What could make morality objective?

[Belinda]

Sure, you are right about this, but I thought we were referring to particular cases of employers, parents, and teachers. It's part of the normal remit of all of these to guide and mentor to the best of their ability.

I am afraid you will disagree with me , but what you disparagingly call "psychologising" as it affects students and employees is actually a branch of social psychology or social anthropology, carefully studied insight into particular cases of attitudes of employers, teachers, students, and employees . Implicit beliefs and habits of thought do have large effects on learning and training.

What I agree with (or not) does not matter. Before I settled into technology and science, I considered majors in both psychology and anthropology and did a great deal of research in both areas. They are both based on very flawed premises. I am convinced there is nothing of value in either, and some very dangerous ideas propagated by them both. But that is my opinion and why I have it, it's not meant to convince anyone else.

How familiar are you with histories of those two disciplines and those who make up most of the authorities? (The question is rhetorical. You don't have to explain yourself to me.) If you trust them, then you do. I don't. I think they will get you into trouble if you use them as a guide in dealing with others, but I hope not.

While academic psychology and social anthropology are are not easy to be expert at and involve years of study, they are from a layman's perspective easy to understand and can be applied in straightforward ways.

New recruits to an organised army are required to do square-bashing and similar apparently useless training methods to ensure they have the required attitude to disciplined soldiering.

Nearly all school children are required to perform some species of morning assembly sometimes of a religious nature so they are trained to feel their school is a community, whereupon they can take pride in their workplace, themselves, and their fellows.

Athletes need to learn self discipline before they can become good at their art. Martial arts, and boxing, are especially notable in this respect.

[RCSaunders]

Sure, you are right about this, but I thought we were referring to particular cases of employers, parents, and teachers. It's part of the normal remit of all of these to guide and mentor to the best of their ability.

I am afraid you will disagree with me , but what you disparagingly call "psychologising" as it affects students and employees is actually a branch of social psychology or social anthropology, carefully studied insight into particular cases of attitudes of employers, teachers, students, and employees . Implicit beliefs and habits of thought do have large effects on learning and training.

What I agree with (or not) does not matter. Before I settled into technology and science, I considered majors in both psychology and anthropology and did a great deal of research in both areas. They are both based on very flawed premises. I am convinced there is nothing of value in either, and some very dangerous ideas propagated by them both. But that is my opinion and why I have it, it's not meant to convince anyone else.

How familiar are you with histories of those two disciplines and those who make up most of the authorities? (The question is rhetorical. You don't have to explain yourself to me.) If you trust them, then you do. I don't. I think they will get you into trouble if you use them as a guide in dealing with others, but I hope not.

While academic psychology and social anthropology are are not easy to be expert at and involve years of study, they are from a layman's perspective easy to understand and can be applied in straightforward ways.

New recruits to an organised army are required to do square-bashing and similar apparently useless training methods to ensure they have the required attitude to disciplined soldiering.

Nearly all school children are required to perform some species of morning assembly sometimes of a religious nature so they are trained to feel their school is a community, whereupon they can take pride in their workplace, themselves, and their fellows.

Athletes need to learn self discipline before they can become good at their art. Martial arts, and boxing, are especially notable in this respect.

OK, Belinda. Just one comment. If those who spend their time and effort developing their physical abilities spent one tenth of that time developing their minds, most of the so-called problems of the world would go away. Those who have only ever developed some physical skill or ability to excel physically have no idea what real self-discipline is. No matter how much physical ability one has, it is absolutely useless without a well developed mind, because it is the mind one must use to determine the right and best way to use whatever physical abilities one has. Some atheletes have accumulated wealth because so many fools are willing spend their money to be excited by watching anything they think is spectacular, but no athlete, as an athlete has ever produce a product or service of any value to anyone, not even themselves.

Your view of education is right out of the handbook of the Prussian plan of education for producing good little automatons useful to the state.

[You might find the article linked interesting, even if you dislike it. It's a little longer than most of my articles, but much more important.]

[Belinda]

What I agree with (or not) does not matter. Before I settled into technology and science, I considered majors in both psychology and anthropology and did a great deal of research in both areas. They are both based on very flawed premises. I am convinced there is nothing of value in either, and some very dangerous ideas propagated by them both. But that is my opinion and why I have it, it's not meant to convince anyone else.

How familiar are you with histories of those two disciplines and those who make up most of the authorities? (The question is rhetorical. You don't have to explain yourself to me.) If you trust them, then you do. I don't. I think they will get you into trouble if you use them as a guide in dealing with others, but I hope not.

While academic psychology and social anthropology are are not easy to be expert at and involve years of study, they are from a layman's perspective easy to understand and can be applied in straightforward ways.

New recruits to an organised army are required to do square-bashing and similar apparently useless training methods to ensure they have the required attitude to disciplined soldiering.

Nearly all school children are required to perform some species of morning assembly sometimes of a religious nature so they are trained to feel their school is a community, whereupon they can take pride in their workplace, themselves, and their fellows.

Athletes need to learn self discipline before they can become good at their art. Martial arts, and boxing, are especially notable in this respect.

OK, Belinda. Just one comment. If those who spend their time and effort developing their physical abilities spent one tenth of that time developing their minds, most of the so-called problems of the world would go away. Those who have only ever developed some physical skill or ability to excel physically have no idea what real self-discipline is. No matter how much physical ability one has, it is absolutely useless without a well developed mind, because it is the mind one must use to determine the right and best way to use whatever physical abilities one has. Some atheletes have accumulated wealth because so many fools are willing spend their money to be excited by watching anything they think is spectacular, but no athlete, as an athlete has ever produce a product or service of any value to anyone, not even themselves.

Your view of education is right out of the handbook of the Prussian plan of education for producing good little automatons useful to the state.

[You might find the article linked interesting, even if you dislike it. It's a little longer than most of my articles, but much more important.]

I agree with you about what education really is and should be, for all. But my examples were of training not education. Training can co-exist with education as long as the trainees are not also brain washed or indoctrinated.


Many employers will employ only people who are likely to comply with the employers' policies, and the exception to that is slavery where it matters not whether or not the employees are willingly compliant because they can be forced to comply.

As a general rule it's not a big deal to simply inform one's new recruits as to the desired work attitude, e.g. the primacy of safety when using scaffolding, or e.g. that a policeman pay attention to human rights and recognisable laws.

In a market where labour is plentiful the employer would not have such need to inform or train the proper attitude or ethos as unsuitable applicants can be discarded at an early stage, but when labour is scarce the employer can't be so selective and has to train or at least impart some basic info as to the general tone and attitude of the work. Nobody wants an inefficient employee.

[popeye1945]

What could make morality objective, but biological consciousness reacting to its sense of well-being relative to the world at large.

[Peter Holmes]

What could make morality objective, but biological consciousness reacting to its sense of well-being relative to the world at large.

But 'biological consciousness reacting to its sense of well-being relative to the world at large' could result - and has resulted - in what many or most of us regard as immorality. So biological consciousness (?) can't be the source or foundation of moral objectivity.

[popeye1945]

What could make morality objective, but biological consciousness reacting to its sense of well-being relative to the world at large.

But 'biological consciousness reacting to its sense of well-being relative to the world at large' could result - and has resulted - in what many or most of us regard as immorality. So biological consciousness (?) can't be the source or foundation of moral objectivity.

Hi Peter,

I believe your thinking of biological consciousness out of the context of the group/society. It is true that a powerful personality, particularly a psychopathic personality can sway the collective if he appeals to the self-interest of the majority group within that society as happens all the time to the unfortunate minorities. This is perhaps one reason or rationality for desiring a homogeneous population, but then perhaps they would single of out brown/blue eye people who knows. There are societies that are more homogeneous in the sense of least distinctions between groups, it would be interesting to compare the incidence of the oppression of minorities across the board.

[Peter Holmes]

What could make morality objective, but biological consciousness reacting to its sense of well-being relative to the world at large.

But 'biological consciousness reacting to its sense of well-being relative to the world at large' could result - and has resulted - in what many or most of us regard as immorality. So biological consciousness (?) can't be the source or foundation of moral objectivity.

Hi Peter,

I believe your thinking of biological consciousness out of the context of the group/society. It is true that a powerful personality, particularly a psychopathic personality can sway the collective if he appeals to the self-interest of the majority group within that society as happens all the time to the unfortunate minorities. This is perhaps one reason or rationality for desiring a homogeneous population, but then perhaps they would single of out brown/blue eye people who knows. There are societies that are more homogeneous in the sense of least distinctions between groups, it would be interesting to compare the incidence of the oppression of minorities across the board.

Thanks again. But I think you miss my point. Any attempt to found or ground morality - moral rightness or wrongness - on a fact - such as your assertion about group 'biological consciousness' - must fail. Not because there aren't facts about the human condition, but because an is-claim (a fact) can never entail an ought-claim (a moral opinion). The is/ought barrier is insuperable and impenetrable, because there's no logical connection between them.

[Advocate]

[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=566233 time=1648573098 user_id=15099]
[quote=popeye1945 post_id=566136 time=1648501160 user_id=21999]
[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=566124 time=1648496356 user_id=15099]

But 'biological consciousness reacting to its sense of well-being relative to the world at large' could result - and has resulted - in what many or most of us regard as immorality. So biological consciousness (?) can't be the source or foundation of moral objectivity.
[/quote]

Hi Peter,

I believe your thinking of biological consciousness out of the context of the group/society. It is true that a powerful personality, particularly a psychopathic personality can sway the collective if he appeals to the self-interest of the majority group within that society as happens all the time to the unfortunate minorities. This is perhaps one reason or rationality for desiring a homogeneous population, but then perhaps they would single of out brown/blue eye people who knows. There are societies that are more homogeneous in the sense of least distinctions between groups, it would be interesting to compare the incidence of the oppression of minorities across the board.
[/quote]
Thanks again. But I think you miss my point. Any attempt to found or ground morality - moral rightness or wrongness - on a fact - such as your assertion about group 'biological consciousness' - must fail. Not because there aren't facts about the human condition, but because an is-claim (a fact) can never entail an ought-claim (a moral opinion). The is/ought barrier is insuperable and impenetrable, because there's no logical connection between them.
[/quote]

That is incorrect. The correct relationship is a contingency. IF you value survival THEN certain activities are more amenable than others. Truth is a prerequisite for all non-arbitrary goals. Sustainability is a prerequisite for all non-temporary goals. Ethical truths are so to the extent we share priorities, and facts tell us more certainly how to move in that direction.

A simpler and absolutely perfect argument is this;
OUGHTs exist.
There is nowhere for OUGHTs to come from but ISes.
Therefore, all OUGHTs come from ISes.

[popeye1945]

"Thanks again. But I think you miss my point. Any attempt to found or ground morality - moral rightness or wrongness - on a fact - such as your assertion about group 'biological consciousness' - must fail. Not because there aren't facts about the human condition, but because an is-claim (a fact) can never entail an ought-claim (a moral opinion). The is/ought barrier is insuperable and impenetrable, because there's no logical connection between them.
[/quote]

Hi Peter,

Hume would be proud of you! I believe you are over thinking the matter, self-interest is the bases of the morality of organized religions, accept its all screwed up with a lot of fantasy and myth, if one strips it down to self-interest it is what holds a society together and should work in holding the world society together. Self-interest across the board spells the foundation to be our common biology, our common desire for security and well-being. It really is the only foundation that makes any sense. It is there anyway, even if people wish to call it by a different name, it is what works. Each individual is the centre of his/her own universe, the realization of the self in others evokes compassion and compassion is the seed of all morality.

[Peter Holmes]

"Thanks again. But I think you miss my point. Any attempt to found or ground morality - moral rightness or wrongness - on a fact - such as your assertion about group 'biological consciousness' - must fail. Not because there aren't facts about the human condition, but because an is-claim (a fact) can never entail an ought-claim (a moral opinion). The is/ought barrier is insuperable and impenetrable, because there's no logical connection between them.

Hi Peter,

Hume would be proud of you! I believe you are over thinking the matter, self-interest is the bases of the morality of organized religions, accept its all screwed up with a lot of fantasy and myth, if one strips it down to self-interest it is what holds a society together and should work in holding the world society together. Self-interest across the board spells the foundation to be our common biology, our common desire for security and well-being. It really is the only foundation that makes any sense. It is there anyway, even if people wish to call it by a different name, it is what works. Each individual is the centre of his/her own universe, the realization of the self in others evokes compassion and compassion is the seed of all morality.
[/quote]

My response. (The quotation ascription above seems to have gone wrong. It looks like you wrote my words. You have to leave in the code for the quoted words. Quotes nest inside each other.)

Hi, popeye. Thanks again.

Once again, you're explaining why humans have (developing) moral values and codes. And your claim is that self-interest is the explanation. And I've no doubt that is an important element in the explanation.

But that explanation has no moral entailment or implication. So, from the claim that morality is based on self-interest, it doesn't follow that morality should be based on self-interest - that an action in pursuit of self-interest is, therefore, morally right.

Hume was right about this - though wrong about other things - and mind-numbingly boring about everything, IMHO.

[popeye1945]

Hi Peter,

Hume would be proud of you! I believe you are over thinking the matter, self-interest is the bases of the morality of organized religions, accept its all screwed up with a lot of fantasy and myth, if one strips it down to self-interest it is what holds a society together and should work in holding the world society together. Self-interest across the board spells the foundation to be our common biology, our common desire for security and well-being. It really is the only foundation that makes any sense. It is there anyway, even if people wish to call it by a different name, it is what works. Each individual is the centre of his/her own universe, the realization of the self in others evokes compassion and compassion is the seed of all morality.
[/quote]

My response. (The quotation ascription above seems to have gone wrong. It looks like you wrote my words. You have to leave in the code for the quoted words. Quotes nest inside each other.)

Yes, your right sorry about that, do not know how it happened. My apology!

Hi, popeye. Thanks again.

Once again, you're explaining why humans have (developing) moral values and codes. And your claim is that self-interest is the explanation. And I've no doubt that is an important element in the explanation. But that explanation has no moral entailment or implication. So, from the claim that morality is based on self-interest, it doesn't follow that morality should be based on self-interest - that an action in pursuit of self-interest is, therefore, morally right. Hume was right about this - though wrong about other things - and mind-numbingly boring about everything, IMHO.
[/quote]

Hi Peter,
Self-interest is the key where the concept of self is expanded to include the self in others, this would include the self in our animal cousins. With the morality systems of the world, read religions, it becomes abstract confused, and scattered causing much chaos in the modern world. I might add that this is most unlikely to be realized as long as the power elite of the country are psychopaths. A very real problem in America but not just in America, the power elite are compassionless. The soul of the American empire is psychopathic, something much of the world is quite aware of as they are its victums. This however seems to have gotten far from the topic post, "What could make morality objective." it has been answered to my satisfaction so I guess we are free to range afar. What do you think?

[Peter Holmes]

Hi, popeye.

The trick is to click on the quote button - two inverted commas - in the top right hand corner of the post you want to reply to. That sets up your reply. Then, after a piece of text you want to respond to, insert the end-quote bracket, your text, then the start-quote bracket. That will isolate what you write as new text outside the boxes. (Sorry if this is advice on how to suck eggs!)

Anyway, I take your point about the breadth of moral discussion. My point has always been that we have to overcome moral objectivism first, because the delusion that there are moral facts - that actions just are morally right or wrong, regardless of anyone's opinion - is morally harmful. People who think there are moral facts, and that they know what they are - a form of egotism - can feel justified in using violence to impose their moral opinions on others.

Hence the self-righteous cruelty of: the inquisitor; the terrorist flying a plane into a building, or throwing homosexuals off one; the murderer of abortion-practitioners; the subjugator of women, including by control of their fertility - and so on.

It's not that the wicked are all moral objectivists - rather, that moral objectivism can so easily justify wickedness. And the argument is always fallacious: 'this (actual or putative) fact entails this moral conclusion'. And when an invented god is wheeled in, the delusion deepens and can go nuclear: 'my god exists, and I know what it wants'.

[FlashDangerpants]

A simpler and absolutely perfect argument is this;
OUGHTs exist.
There is nowhere for OUGHTs to come from but ISes.
Therefore, all OUGHTs come from ISes.

You understand that is an absurdly shit argument, right?

[popeye1945]

"[Anyway, I take your point about the breadth of moral discussion. My point has always been that we have to overcome moral objectivism first, because the delusion that there are moral facts - that actions just are morally right or wrong, regardless of anyone's opinion - is morally harmful. People who think there are moral facts, and that they know what they are - a form of egotism - can feel justified in using violence to impose their moral opinions on others. Hence the self-righteous cruelty of: the inquisitor; the terrorist flying a plane into a building, or throwing homosexuals off one; the murderer of abortion-practitioners; the subjugator of women, including by control of their fertility - and so on.

It's not that the wicked are all moral objectivists - rather, that moral objectivism can so easily justify wickedness. And the argument is always fallacious: 'this (actual or putative) fact entails this moral conclusion'. And when an invented god is wheeled in, the delusion deepens and can go nuclear: 'my god exists, and I know what it wants'.
[/quote]

Peter,

I do get your point, and the answer I believe is a type of Nihilism. When one realizes that the physical world is utterly without meaning in the absence of a conscious subject, it makes one realize we are all creators. With this realization, one does not feel compelled to accept what is already in place but may break from tradition or the cultural norm if it seems inappropriate to the general well-being. The foundation of the morality of a given society was undoubtedly laid down by people who felt themselves creators, but to error is human, and critical thinking and creativity should lead the way where perhaps our ancestors were wanting in judgement.

By the way thanks for the advise, I'll try to let it sink in and resolve the problem.

[Advocate]

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=566432 time=1648712126 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=566243 time=1648577646 user_id=15238]
A simpler and absolutely perfect argument is this;
OUGHTs exist.
There is nowhere for OUGHTs to come from but ISes.
Therefore, all OUGHTs come from ISes.
[/quote]
You understand that is an absurdly shit argument, right?
[/quote]

If by "absurdly shit" you mean "undeniably true", then i agree.