What could make morality objective?

[Atla]

It's very seriously considered now

As serious as addressing the root cause ?

Apparently it goes against human nature to address the root cause, but we also want to survive, so I think we will end up with some barbaric method like decreasing the incoming sunlight by 2%.

[TimeSeeker]

Apparently it goes against human nature to address the root cause, but we also want to survive, so I think we will end up with some barbaric method like decreasing the incoming sunlight by 2%.

If it's stupid and it works then it isn't stupid... Necessity is the mother of invention.

[Immanuel Can]

That's very small-minded thinking. Look at society as a whole - all 7.5 billion people. The fact that a handful of assholes fight wars - doesn't mean that the others want to.

Au contraire: unless you think the very recent, modern West is the same as "human consensus," then fighting wars -- along with all the other things I listed -- is how the "human consensus" gets its business done, both in the historical dimension and on a world scale.

If nothing else, you must at least be aware that no more than 8% of the world, even at present, is agnostic or Atheist. If you're one of those, and you want to follow "human consensus," then you would have to be religious, wouldn't you? After all, the "human consensus" is vastly, vastly in favour of it.

Besides, if you don't agree with "lets avoid extinction" as a common goal, then surely you don't have to worry about all the social problems you point out?

The problem is that there's no "consensus" on who should be allowed to "avoid extinction," and who should not. In fact, extinction isn't even a threat, if one is thinking only of killing one's rivals, or another race, or a different culture, or only the followers of some other ideology. So fear of one's own extinction is no motive at all for good behaviour.

[TimeSeeker]

Au contraire: unless you think the very recent, modern West is the same as "human consensus," then fighting wars -- along with all the other things I listed -- is how the "human consensus" gets its business done, both in the historical dimension and on a world scale.

We can get to society (as a whole) in a second. Do YOU - the individual accept the argument? That avoiding extinction is the only useful conception of "objective mortality", thus cooperation is a better strategy to competition towards the goal? From which the "no harm" principle emerges.

[Dubious]

Like I say, Dube: it's not me you have the contradiction with...it's yourself.

No contradictions; my logic is perfectly clear on the subject.

The one of us who does not believe in objective right and wrong...

...says I am wrong.

...says I am doing wrong.

...says I am being the wrong kind of person.

...says I have wronged him.

...insists he is right.

...says I do not respond in the right way.

...says that it is not right of me to be what I am.

...rages and insults, because he feels I have violated his rights.

...believes that right-thinking people ought to agree with him.

But there is no contradiction.

Is that right?

You haven't mentioned any contradictions. You only say "I said", but if imagining so is the only way you feel exonerated go for it.

Theism, especially the perverted kind practiced by you, wouldn't exist if those like like you didn't believe their own bullshit and keep on preaching it.

Btw, I'm so sorry for having wronged you by being right especially in regard to you being a liar, distorter and hypocrite.

Could theists ever exist without adding these fundamental ingredients to their catechism to proclaim the Truth of their doctrines!

[Immanuel Can]

We can get to society (as a whole) in a second. Do YOU - the individual accept the argument? That avoiding extinction is the only useful conception of "objective mortality", thus cooperation is a better strategy to competition towards the goal? From which the "no harm" principle emerges.

Well, as I said, "extinction" isn't a real threat to those who believe in killing. What they do is simply to define their parameters: like, "Let's kill all the half-wits," for example (or "Just the unborn," or "Just the Jews," or "Just the....whoever.") Since most people are not "half-wits,"or whatever you choose, the species is not threatened; in fact, from a eugenic perspective, some might even argue that it would be helpful to the species if "half-wits" (or the others 'we' don't like) died out.

So "avoid extinction" gives us no particular moral precepts at all...not even enough guidance to speak against broad-scale genocides, provided they are defined so as not to include everyone, or provided we stop short of killing everyone.

There is also no "no harm" principle available in a world without God. To say, "It's wrong to harm," simply begs the question, "What is harm?" (And if you think that can't go wrong, consider that in the US alone, in the last year, almost 800,00 babies have been aborted, including half of the black babies that could have been born in New York City during the same period: is that "harm," or is it a good thing, would you say?) Moreover, what tells us that doing "harm," whatever we consider that to be, is actually "wrong"? In the animal world, "harm" happens all the time, and it's just the Law of Nature: there's nothing moral about it, and if we are merely animals, why would it be wrong for us to kill each other -- or even the whole planet, if it suited us to do it (for example, if the bad effects will only be felt by future generations, and the money is to be made for us right now, by polluting the planet)?

So while what you suggest soundsvaguely nice and well-intended, that's all it does. It's incapable of telling us whether or not we should do anything.

And that means it fails the minimum we ought to expect of anything we call "moral": that it should tell us definitively that something is right, or something is wrong. If the "no harm" principle actually provides no such information, then what good is it?

[Immanuel Can]

No contradictions; my logic is perfectly clear on the subject.

The one of us who does not believe in objective right and wrong...

...says I am wrong.

...says I am doing wrong.

...says I am being the wrong kind of person.

...says I have wronged him.

...insists he is right.

...says I do not respond in the right way.

...says that it is not right of me to be what I am.

...rages and insults, because he feels I have violated his rights.

...believes that right-thinking people ought to agree with him.

But there is no contradiction.

Is that right?

You haven't mentioned any contradictions.

Too funny. Well, okay, Dube. I'll bet any fair observer will see a few.

[TimeSeeker]

We can get to society (as a whole) in a second. Do YOU - the individual accept the argument? That avoiding extinction is the only useful conception of "objective mortality", thus cooperation is a better strategy to competition towards the goal? From which the "no harm" principle emerges.

Well, as I said, "extinction" isn't a real threat to those who believe in killing. What they do is simply to define their parameters: like, "Let's kill all the half-wits," for example (or "Just the unborn," or "Just the Jews," or "Just the....whoever.") Since most people are not "half-wits,"or whatever you choose, the species is not threatened; in fact, from a eugenic perspective, some might even argue that it would be helpful to the species if "half-wits" (or the others 'we' don't like) died out.

So "avoid extinction" gives us no particular moral precepts at all...not even enough guidance to speak against broad-scale genocides, provided they are defined so as not to include everyone, or provided we stop short of killing everyone.

There is also no "no harm" principle available in a world without God. To say, "It's wrong to harm," simply begs the question, "What is harm?" (And if you think that can't go wrong, consider that in the US alone, in the last year, almost 800,00 babies have been aborted, including half of the black babies that could have been born in New York City during the same period: is that "harm," or is it a good thing, would you say?) Moreover, what tells us that doing "harm," whatever we consider that to be, is actually "wrong"? In the animal world, "harm" happens all the time, and it's just the Law of Nature: there's nothing moral about it, and if we are merely animals, why would it be wrong for us to kill each other -- or even the whole planet, if it suited us to do it (for example, if the bad effects will only be felt by future generations, and the money is to be made for us right now, by polluting the planet)?

So while what you suggest soundsvaguely nice and well-intended, that's all it does. It's incapable of telling us whether or not we should do anything.

And that means it fails the minimum we ought to expect of anything we call "moral": that it should tell us definitively that something is right, or something is wrong. If the "no harm" principle actually provides no such information, then what good is it?

You are deflecting. Let’s not assume/speculate what other people might do.

Tell me what YOU would do.

Do YOU accept or reject the “avoid extinction” goal and the “no harm” principle emerging from cooperation?

[Dubious]

The one of us who does not believe in objective right and wrong...

...says I am wrong.

...says I am doing wrong.

...says I am being the wrong kind of person.

...says I have wronged him.

...insists he is right.

...says I do not respond in the right way.

...says that it is not right of me to be what I am.

...rages and insults, because he feels I have violated his rights.

...believes that right-thinking people ought to agree with him.

But there is no contradiction.

Is that right?

You haven't mentioned any contradictions.

Too funny. Well, okay, Dube. I'll bet any fair observer will see a few.

I'd bet that would not be a good bet to make!

I'd bet that most with whom you come in contact would regard you more as a snake oil type of personality...one who strives to slip and flip through every valid argument, whether mine or anyone else's, by whatever means comes to mind.

But as mentioned, what choice do theists have in defense of their 2000 year old defunct dogmas? How else to defend absurdity except through lies and distortions...your default methodology of diminishing its credibility gap.

Under the hospice care of those like you, theism is doomed to die a prolonged and miserable death, it's fund of integrity, if it ever had any, having long evaporated by its parade of lies and intentional deceptions throughout its history.

But like any good Christian soldier, you'll keep on rolling that stone uphill because you know the moment you let go, it's going to roll over you.

[Peter Holmes]

So your argument is: AI is an existential threat to humanity, so morality is objective. Sorry, but I've no time for this blather.

No, you stupid philosopher!

If murdering one human is immoral/wrong/undesirable/bad (pick your favorite word) then the closest thing to "objective immorality" (the biggest evil, the worst wrong, the ultimate sacrilege) that we HUMANS can conceive is every single one of us DYING. The end of the line for humanity - extinction!

So if Human Extinction is The Worst Evil. Then by contraposition Human Survival is The Best Good. Anything which threatens our survival is objectively immoral! AI is just one example of MANY potential existential threats.

I expect that at this point you will protest with some philosophical nitpick such as "what makes it objective"? Collective human consensus!

Plus - extinct species don't get to philosophise about "objective morality"!

Methinks he doth abuse too much.

You obviously don't understand the nature of objectivity - and therefore what this whole discussion has been about.

[TimeSeeker]

You obviously don't understand the nature of objectivity - and therefore what this whole discussion has been about.

You don't understand the "nature of objectivity" either. Because you are trapped in linear spacetime and your brain is too small to grasp the factorial complexity of 10^160 quantum particles. So I am offering you an operational definition. Till you come up with a better one (which philosophy has failed to produce in 3000 years - so I am not holding my breath).

Either way - if this discussion is about anything but avoiding the extinction of 8 billion (and growing) people. There's no simpler way to say this: You are wrong.

And If I am getting in your way of engaging in what is nothing more than linguistic masturbation - just say so.

[Immanuel Can]

You are deflecting.

That's what everybody says when they don't like the answer they got.

Let’s not assume/speculate what other people might do.

I didn't. I just said what their worldview would warrant them in doing. What they would actually do? Probably a bit of the good and a bit of the bad. Most people are like that.

Tell me what YOU would do.

As a Theist, you mean? Or what the average human being, devoid of any such belief would be likely to do? Which do you want?

Do YOU accept or reject the “avoid extinction” goal and the “no harm” principle emerging from cooperation

?
You say they "emerge"? What does that mean? There's no logic that connects, "avoid extinction" and "no harm" to Atheism or agnosticism. So you can't just take for granted that those principles are binding -- or that everybody has the same meaning for them. That's not given for free.

[Immanuel Can]

You haven't mentioned any contradictions.

Too funny. Well, okay, Dube. I'll bet any fair observer will see a few.

I'd bet that would not be a good bet to make!

Well, we can see.

[TimeSeeker]

I didn't. I just said what their worldview would warrant them in doing. What they would actually do? Probably a bit of the good and a bit of the bad. Most people are like that.

I don't know what most people are like. I can't read the minds of 7.5 billion people, but I imagine most of us share the will to live.

If you don't - I will gladly acknowledge your doxastic commitment to your beliefs via a live Youtube suicide.

As a Theist, you mean? Or what the average human being, devoid of any such belief would be likely to do? Which do you want?

As a human. Which part of "you" is ambiguous?

You say they "emerge"? What does that mean? There's no logic that connects, "avoid extinction" and "no harm" to Atheism or agnosticism. So you can't just take for granted that those principles are binding -- or that everybody has the same meaning for them. That's not given for free.

You are the one bringing (a)theism to the table. It's another attempt at diverting from the point.
The logic is as follows: You and I want to co-operate. By reciprocity if you want me to help you - then you probably shouldn't do things to me that would make me want to stop helping you and vice versa. Prisoner's dilemma.

The principles are binding in so far as If you break them we will fuck you up. There are more of us. Good luck being a dick.

[surreptitious57]

If Earths biosphere does not remain in equilibrium do you think humans will still be able to survive on this planet?

The Sun goes red giant in four to five billion years but the rise of the oceanic temperatures in a billion years will kill all life on Earth
The goal should be to find suitable exo planets to colonise and it should start now as a billion years in cosmic terms is not very much