Is morality objective or subjective?

[Skepdick]

What would you say that graph has to do with morality? I'd say nothing. But you're obviously thinking that morality is something very different than what I'd say it is.

So the sum of human choices over the extent of human history has nothing to do with the direction of the graph?

It's a coincidence that it went up?

[Terrapin Station]

What would you say that graph has to do with morality? I'd say nothing. But you're obviously thinking that morality is something very different than what I'd say it is.

So the sum of human choices over the extent of human history has nothing to do with the direction of the graph?

It's a coincidence that it went up?

"The sum of human choices" is not at all a sufficient data set to have something to do with morality. We could be talking about choices re what soup to eat for lunch, choices about what sort of clothing to wear, etc.--that stuff has nothing at all to do with morality (well, at least not obviously.) We'd at the very least have to be talking about moral choices per se.

Not that a life span chart tells us anything about choices at all, necessarily, by the way. Moral choices or not.

[Skepdick]

"The sum of human choices" is not at all a sufficient data set to have something to do with morality.

We could be talking about choices re what soup to eat for lunch, choices about what sort of clothing to wear, etc.--that stuff has nothing at all to do with morality. We'd at the very least have to be talking about moral choices per se.

I can't wait to hear what sort of sufficient criterion you have for classifying choices into moral and non-moral!

If your choice of soup removed you from the gene pool (food poisoning) I'd imagine it was a moral choice.

If your choice of philosophy leads to the premature extinction of your tribe, I'd imagine it's a moral choice.

[bahman]

What would you say that graph has to do with morality? I'd say nothing. But you're obviously thinking that morality is something very different than what I'd say it is.

So the sum of human choices over the extent of human history has nothing to do with the direction of the graph?

It's a coincidence that it went up?

"The sum of human choices" is not at all a sufficient data set to have something to do with morality. We could be talking about choices re what soup to eat for lunch, choices about what sort of clothing to wear, etc.--that stuff has nothing at all to do with morality (well, at least not obviously.) We'd at the very least have to be talking about moral choices per se.

Not that a life span chart tells us anything about choices at all, necessarily, by the way. Moral choices or not.

Are you saying that living healthier is not moral?

[Skepdick]

Not that a life span chart tells us anything about choices at all, necessarily, by the way. Moral choices or not.

Well, maybe it doesn't tell you anything, but it surprises me that the future post 1800 was nothing like the past.

And surprise sure is a measure of new information...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_content

[Terrapin Station]

"The sum of human choices" is not at all a sufficient data set to have something to do with morality.

We could be talking about choices re what soup to eat for lunch, choices about what sort of clothing to wear, etc.--that stuff has nothing at all to do with morality. We'd at the very least have to be talking about moral choices per se.

I can't wait to hear what sort of sufficient criterion you have for classifying choices into moral and non-moral!

If your choice of soup removed you from the gene pool (food poisoning) I'd imagine it was a moral choice.

I already explained this. First, I define morality as dispositions about interpersonal behavior that one considers to be more significant than etiquette. The dispositions in question are in the vein of behavior one finds acceptable/unacceptable, permissible versus impermissible, etc.

Or as I wrote just a few posts above:

"Morality has to do with assessments and recommendations of conduct. Regarding recommendations, we're talking about whether a behavior is morally permissible, morally prohibited, morally obligatory, and so on. Re assessments, it's saying that a behavior is good, bad, benevolent, evil, altruistic, selfish, etc. with an implication that behavior that is good is permissible if not obligatory, behavior that is bad is to be avoided, and so on. So the assessments have implied recommendations."

You suggested that "Morality is the collective effort of ensuring the continued human survival and improved human wellbeing," and that has a disposition towards behavior packed into it--a preference for continued human survival/improved well-being over the alternative, otherwise there would be no reason to suggest that that's what morality is over the alternative.

We can claim that something very different, like some set of facts about lifespans, etc., is what morality is, although that wouldn't bear much resemblance to how almost anyone else uses the term "morality" or what they're referring to with that term, and we should make clear just what set of facts we're using the term to refer to and why.

If we're saying something so vague as "facts that should improved well-being," then we're going to need to explain just what facts are to count as "well-being" versus alternatives.

[Terrapin Station]

So the sum of human choices over the extent of human history has nothing to do with the direction of the graph?

It's a coincidence that it went up?

"The sum of human choices" is not at all a sufficient data set to have something to do with morality. We could be talking about choices re what soup to eat for lunch, choices about what sort of clothing to wear, etc.--that stuff has nothing at all to do with morality (well, at least not obviously.) We'd at the very least have to be talking about moral choices per se.

Not that a life span chart tells us anything about choices at all, necessarily, by the way. Moral choices or not.

Are you saying that living healthier is not moral?

Not in itself. It would have something to do with morality if we were to say things like, "One ought to live healthier," or "It is morally good to live a healthy life" and so on. Morality has to do with behavioral assessments and recommendations.

[Skepdick]

I already explained this. First, I define morality as dispositions about interpersonal behavior that one considers to be more significant than etiquette. The dispositions in question are in the vein of behavior one finds acceptable/unacceptable, permissible versus impermissible, etc.

That's a whole lot of adjectives in there.

How do you define and determine "significance"?

Who determines "significance"?

"Morality has to do with assessments and recommendations of conduct. Regarding recommendations, we're talking about whether a behavior is morally permissible, morally prohibited, morally obligatory, and so on. Re assessments, it's saying that a behavior is good, bad, benevolent, evil, altruistic, selfish, etc. with an implication that behavior that is good is permissible if not obligatory, behavior that is bad is to be avoided, and so on. So the assessments have implied recommendations."

So moral rules OUGHT to be followed?

You suggested that "Morality is the collective effort of ensuring the continued human survival and improved human wellbeing," and that has a disposition towards behavior packed into it--a preference for continued human survival/improved well-being over the alternative, otherwise there would be no reason to suggest that that's what morality is over the alternative.

It's decidable. That's a fucking good reason.

Living to 85 is objectively better than living to 45 (ceteris paribus).

If we're saying something so vague as "facts that should improved well-being," then we're going to need to explain just what facts are to count as "well-being" versus alternatives.

If you are going to demand an explanations, then I demand you explain why the system violated homeostasis.

There's absolutely no reason for human longevity to change.

What caused it?

[Skepdick]

Not in itself. It would have something to do with morality if we were to say things like, "One ought to live healthier," or "It is morally good to live a healthy life" and so on. Morality has to do with behavioral assessments and recommendations.

What if you are mute and you can't write or speak?

Ceteris paribus and good health would you choose death at 45 or death 85?
Would you choose to live in 2000BC or 2021 AD?

Actions speaking louder than words and all of that?

[Terrapin Station]

How do you define and determine "significance"?

Not defined in any unusual way: "the quality of being worthy of attention; importance." etc.

Who determines "significance"?

The individual whose dispositions we're talking about.

"Morality has to do with assessments and recommendations of conduct. Regarding recommendations, we're talking about whether a behavior is morally permissible, morally prohibited, morally obligatory, and so on. Re assessments, it's saying that a behavior is good, bad, benevolent, evil, altruistic, selfish, etc. with an implication that behavior that is good is permissible if not obligatory, behavior that is bad is to be avoided, and so on. So the assessments have implied recommendations."

So moral rules OUGHT to be followed?

Yes. That's the whole gist of what we're talking about when we're talking about morality. Ways that people believe people OUGHT to or SHOULD behave. Otherwise we're talking about something else (not morality).

You suggested that "Morality is the collective effort of ensuring the continued human survival and improved human wellbeing," and that has a disposition towards behavior packed into it--a preference for continued human survival/improved well-being over the alternative, otherwise there would be no reason to suggest that that's what morality is over the alternative.

It's decidable. That's a fucking good reason.

What does that mean? How would "the collective effort of ensuring the continued human survival and improved human well-being" be decidable while "collective effort of NOT ensuring the continued human survival and improved human well-being" be undecidable?

Living to 85 is objectively better than living to 45 (ceteris paribus).

Objectively better PER WHAT? (And you really should clarify how you're using "objective" there)

If you are going to demand an explanations, then I demand you explain why the system violated homeostasis.

There's absolutely no reason for human longevity to change.

What caused it?

A change in genetics is one of many possible reasons. There would be tons of possible reasons. This is irrelevant though, because the whole issue has nothing to do with morality.

[Terrapin Station]

Not in itself. It would have something to do with morality if we were to say things like, "One ought to live healthier," or "It is morally good to live a healthy life" and so on. Morality has to do with behavioral assessments and recommendations.

What if you are mute and you can't write or speak?

Oy vey.

[Skepdick]

Not defined in any unusual way: "the quality of being worthy of attention; importance." etc.

That's rather circular.

How do you define "worth" and "import"?

Are the qualities of worth and import more important than the quality of life?

The individual whose dispositions we're talking about.

So how does an individual reify their dispositions except through making consequential choices?

Wouldn't you say that human dispositions have measurable effect on reality?

Say... continued measurable improvements in the quality of life

Yes. That's the whole gist of what we're talking about when we talking about morality. Ways that people believe people OUGHT to or SHOULD behave. Otherwise we're talking about something else (not morality).

I am talking about morality. You are talking about social conduct.

What does that mean? How would "the collective effort of ensuring the continued human survival and improved human well-being" be decidable while "collective effort of NOT ensuring the continued human survival and improved human well-being" be undecidable?

They are both decidable.

Mine is supported by the data.
Yours isn't.

That's how falsification works, no?

Objectively better PER WHAT? (And you really should clarify how you're using "objective" there)

I am using it in the usual scientific sense.

Measurable by a human.

A change in genetics is one of many possible reasons.

So it's objective. Great - which gene is it?

There would be tons of possible reasons. This is irrelevant though, because the whole issue has nothing to do with morality.

So reducing murders globally over centuries has nothing to do with morality?

I don't want your morality.

[Terrapin Station]

That's rather circular.

Take it up with the dictionary.

How do you define "worth" and "import"?

No. I'm not going to start defining a bunch of different terms. You'd have to at least provide a list of terms that I wouldn't have to define for you before I'd start that.

Are the qualities of worth and import more important than the quality of life?

Depends on who you ask, obviously. Importance always does.

So how does an individual reify their dispositions except through making consequential choices?

Huh? Why are we talking about reifying dispositions?


I'm not getting into this crap with increasingly longer posts/increasingly more issues. I'll cut it off here for now. I didn't read past this point. Don't quibble with every single thing if you want to not have this happen. Otherwise if you don't care, cool.

[Skepdick]

What does that mean? How would "the collective effort of ensuring the continued human survival and improved human well-being" be decidable while "collective effort of NOT ensuring the continued human survival and improved human well-being" be undecidable?

Since you want to play devil's advocate, I challenge you to commit to your position.

Take a bold step towards undermining human longevity and publish your plan on YouTube.

I'd love to see what happens next.

[Terrapin Station]

What does that mean? How would "the collective effort of ensuring the continued human survival and improved human well-being" be decidable while "collective effort of NOT ensuring the continued human survival and improved human well-being" be undecidable?

Since you want to play devil's advocate, I challenge you to commit to your position.

Take a bold step towards undermining human longevity and publish your plan on YouTube.

I'd love to see what happens next.

My position wasn't anything about that.