the same goals for certain moral systems to be objectively better at achieving certain goals than others.

In other words, even if there is a person in the hospital who decides she doesn't like having healthy legs and would rather have them amputated, it doesn't change the fact that the doctor who saved the leg of the person who for some odd reason likes having legs, met that patient's goals objectively compared to the alternative.

And as it so happens, it's not a coincidence that some goals are more common than others. Self-destructive goals rule themselves out over long periods. One can't necessarily say those goals are "worse", and instead someone who doesn't share self-destructive goals can only wish that person well and move on. But as for their own goals, such as peace, happiness, and eudaimonia, there are objectively better ways of reaching their goals than other ways.

Are you saying I'm just making an excuse for the ones who failed? I'm not.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that, given a goal, there are objectively better and worse ways of achieving that goal.

Anyway, I do agree that there are some morals for a certain goal that are better than the other, but not everyone follows that goal, the goal is not objective, but there are inter-objective (kinda created a word there) morals for that subjective goal.

But they are not really objective being that they are based around opinions and feelings, bad and good is feeling and opinion, whether or not one gets you to the goal better.

Whether it's good or bad for a house to be energy efficient doesn't change the objectivity of one house being measurably more energy efficient than the other. It's a category error. That's where absolute vs. objectivity comes into play.

 

[waitasec]

It is to mine also, but there may be some people who don't think it sounds good. Kinda sounds like an oxymoron, I know, but it's just as possible as the 'ugly-fetish' in which the person is turned on by the unattractive.

well lets take a step back and look at this from a different perspective...as a whole if you will.

are not all these things contingent on selfishness?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

It's not objectively true that one house is "better" than the other by vague undefinable standards, but it is objectively true that one of the houses has met my goal objectively better than the other one. It's measurable rather than an opinion.


True. But they don't need to all have the same goals for certain moral systems to be objectively better at achieving certain goals than others.

In other words, even if there is a person in the hospital who decides she doesn't like having healthy legs and would rather have them amputated, it doesn't change the fact that the doctor who saved the leg of the person who for some odd reason likes having legs, met that patient's goals objectively compared to the alternative.

And as it so happens, it's not a coincidence that some goals are more common than others. Self-destructive goals rule themselves out over long periods. One can't necessarily say those goals are "worse", and instead someone who doesn't share self-destructive goals can only wish that person well and move on. But as for their own goals, such as peace, happiness, and eudaimonia, there are objectively better ways of reaching their goals than other ways.


No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that, given a goal, there are objectively better and worse ways of achieving that goal.


Whether it's good or bad for a house to be energy efficient doesn't change the objectivity of one house being measurably more energy efficient than the other. It's a category error. That's where absolute vs. objectivity comes into play.

So basically, as I understanding, if a person wants a clean, stable house and so does the other, and there are two people you can hire to do that, one doesn't do what you wanted but the first guy's people do, then the first guy's guys are better than the other's guys?

That is objective between good and bad job there?

You ares saying goals are subjective, but the ways (morals) to get to the goals you personally want are objectively good/bad?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

well lets take a step back and look at this from a different perspective...as a whole if you will.

are not all these things contingent on selfishness?

Not necessarily. Selfishness implies you self-centered, and I'm saying that there is no reason to be self-centered, nor is there a reason to be selfless, etc. Just no reason to do anything at all.

 

[Penumbra]

So basically, as I understanding, if a person wants a clean, stable house and so does the other, and there are two people you can hire to do that, one doesn't do what you wanted but the first guy's people do, then the first guy's guys are better than the other's guys?

That is objective between good and bad job there?

You ares saying goals are subjective, but the ways (morals) to get to the goals you personally want are objectively good/bad?

For the most part, yes.

The various moral paths to reach a given goal do have a very objective component to them. There's not necessarily one best way, but there are ways that are superior to other ways at achieving a goal.

As for the goal itself, it's not something that can be argued to be objectively superior over another goal if it's not already self evident. In other words, one can't really argue that being healthy, happy, knowledgeable, successful, and well-liked is better than being unhealthy, dirty, sad, disliked, and ignorant, other than to say "try both, and let me know which one you like better..." (And if one wishes to provide more of an argument, they can explain how some goals are inherently self-destructive and therefore filter themselves out, while others tend to perpetuate themselves due to their success in breeding. One can't necessarily claim that the goal that filtered itself out was inferior to the one that is long-lasting and sustainable, but we can simply say, "well, it was unpleasant, didn't seem to make sense, and it now it's not around anymore".)

So basically I'm saying the paths to reach the goals are objective, and the goals themselves are basically subjective but have a strong basis in biology and logic.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

For the most part, yes.

The various moral paths to reach a given goal do have a very objective component to them. There's not necessarily one best way, but there are ways that are superior to other ways at achieving a goal.

As for the goal itself, it's not something that can be argued to be objectively superior over another goal if it's not already self evident. In other words, one can't really argue that being healthy, happy, knowledgeable, successful, and well-liked is better than being unhealthy, dirty, sad, disliked, and ignorant, other than to say "try both, and let me know which one you like better..." (And if one wishes to provide more of an argument, they can explain how some goals are inherently self-destructive and therefore filter themselves out, while others tend to perpetuate themselves due to their success in breeding. One can't necessarily claim that the goal that filtered itself out was inferior to the one that is long-lasting and sustainable, but we can simply say, "well, it was unpleasant, didn't seem to make sense, and it now it's not around anymore".)

So basically I'm saying the paths to reach the goals are objective, and the goals themselves are basically subjective but have a strong basis in biology and logic.

Fair enough, I can agree with that.

But why is the one you like better necessarily better than the other?

 

[Penumbra]

Fair enough, I can agree with that.

But why is the one you like better necessarily better than the other?

"Better" is such a vague term.

Morality that emphasizes death, destruction, hatred, filth, suffering generally isn't too conducive to survival for social creatures. I prefer eudaimonia to the lack of it, and most people I know are the same way, and it's not a coincidence, because that which fills us with satisfaction is fairly well correlated to what allows us to survive. So I focus on increasing eudaimonia as best I can.

So rather than tell someone that a goal of eudaimonia is better than suffering which for most people would be rather self-evident, I might as well instead just say, "Let me know how that works out for you..." or "Try both approaches and get back to me..." or "Wow dude, have fun with that..."

If someone chooses to define their self and their goals as being dirty, ignorant, suffering, and various other things I find less than optimal, there's not much I can do about it.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

"Better" is such a vague term.

Morality that emphasizes death, destruction, hatred, filth, suffering generally isn't too conducive to survival for social creatures. I prefer eudaimonia to the lack of it, and most people I know are the same way, and it's not a coincidence, because that which fills us with satisfaction is fairly well correlated to what allows us to survive. So I focus on increasing eudaimonia as best I can.

So rather than tell someone that a goal of eudaimonia is better than suffering which for most people would be rather self-evident, I might as well instead just say, "Let me know how that works out for you..." or "Try both approaches and get back to me..." or "Wow dude, have fun with that..."

If someone chooses to define their self and their goals as being dirty, ignorant, suffering, and various other things I find less than optimal, there's not much I can do about it.

Yes but survival isn't an absolute goal, is it?

 

[Penumbra]

Yes but survival isn't an absolute goal, is it?

Nope. I'm not going to force anyone to survive.

But life itself naturally pursues survival because that which doesn't lead to survival stops existing, and that which leads to survival keeps surviving.

 

[Willamena]

Society isn't absolute even if it made me, you, or all of us believe something, it is just based off of opinions as is all morals, that means subjective.

What does it mean for society to be absolute?

'Objective' and 'absolute' are different things.

Objective:
(of a person or their judgment) Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Good and bad is a personal feeling/opinion: Fact and Opinion ........................................................

Good and bad can also be fact if it's part of an objective statement. It's only an opinion when its part of a subjective statement.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

What does it mean for society to be absolute?

'Objective' and 'absolute' are different things.



Good and bad can also be fact if it's part of an objective statement. It's only an opinion when its part of a subjective statement.

Objective and Subjective don't determine Fact or Opinion; Opinion and Fact determine Objective and Subjective.

 

[Nooj]

Hey The Sum of Awe, what is your morality? Just wondering. What is good to you? What is bad to you?

Penumbra, what would you say to a Nazi whose goal is the peace and happiness of a particular group of people, namely their own? If you absolutely had to try to convince this person that they should abandon their goal of eudaimonia via extermination of other peoples, how would you do it?

 

[McBell]

Do you believe in absolute good/evil?

For the individual, yes.
All encompassing, no.

Do you believe in absolute morals?

See Above

How can you believe in absolute morals or something that is good or evil to everyone if you don't believe in an objective meaning to life?

How can someone believe in something that they cannot prove to someone who does not at the very least already have some inkling to also believe?

Do you believe in an absolute meaning of life?

Nope.

How can you believe in an absolute meaning to life if you don't believe in a God?

Since i do not "believe in" either....

What I mean by absolute is that it applies to everything living.

Please present a religious "absolute".

 

[McBell]

That wouldn't work in reality, if everyone followed that, a guy could get away with murder and the police will say "That was good"

But it does work n reality.
At least for some people.

I mean any time God killed someone, people say it was good...

 

[Penumbra]

Hey The Sum of Awe, what is your morality? Just wondering. What is good to you? What is bad to you?

Penumbra, what would you say to a Nazi whose goal is the peace and happiness of a particular group of people, namely their own? If you absolutely had to try to convince this person that they should abandon their goal of eudaimonia via extermination of other peoples, how would you do it?

By force.

The world showed them the inadequacy of their morality because they attempted to destroy others based on lies and propaganda and were destroyed themselves.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Hey The Sum of Awe, what is your morality? Just wondering. What is good to you? What is bad to you?

Being happy while trying to make others happy. What's good is whatever makes me happy, bad is whatever makes me unhappy.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

For the individual, yes.
All encompassing, no.


See Above

I agree.

How can someone believe in something that they cannot prove to someone who does not at the very least already have some inkling to also believe?

Please present a religious "absolute".

Christians would believe murder is an absolute bad for God said it is... So basically any sin can be my example.