Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

This tread just goes on and on, there is but one answer. Out of our subjective knowing we manifest into the physical world the meanings we biologically experience, and those take the forms of systems, institutions, rules, laws etc. In other words, our subjective knowledge is made manifest as biological extensions, or expressions of our humanity.

Oh. You do have something to say. Okay.

That "one answer" doesn't work. All it means is that morality is simply a biological accident. So there's no duty for anybody to care about it, no responsibility to follow it, and no need to care about it. Follow it or not, as our personal "subjective knowing" may incline us.

So there will be no societies built, no justice ever enacted, no laws that are not merely arbitrary exercises of power, no culture, no consistency, no coordination of projects...just whatever any individual subjectively feels...and only for as long as he happens to feel it.

Then genocides are okay. Racism's okay. Rape is okay. Pedophilia is okay. Murder's okay. Just so long as that's what somebody wants to "manifest into the physical world" as "an expression of our humanity."

Or is there more to say?

[iambiguous]

...in the case of morality, as you can see. It's the subjectivist who can't make sense, who can't fill out a basic moral syllogism, and who ends up making excuses for things like 'racial purity,' because he's afraid to say that something is objectively wrong.

Here I have myself acknowledged that I do come close at times to believing that "somehow" in a No God world morality can still be objective:

This comes closest to upending my own "fractured and fragmented" frame of mind. People tap me on the shoulder and ask "can you seriously believe that the Holocaust or abusing children or cold-blooded murder is not inherently, necessarily immoral?"

And, sure, the part of me that would never, could never imagine my own participation in things of this sort has a hard time accepting that, yes, in a No God world they are still behaviors able to be rationalized by others as either moral or, for the sociopaths, justified given their belief that everything revolves around their own "me, myself and I" self-gratification.

And what is the No God philosophical -- scientific? -- argument that establishes certain behaviors as in fact objectively right or objectively wrong? Isn't it true that philosophers down through the ages who did embrace one or another rendition of deontology always included one or another rendition of the transcending font -- God -- to back it all up?

For all I know, had my own life been different...for any number of reasons...I would myself be here defending the Holocaust. Or engaging in what most construe to be morally depraved behaviors.

After all, do not the pro-life folks insist that abortion itself is no less a Holocaust inflicted on the unborn? And do not the pro-choice folks rationalize this behavior with their own subjective sets of assumptions.

Though, okay, if someone here is convinced they have in fact discovered the optimal reason why we should behave one way and not any other, let's explore that in a No God world.

What would be argued when confronting the Adolph Hitlers and the Ted Bundys and the 9/11 religious fanatics and the sociopaths among us. Arguments such that they would be convinced that the behaviors they choose are indeed inherently, necessarily immoral.

As for race, I was once myself a virulent racist as a boy. I was raised in the belly of the white working class beast and the "N" word was everywhere. When we played games we'd start them with "Eeny, meeny, miny, moe, catch a n****r by the toe.." We used to go behind the Burkleigh Manor apartments to the literal shacks occupied by black families and "free" their dogs. We couldn't stand the thought of them being raised by n****rs. Then I discovered Christianity and later in the Army met soldiers who completely turned me around on race. And lots of other things.

As for the objective truth about race, if you Google the science of race, you get this: https://www.google.com/search?source=hp ... gle+Search

The overwhelming majority of the links debunk the idea that "racial purity" and "racial superiority" is an objective fact. But I'm sure there are some here and there -- https://knowthyself.forumotion.net/f6-agora -- who can link you to others arguing that racism is entirely rational. But genes that can be reconfigured given particular aggregations of memes?

But, again, how to explain the fact that racism is still very much a reality around the globe? Is there perhaps a "biological imperative" such that we are programmed genetically to deem those who are different from us [in particular ways] as "one of them"

Again, though, in the absence of God, how to pin it all down such that it actually disappears from the planet?

The problem is worse.

It's not just that we don't know HOW to make racism (or other evil things) disappear from the planet; it's that under subjectivism, we don't even know THAT racism "should" disappear.

Right. And the reason we don't know how is because every single man, woman and child on the planet has not accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior? Nor, of far greater importance, have they agreed to embrace Christianity precisely as IC does? Of course, down through the ages there have been many Christians who embraced racism themselves. Indeed, even enslaved black people. And in part because they noted passages from the Christian Bible seeming to embrace it in turn. And still, today, there are KKK members and other white supremist who are devout Christians.

Here is a book review from Christianity Today attempting to explore this: https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/20 ... acism.html

After all, since morality is nothing more than a statement of my personal liking or disliking of a thing, who made me God, so that what I like or dislike should hold for others, far less for the whole world?

Typical: IC reducing the complex points I raise regarding identity, value judgments and morality on these thread...

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

...down to whatever that is supposed to mean!!

And that's why racist arguments can continue. Because in a purely materialist, evolutionary world, eugenics make perfect sense. Why not regard some "races" as "underevolved," and others as more "fit for survival"? Why not "selectively breed" humanity -- after all, it works for our pets, our dogs and our cats? Why not kill the weak, the underdeveloped, the unwanted, the elderly and the unborn? Do we not thereby improve the "breeding stock" of humankind, and promote evolution? In any case, if we decide to try, who will say us nay?

Well, if You are an omniscient and omnipotent God why create mere mortals with different skin color in the first place? Why stand by and do absolutely nothing to stop the terrible pain and suffering inflicted by one race upon another? Especially regarding those who call themselves Christians still today doing all of those things.

So the argument from subjectivism can be raised that we should allow these things...or at least, that there's no objective basis for us to stand against them, if they do. And what contrary argument is adequate to refute that?

Again, however, if one is going to use Christianity as the basis for objective morality, they can start here:

https://www.ranker.com/list/bible-passa ... ivana-wynn
https://ffrf.org/publications/freethoug ... ent-verses
https://www.salon.com/2014/05/31/11_kin ... e_partner/
https://medium.com/@minethedepths/6-dis ... 9d1c07560e

And on and on and on.

Or, perhaps, is the Christian God Himself not a true Christian in IC's estimation?

But don't you and I know that racism is wrong, eugenics are a perversion and genocide is an unspeakable evil? Don't we both know that? So from where, and from what, are we getting this knowledge? Can it really be no more than my personal emotion? And if that's all it is, how can I really expect such things to "disappear from the world," since I can't even think of a reason they should?

Okay, subjectivists: you're on deck. What have you got?

No, I am not myself able to definitively establish in a No God world that anything mere mortals do to each others is inherently and necessarily either right or wrong. Instead conflicting goods -- including racism -- prevail around the globe. My own moral philosophy is, as I have noted here, one that has left me "fractured and fragmented". And I have attempted to explain why that is the case "for all practical purposes".

Then the part where you insist that it is the Christian God that imparts this knowledge to us. Whereas many of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...would beg to differ.

And of course back to the part where Mr. Snippet configures into Mr. Wiggle.

The part where he not only insists it is the Christian God who imparts this objective morality to us, but, further, that he can prove that the Christian God does in fact exist.

But then refuses to provide us with that demonstrable proof.

He could easily note this evidence by exploring his reaction to those YouTube videos one by one. I have even assured him that I would watch them myself along with him one by one and discuss them.

Indeed, in regard to the "meaning" video that he suggested to Gary, the Christian herself admits to the atheist that what she tells him about Christianity does not prove that it's true!!!

[popeye1945]

This tread just goes on and on, there is but one answer. Out of our subjective knowing we manifest into the physical world the meanings we biologically experience, and those take the forms of systems, institutions, rules, laws etc. In other words, our subjective knowledge is made manifest as biological extensions, or expressions of our humanity.

Oh. You do have something to say. Okay.

That "one answer" doesn't work. All it means is that morality is simply a biological accident. So there's no duty for anybody to care about it, no responsibility to follow it, and no need to care about it. Follow it or not, as our personal "subjective knowing" may incline us.
So there will be no societies built, no justice ever enacted, no laws that are not merely arbitrary exercises of power, no culture, no consistency, no coordination of projects...just whatever any individual subjectively feels...and only for as long as he happens to feel it.
Then genocides are okay. Racism's okay. Rape is okay. Pedophilia is okay. Murder's okay. Just so long as that's what somebody wants to "manifest into the physical world" as "an expression of our humanity." Or is there more to say?

Morality is biological self-interest, and those interests are pretty much the same due to our common biology. So, our common biology is the reasonable subject of morality, the supernatural just obscures the reality of this foundation. Morality arises when there is identity with others, an expanded concept of the self. Societies are formations of like kinds, like selves, gathered together for their common self-interests, well-being and security. The reality is that nature cares not for the individual's survival, and the collective/society offers a mode of survival as a reaction to the harshness of nature conditions. Morality is a necessity in the form of self-survival, and common across species, in the packs, groups, and societies they themselves form. There is some differences of moralities across cultures, some extremely perverse, as is with the Muslim faith in trying to live in today's world with a mythology of the seventh century.

There was no age of enlightenment for the Muslim faith, and now they are a danger to the world at large. The differences in mortality between cultures only go so far, the basics is the common well-being of the group, thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, and a few other thou shall nots, all based on the common well-being and security of the group/society. There is between members of a society whether stated or not, an understanding of a social contract of behavior's, violate that contract, and you will be ostracized or placed in prison. A loop in the system that serves to preserve itself. Difficulties arise when societies/cultures do not extend their morality to embrace the world at large, but limit it to their particular group or society. Proper care in the form of well-being and security should be extended to our global common biology worldwide. Faith is lobotomy!

[Immanuel Can]

Morality is biological self-interest, and those interests are pretty much the same due to our common biology.

Well, that's just Social Darwinism...which is usually regarded as pretty much the opposite of "moral," but okay; let's look at that.

• It's clear that I have a primary interest in my own survival.

• It's also somewhat clear that I have an interest in the survival of my species...at least inasmuch as I need them for herd protection, or mating, or whatever. But that's less clear than my interest in my own survival.

• Do I have any interest in YOUR survival? Or do I have any interest in the survival of any particular individuals with the herd? Not really. You're all replaceable.

And exactly what, in this "self-interested" hierarchy of values that I have, do we find something we would want to label as "moral"?

Nothing, really. I mean, my own "self-interest" is obvious, but is just "self-interest." My interest in the survival of my pack is merely instrumental -- they are useful to me, and if they are not useful to me, then my "self-interest" does not any longer extend to them. But other people, including you and all other particular persons, I have no "self-interest" in the question of which of them survives and which doesn't. And at no point do I need to consult "morality" on the matter.

So, our common biology is the reasonable subject of morality,

The opposite, then. For then, morality is totally obsolete. I have myself, and my "self-interest." Nothing else moves me. I don't "owe" anybody anything, and thus there's nothing I "ought," meaning "owe-it" to do.

For that matter, I don't even "owe" myself to survive. Evolution kills things all the time, and will eventually kill me, no matter what I do. So where is this "morality" thing?

Morality arises when there is identity with others, an expanded concept of the self.

But this is just an illusion. The others are not "myself." And I don't owe them anything, especially when that thing disrupts whatever I see as in my "self-interest." What you're talking about is actually the opposite of "self-interest," a kind of "self-sacrificing" and "other-interest." On what basis do you get me from "self-interest" to that?

Societies are formations of like kinds, like selves, gathered together for their common self-interests, well-being and security.

That's the second bullet: instrumental usefulness. It has no "morality" to it: if I find them useful, they're useful. If they're not...

The reality is that nature cares not for the individual's survival,

Well "nature" doesn't care for anything. So that's not news.

Morality is a necessity in the form of self-survival, and common across species, in the packs, groups, and societies they themselves form.

That's actually demonstrably not the case, as above. I do need "a pack," perhaps; I don't necessarily need "this pack" or the individuals in it more than the raw fact of "a pack." And again, that's just instrumental, not moral.

The differences in mortality between cultures only go so far, the basics is the common well-being of the group, thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, and a few other thou shall nots,

And here, you lapse into quoting the Torah, the Old Testament laws. But you don't believe in any of that, and it's extremely odd that you pull it out now. It's not obvious from "self-interest" that any of those apply...in fact, the opposite seems obvious. It's not in my "self-interest" not to steal. It's not in my "self-interest" not to kill, if I can get away with it. So you're quoting texts that affirm the rights of others above my own immediate "self-interest." On what principle do I owe it to put off my desire to kill or steal, if "self-interest" is the root good of all the rest?

...a social contract ...

That's a total myth.

There never was a "social contract." At what point in your life was it presented to you? When did you sign it? And if that never happened, why should you believe you owe the terms of a "contract" to your "society"?

...violate that contract, and you will be ostracized or placed in prison.

And if they don't catch me? Then that doesn't happen. So that 's just a matter of power and contingency...not of morality.

Besides, what you're suggesting is that they, without reference to justice, could hurt me if I perform certain acts (and get caught). Assuming that's true, assuming they can do that to me, what makes it "moral" that they do?

Difficulties arise when societies/cultures do not extend their morality to embrace the world at large, but limit it to their particular group or society.

It's much worse than that.

You say you do not respect Muslim morality. Okay, we agree that it's not what you and I regard as "moral": but why don't you respect it? Why is your Western, humanistic, globalist moralizing (if that's all it is) able to suppress Muslim, or Hindu, or Taoist, or Marxist "moralities," in favour of yours? Who made the Western humanist the king of the globe? We're not even the majority of the world's population -- by a long shot. But if we were, it would still need to be shown that our "morality" was "more moral" than everybody else's.

What you're arguing for, then, is gratuitious global imperialism by force -- not "morality" at all.

But now, let's see how your paradigm would fit into a standard moral prohibition. The Frege-Geach example of Emotivism is:

P1: Killing is boo.
P2: If Killing is boo, then getting your brother to kill is wrong.
C: Therefore, getting your brother to kill is wrong.

Let's put in your terms: "self-interest."

P1: Killing is against "self-interest."
P2: If Killing is against "self-interest", then getting your brother to kill is against "self-interest." (we can't say "wrong," because that's a moral term, and you've said that "self-interest" is the only such thing possible).
C: Therefore, getting your brother to kill is against "self-interest."

Many problems here. P1 isn't a given at all, since we can think of many situations in which killing might line up with "self-interest." P2 doesn't follow at all: it might be against your own "self-interest" to kill (possibly, but we don't know that), but why would it not serve your turn to have somebody else kill, since they get the only negative possible, the punishment levied by force (not justice) by your society? And the C just looks wrong, then; it might well be in your "self-interest" to induce somebody else to do the deed for you.

The upshot? There's actually no information about morality in your paradigm. There's just "self-interest," which isn't at all necessarily a moral property -- unless you've got some way to show it is. But given Evolutionism, I don't think you have any resources for that.

[Dontaskme]

I have myself, and my "self-interest." Nothing else moves me. I don't "owe" anybody anything, and thus there's nothing I "ought," meaning "owe-it" to do.

For that matter, I don't even "owe" myself to survive. Evolution kills things all the time, and will eventually kill me, no matter what I do. So where is this "morality" thing?

It's hard to die IC...be still and know you are nobody. Sometimes the truth does not want to be heard.

The ''morality'' thing is ''thought'' and the ''thought'' is the ''thinker''

Think only for yourself, ask yourself, what would you be? would you be the observer of somebody, or the observed somebody?
The self who is observing, who doesn't actually exist aside from circular reinforcing belief in itself, is the hallucination which obscures the true self which is what you are. Non-local, nonexistent, infinite perfect peace.

Now bring a mirror and let a dirty face recognise itself.

[popeye1945]

Morality is biological self-interest, and those interests are pretty much the same due to our common biology.

Well, that's just Social Darwinism...which is usually regarded as pretty much the opposite of "moral," but okay; let's look at that.

• It's clear that I have a primary interest in my own survival.

• It's also somewhat clear that I have an interest in the survival of my species...at least inasmuch as I need them for herd protection, or mating, or whatever. But that's less clear than my interest in my own survival.

• Do I have any interest in YOUR survival? Or do I have any interest in the survival of any particular individuals with the herd? Not really. You're all replaceable.

And exactly what, in this "self-interested" hierarchy of values that I have, do we find something we would want to label as "moral"?

Nothing, really. I mean, my own "self-interest" is obvious, but is just "self-interest." My interest in the survival of my pack is merely instrumental -- they are useful to me, and if they are not useful to me, then my "self-interest" does not any longer extend to them. But other people, including you and all other particular persons, I have no "self-interest" in the question of which of them survives and which doesn't. And at no point do I need to consult "morality" on the matter.

So, our common biology is the reasonable subject of morality,

The opposite, then. For then, morality is totally obsolete. I have myself, and my "self-interest." Nothing else moves me. I don't "owe" anybody anything, and thus there's nothing I "ought," meaning "owe-it" to do.

For that matter, I don't even "owe" myself to survive. Evolution kills things all the time, and will eventually kill me, no matter what I do. So where is this "morality" thing?

Morality arises when there is identity with others, an expanded concept of the self.

But this is just an illusion. The others are not "myself." And I don't owe them anything, especially when that thing disrupts whatever I see as in my "self-interest." What you're talking about is actually the opposite of "self-interest," a kind of "self-sacrificing" and "other-interest." On what basis do you get me from "self-interest" to that?

Societies are formations of like kinds, like selves, gathered together for their common self-interests, well-being and security.

That's the second bullet: instrumental usefulness. It has no "morality" to it: if I find them useful, they're useful. If they're not...

The reality is that nature cares not for the individual's survival,

Well "nature" doesn't care for anything. So that's not news.

Morality is a necessity in the form of self-survival, and common across species, in the packs, groups, and societies they themselves form.

That's actually demonstrably not the case, as above. I do need "a pack," perhaps; I don't necessarily need "this pack" or the individuals in it more than the raw fact of "a pack." And again, that's just instrumental, not moral.

The differences in mortality between cultures only go so far, the basics is the common well-being of the group, thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, and a few other thou shall nots,

And here, you lapse into quoting the Torah, the Old Testament laws. But you don't believe in any of that, and it's extremely odd that you pull it out now. It's not obvious from "self-interest" that any of those apply...in fact, the opposite seems obvious. It's not in my "self-interest" not to steal. It's not in my "self-interest" not to kill, if I can get away with it. So you're quoting texts that affirm the rights of others above my own immediate "self-interest." On what principle do I owe it to put off my desire to kill or steal, if "self-interest" is the root good of all the rest?

...a social contract ...

That's a total myth.

There never was a "social contract." At what point in your life was it presented to you? When did you sign it? And if that never happened, why should you believe you owe the terms of a "contract" to your "society"?

...violate that contract, and you will be ostracized or placed in prison.

And if they don't catch me? Then that doesn't happen. So that 's just a matter of power and contingency...not of morality.

Besides, what you're suggesting is that they, without reference to justice, could hurt me if I perform certain acts (and get caught). Assuming that's true, assuming they can do that to me, what makes it "moral" that they do?

Difficulties arise when societies/cultures do not extend their morality to embrace the world at large, but limit it to their particular group or society.

It's much worse than that.

You say you do not respect Muslim morality. Okay, we agree that it's not what you and I regard as "moral": but why don't you respect it? Why is your Western, humanistic, globalist moralizing (if that's all it is) able to suppress Muslim, or Hindu, or Taoist, or Marxist "moralities," in favour of yours? Who made the Western humanist the king of the globe? We're not even the majority of the world's population -- by a long shot. But if we were, it would still need to be shown that our "morality" was "more moral" than everybody else's.

What you're arguing for, then, is gratuitious global imperialism by force -- not "morality" at all.

But now, let's see how your paradigm would fit into a standard moral prohibition. The Frege-Geach example of Emotivism is:

P1: Killing is boo.
P2: If Killing is boo, then getting your brother to kill is wrong.
C: Therefore, getting your brother to kill is wrong.

Let's put in your terms: "self-interest."

P1: Killing is against "self-interest."
P2: If Killing is against "self-interest", then getting your brother to kill is against "self-interest." (we can't say "wrong," because that's a moral term, and you've said that "self-interest" is the only such thing possible).
C: Therefore, getting your brother to kill is against "self-interest."

Many problems here. P1 isn't a given at all, since we can think of many situations in which killing might line up with "self-interest." P2 doesn't follow at all: it might be against your own "self-interest" to kill (possibly, but we don't know that), but why would it not serve your turn to have somebody else kill, since they get the only negative possible, the punishment levied by force (not justice) by your society? And the C just looks wrong, then; it might well be in your "self-interest" to induce somebody else to do the deed for you.

The upshot? There's actually no information about morality in your paradigm. There's just "self-interest," which isn't at all necessarily a moral property -- unless you've got some way to show it is. But given Evolutionism, I don't think you have any resources for that.

You are on overkill; all you need do it look at the western desert religions/3, void all the supernatural otherworldly material, and what you have is a basic interest in the wellbeing and security of a given population. Your inference of social Darwinism is just nonsense, I would have expected higher of you. Social Darwinism developed after the time of Darwin and cannot be attributed to him. Any resources you can quote, lol! yourself interest in your own wellbeing and security. I truly am sorry for you if you cannot see it, and must rely on ancient holy scriptures to instruct your behaviors. FAITH IS A LOBOTOMY, and you have proved my point.

[Immanuel Can]

You are on overkill; all you need do it look at the western desert religions/3, void all the supernatural otherworldly material, and what you have is a basic interest in the wellbeing and security of a given population.

There's no duty within an Evolutionary worldview to prefer "the wellbeing and security of a given population" when your own is at stake, or even when you just suppose it is. Your interest in others is purely instrumental...if they serve you, good; if they don't, then the Devil can take them all. That's the logic of survival.

Social Darwinism developed after the time of Darwin and cannot be attributed to him.

Its original spokesperson is said to be Herbert Spencer, of course. But then, I never said Darwin developed his ideas to the point of applying them to social morality, did I? That was your incorrect inference. However, there's nothing in Darwin at all that resists Spencer's application...and very clearly, Darwin knew no more about real morality than Spencer did.

But hey, you can prove me wrong: fill out that syllogism I gave you in my last message. Put in your "boos" in any terms you think are appropriate. Let's see if we get anything that looks "moral" -- or even plausible -- at all.

If we do, you've got me.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are on overkill; all you need do it look at the western desert religions/3, void all the supernatural otherworldly material, and what you have is a basic interest in the wellbeing and security of a given population.

There's no duty within an Evolutionary worldview to prefer "the wellbeing and security of a given population" when your own is at stake, or even when you just suppose it is. Your interest in others is purely instrumental...if they serve you, good; if they don't, then the Devil can take them all. That's the logic of survival.

You are very ignorant of human nature and your own psychological nature.

There is an imperative duty within ALL humans to breathe, else they die.
This is critical to the survival of the individuals therefrom to the human species.

This 'oughtness to breathe' is represented by its corresponding neural correlates, the algorithm and that represented by physical neurons in action.
This is obviously objective within the science-biology FSK.

Some may choose not to breathe in case of suicides.
But that does not obviate the existence of the objective neural algorithm mechanisms, but rather the choice not to breathe is due to damage and malfunction of the real existing mechanisms.

There are many biological oughtnesss and ought-not-ness within the human systems that will facilitate the well being of the individual and therefrom the human species.

Among the many of biological oughtnesss and ought-not-ness are those related to morality.
It is on this basis that morality reducible to its physical referent is objective.

One of the very obvious moral ought-not-ness is the ought-not-ness to torture and kill babies for pleasure.
This ought-not-ness is present in ALL humans and reducible to its physical referent i.e. the live & active neurons.
There may be a few humans who had (and would) tortured and killed babies for pleasure due to damage and malfunction of the inherent neural algorithm, but that does not obviate the existence of such inherent mechanisms of ought-non-ness in them.

ALL humans has inherent and innate biological moral oughtnesss and ought-not-ness to facilitate their moral being [albeit of different degrees of activeness].

Humanity has the responsibility to expedite the current activeness [which is low] of those innate moral features to increase the average moral competencies of all humans.

While the present moral progress of the majority is slow, morality is reasonably sustained by the theistic moral FSK of which at present the Christianity Moral FSK is most effective.

But the cons of Christianity is outweighing its pros while humanity is advancing in wisdom towards the future.
Eventually and Ultimately, there is no need for a God [illusory anyway] to command and threaten humans to be moral.

[popeye1945]

You are on overkill; all you need do it look at the western desert religions/3, void all the supernatural otherworldly material, and what you have is a basic interest in the wellbeing and security of a given population.

There's no duty within an Evolutionary worldview to prefer "the wellbeing and security of a given population" when your own is at stake, or even when you just suppose it is. Your interest in others is purely instrumental...if they serve you, good; if they don't, then the Devil can take them all. That's the logic of survival.

Google the social contract.

Social Darwinism developed after the time of Darwin and cannot be attributed to him.

Its original spokesperson is said to be Herbert Spencer, of course. But then, I never said Darwin developed his ideas to the point of applying them to social morality, did I? That was your incorrect inference. However, there's nothing in Darwin at all that resists Spencer's application...and very clearly, Darwin knew no more about real morality than Spencer did. [/quote]

Spence coined the term survival of the fittest, capitalists at the beginning of the industrial revolution found it most useful to further oppress the working poor. Nature is red in tooth and claw, it is a jungle, and life lives upon life, these things Darwin knew better than most, they are the opposite values of society, this too Darwin knew only too well. You need not focus just on human societies; our animal cousins also find them most helpful in the struggle for survival. I am not sure what your protest is about, how do you not see the truth in this? As far as morality being subjective or objective, it is subjective until conscious subjects manifest the structures, systems, behavioral norms and institutions to maintain those delicate sentiments in our outside world.


But hey, you can prove me wrong: fill out that syllogism I gave you in my last message. Put in your "boos" in any terms you think are appropriate. Let's see if we get anything that looks "moral" -- or even plausible -- at all.

If we do, you've got me.
[/quote]

What specifically are you resisting here, not sure. It isn't a battle of semantics; it is common sense. Perhaps you can clarify for me, do you not believe compassion is a necessity for the formation of societies? Compassion only arises with the identification of ourselves with the self in others, no identification with, no compassion with, no societies.

[Will Bouwman]

You can "operate" it as a delusion or as a guess, maybe...you can't "operate" it with any sense that what you are "operating" reflects reality, though.

Everyone is guessing. It's the ones who are convinced they are right who are deluded. Just to be clear, anybody might actually be right; it is the conviction that is a delusion. The thing is almost everyone operates in a paradigm that is demonstrably consistent with reality. We are all party to broadly the same phenomena - the same sun, moon and stars, the same cycle of birth and death, the same joy and misery, the same pain and pleasure and as even a limp grasp of history or anthropology demonstrates, those exact same phenomena have been and still are interpreted in many ways.

If you have no evidence for Emotivism, or none that's persuasive, then on what basis do you advise people to believe in Emotivism over all the other possible paradigms?

I don't know enough about "Emotivism" as it is understood in ethics to say that I have evidence for it. I do know a bit about history and philosophy of science though and in that field it is generally accepted that exactly the same facts can be explained in the context of any number of paradigms, and with equal efficacy. Even those of a rationalist bent, analytic philosophers among them, accept inference to the best explanation as the best they can hope for.

Moreover, your argument is simply circular. It reads, "You should believe in Emotivism, not because I know it's true, but because it 'operates' in a way that I, myself, emotionally feel that I like."

As I said, I am not advocating "Emotivism" as a particular moral paradigm. What I am saying is that people choose their moral principles for emotional reasons. And then they create a moral paradigm to fit them.

Let's say that's how it is. If that's all the Emotivist has going for his case, nobody has any particular reason to believe him, nor any duty to share in any of his moral feelings.

Most people share common moral values. Most people, myself included, have a sense that murder, rape, torture, theft, dishonesty are wrong. They all fit into a lot of different moral 'paradigms', but the justification for the sense doesn't make any difference.
I'm well aware that I am projecting findings from my area of expertise onto a field where perhaps it isn't appropriate, but in science it is understood that any number of theories can account for the same phenomenon. Likewise, it seems to me, any number of moral theories can account for our sense that murder et cetera are wrong. There are paradigms that reject such common sense beliefs, the ones I know of, Plato, Machiavelli and Nietzsche spring to mind, are designed to protect elites, plutocratic, aristocratic or theocratic, from a population that doesn't want to be exploited. I don't know of any functional democracy in which the common sense moral beliefs mentioned are not punished by law and it is simply not the case that all successful democracies share the same moral paradigm.

[Immanuel Can]

You are on overkill; all you need do it look at the western desert religions/3, void all the supernatural otherworldly material, and what you have is a basic interest in the wellbeing and security of a given population.

There's no duty within an Evolutionary worldview to prefer "the wellbeing and security of a given population" when your own is at stake, or even when you just suppose it is. Your interest in others is purely instrumental...if they serve you, good; if they don't, then the Devil can take them all. That's the logic of survival.

You are very ignorant of human nature and your own psychological nature.

You're very off-topic and illogical. It doesn't matter what "human nature" might be, if that "nature" is just a product of "nature." It would be contingent and irrelevant because "nature," as you conceive of it, does not care about right and wrong.

[Immanuel Can]

You are on overkill; all you need do it look at the western desert religions/3, void all the supernatural otherworldly material, and what you have is a basic interest in the wellbeing and security of a given population.

There's no duty within an Evolutionary worldview to prefer "the wellbeing and security of a given population" when your own is at stake, or even when you just suppose it is. Your interest in others is purely instrumental...if they serve you, good; if they don't, then the Devil can take them all. That's the logic of survival.

Google the social contract.

I don't need to. I know all about it. But answer my question: when did you sign your "social contract"? Answer: never. "Social contract" is just an heuristic device, an imaginary "tool" for thinking about human relations. It does not refer to anything anybody "owes."

Nature is red in tooth and claw, it is a jungle, and life lives upon life, these things Darwin knew better than most, they are the opposite values of society, this too Darwin knew only too well.

"Red in tooth and claw" is Tennyson, not Darwin. Darwin was not an ethicist. He was an anthropologist and biologist of a rudimentary sort. That's all he really knew about that.

You need not focus just on human societies; our animal cousins also find them most helpful in the struggle for survival.

You have "animal cousins"? I'll stay away from your family gatherings.

But hey, you can prove me wrong: fill out that syllogism I gave you in my last message. Put in your "boos" in any terms you think are appropriate. Let's see if we get anything that looks "moral" -- or even plausible -- at all.

If we do, you've got me.

What specifically are you resisting here, not sure.

I know what you're resisting: having to answer the Frege-Geach problem. And why? Because,I suspect, you don't have any plausible account of a moral prohibition (or endorsement) that you can offer. Your paradigm just doesn't work.

[Immanuel Can]

You can "operate" it as a delusion or as a guess, maybe...you can't "operate" it with any sense that what you are "operating" reflects reality, though.

Everyone is guessing.

That depends on what you think "guess" means.

If you mean "wildly guessing," you'd be incorrect. If you mean, "operating probabilistically, based on what's most likely to be true," then you'd be right...but that's true of all scientific knowing, as well as all moral inquiry, so it's not a very important thought.

It's the ones who are convinced they are right who are deluded.

I always find this an interesting example of the famed "liar's paradox": really you're stating that anybody who knows anything must know nothing, and the people who claim they know nothing must be the only ones who know something.

No, that's not logical. If somebody knows something, they're going to be the ones justified in saying it. And if somebody knows nothing, then one of the things they don't know is whether or not anybody else knows something. That's just logic.

If you have no evidence for Emotivism, or none that's persuasive, then on what basis do you advise people to believe in Emotivism over all the other possible paradigms?

I don't know enough about "Emotivism" as it is understood in ethics to say that I have evidence for it.[/quote] Then you shouldn't advocate it. Evidently, you don't know what reasons people can have for believing in it, and I'm certain you don't want to mislead folks, do you?

Even those of a rationalist bent, analytic philosophers among them, accept inference to the best explanation as the best they can hope for.

No, analytic philosophers work with analytical claims and linguistic concepts, so they don't have to guess, since they deal with the meanings of words, not their reference to reality. But any empirical claims are certainly of that sort.

However, that's not a stroke against empirical knowledge. If it were, all science would instantly become impossible -- and you can see that it isn't. Probabilistic knowledge (or, if you like, high-probability "guesses") are very good stuff; they're likely right.

What I am saying is that people choose their moral principles for emotional reasons. And then they create a moral paradigm to fit them.

That's actually pretty evidently NOT how they do it. You might argue that people, say, get their morals from their upbringing, or that they get them from their own interests, perhaps. You might even get as far as saying that they choose among the things they've been given for emotional reasons; but you're not going to find that they actually make them up or create them that way. Nobody does that.

Let's say that's how it is. If that's all the Emotivist has going for his case, nobody has any particular reason to believe him, nor any duty to share in any of his moral feelings.

Most people share common moral values.

Sociologists today would strongly disagree with you. They're quite keen to recognize the fact of what they call "incommensurability," which means that they acknowledge that different moral frameworks conflict in an unresolvable way.

Most people, myself included, have a sense that murder, rape, torture, theft, dishonesty are wrong.

Only in your own society. You need to travel. You'll find that such things as slavery, rape and murder are well-established pratices in many parts of the world, and even torture is, among some primitive peoples, regarded as a high moral route to things like manhood or citizenship.

...in science it is understood that any number of theories can account for the same phenomenon.

In science, paradigms are tested and proved more or less plausible. Bad ones are usually eliminated quite quickly. That's why science "works," why it gives us new knowledge and new powers so quickly...not because it's perfect, but because it does pretty darn good work at that, at least in material things.

But morality is not science, of course. Science deals with facts, and morality with values. That's what Hume pointed out, really.

Likewise, it seems to me, any number of moral theories can account for our sense that murder et cetera are wrong.

Oh? Well, good. Show that, if you would.

Give a moral paradigm that results in the prohibition against something you consider bad. Let's say, "murder." Use the Frege-Geach approach I've been asking about, if you would...a very simple syllogism to prohibit one thing, and frame it in the way you think we all ought to believe.

[Harbal]

when did you sign your "social contract"? Answer: never. "Social contract" is just an heuristic device, an imaginary "tool" for thinking about human relations. It does not refer to anything anybody "owes."

Does it matter as long as it works? Not perfectly, but what does work perfectly?

I find this idea you have that all human behaviour is, or should be, founded on and regulated by some system of logic or rationality rather strange. That just isn't how human beings work. That's how computers and machines work.

[Iwannaplato]

There's no duty within an Evolutionary worldview to prefer "the wellbeing and security of a given population" when your own is at stake, or even when you just suppose it is. Your interest in others is purely instrumental...if they serve you, good; if they don't, then the Devil can take them all. That's the logic of survival.

It's a kind of category error to talk about duty within the evolutionary worldview and not for the reason you might argue. The category error is most humanists, say, are not saying we have a duty to act like evolution or natural selection does.

In biological theory which includes evolutionary theory humans are considered social mammals. Social mammals have built-in desires to be social to get along, to feel empathy and to collaborate. Other social animals with risk their lives for each other, sometimes even across species.

And while I am not a humanist I am sick and tired of the ugly guilt-tripping and hatred of humans inherent in the Abrahamic religions. With all their distrust of humans, of desire, of emotions. The Abrahamic religions are hardly alone in this, but that's my focus in this post. The diseased self-hate in seeing duty as the solution is something so dishonestly presented in all the noble terms. Do I need duty to treat my wive with love and respect? To not run over people? To give a shit about what my country's foreign policty leads to in the world?

If other people want to view parts of themselves as the beast and see being moral as being really good at being half prison guard/half beast within, they are welcome to that moral low ground...for themselves.

I have sympathy for the impression this is the only way to self-relate without being a terrible person. But it's wrong and further has caused so much damage.