(I know these quotes are from several pages back, but at a cursory glance the discussion since then seems to have been based on precisely that paradigm that I reject, so rather than build a giant tower of TLDR by quoting every single point I disagree with, I'll just wait for responses to this. If someone has been said in the meantime that is particularly relevant, then by all means, point it out.)
Join my forum game!Well, it's more like deitites are used as a pretext to call a morality "objective", in what amounts to Circular Logic both in-universe and out; God is good because he says so. Trust him, he's good. Everything he does is good, because it's God doing it. And that's how you make a rock-solid, self-defending meme.
Additionally, the main two examples commonly known in our culture of "objective" morality are this and Objectivism. If you have alternate positions to offer, you have my curiosity.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Some people like to believe that the true, objective worth of something is determined by how much money it produces. By that standard, the worthiest musicians are those that sell the most records.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.To claim any sort of objective morality, first you have to decide on the purpose of that morality. But all that allows you to do is claim that a certain code of morality, if followed (and then you get in idealism and pragmatism debates. You can come up with a wonderful code of morality, but humans are humans, so you need to find one that will be followed widely) will be most likely to best result in X.
And still, all you can say is that morality is the best WE KNOW OF, under X conditions, in a certain society, at achieving Y goal.
He's such a wonderful... performer.
I for one believe that Daniel Ingram is the greatest composer of our generation. Why? Because his music, all by itself, can bring a genuine, happy smile on your face. Few musicians can claim to that, dishing out raw happiness in an instant.
Derail out.
This series of blog posts might be interesting for the topic at hand
; in them, the author, in the process of figuring out how to design a general-purpose, self-modifying AI that doesn't go horribly wrong, but instead understand and complies with human moral standards, was forced to figure out quite a few things about said standards.
Trying to say things in such a way that a machine would understand keeps you from resorting to abstraction or shortcuts or other kinds of bullshit. You have to keep things as simple, straightforward, and empirical as possible. A.I. keeps you honest.
Of course, he's not the only guy to have gone about this in such a way, using science to solve philosophical problems, and philosophy to solve technical and scientific problems; there are other
pretty
cool
guys
.
edited 18th Apr '13 1:38:43 PM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Correct.
Well, no, the serial killer's morality isn't wrong, but nor is it right. Rather, it is, like all morality, not truth-apt. No moral statement can be any more true or false than, say, "This flower is beautiful."
You're mistaking a lack of an objective reason for the lack of any reason. Yes, there is no objective reason the sociopath should have curtailments on his liberty, but nor is there any objective reason the sociopath shouldn't have curtailments on his liberty. There are, however, subjective reasons for both sides. Depending on which you accept, you would support one side or the other.
That is absurd. Why should your subjective view make it so that no one can make a similarly subjective statement that it's wrong for you to kill? It doesn't have to be someone parroting others saying that to believe that. Someone might be an ethical egoist who believes that it is beneficial to the self for people to not kill, for example.
You don't have to. Things will be much more difficult for you if you don't, but you really don't have to. Society's morals are just as subjective as your own. Heck, I disagree with society's morals on many things myself.
Yes, it does affect things. Just because the serial killer's morality gets punished doesn't mean he doesn't affect things. Just because you might have to follow rules you disagree with doesn't mean your morality doesn't affect things. If you can convince people that your morality is better than society's morality, then you will have succeeded at affecting things, even if you always follow society's morality, since your actions will have lead to a small shift in the Overton's Window that is society's morality by making more people believe in your morality over society's. In addition, sometimes, despite your morality being different from society's, the two do not clash. For example, if a society's morality doesn't account for caring for the poor, but you devote your life to it, is your morality clashing with society's? No. Is your morality different from society's? Yes.
By recognizing the beauty all around you. By recognizing that, even if morality isn't inherent to anything, you can still be a good and moral person by following your own morality. By recognizing that void isn't necessarily a bad thing and that it can be something beautiful in its own right. By making purpose for yourself and giving things value.
Why?
Why shouldn't you find joy in the universe and in other people? Why shouldn't you try and improve things?
Or, in other words, why should you try and unmake everything?
It isn't one. Society is a social construct built on social constructs, but that doesn't make it a lie. Society says things are moral or immoral, but it isn't lying anymore than the art critic lies when he/she says a painting is beautiful.
1 + 1 = 2 is still truth. When you see things falling, it is still truth that you see those things falling. Order and disorder are both human constructs to describe the world around us. Chaos is no more truth than the lack thereof.
There is objective truth, just none when it comes to morality. If we were to, hypothetically, remove humans and make it so that they never existed, then morality wouldn't exist either. However, in this universe without humans, things would still fall toward heavier objects, planets would still spin and revolve around stars. Hydrogen would still fuse into helium. Two things coming to two other things would still end up with four things. Stars would burn bright, black holes would attract, and planets would hurtle through the void. These are objective. Conscious thought is not needed for them to exist.
That depends on the person. I dislike serial killers because, according to my moral code, increasing suffering is something wrong, so I judge them as immoral according to my moral code.
Yes. You are. Very, very much. This comes down, in essence, to the prisoner's dilemma, which is a basic thought experiment of game theory. You and someone else are both arrested for a crime. It doesn't matter, for the purposes of this discussion, what that crime is or if you and the other person did that crime. You and the other person are put in separate rooms. The police offer you a deal, which they tell you they are offering the other person as well. If you confess to the crime and point to the other person as having done it with you, then they are prepared to offer you full amnesty, if, and only if, the other person doesn't do the same. If neither of you confess, they can still get you on a smaller crime. So, if you confess and the other person doesn't, you can walk free. If you don't confess and the other person does, you will serve life in prison. If neither of you confess, you both serve 6 months in prison. If both of you confess, you both serve 40 years in prison since they're willing to cut down on the sentence if both of you confess. The question is, do you confess or remain silent?
Looking at the options, if the other person doesn't confess, then it is more beneficial for you to confess because you'll get no prison rather than 6 months in prison. If the other person does confess, then it is more beneficial for you to confess because you'll get 40 years in prison rather than life. However, if both of you follow this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion and confess, you both suffer for it. Rather, the best option is neither of you confessing so that you both only serve 6 months, thus it is in your self-interest to not confess which is an altruistic action, in this scenario. By helping out the other prisoner you are helping out yourself.
Now, things aren't quite this simple. To add another layer of complexity, life isn't just a prisoner's dilemma. It's an iterated series of prisoner's dilemmas with the actions of both parties informed by the previous dilemmas of both parties. (This is still simplified, but it is much less so.) In this case, there is EVEN MORE reason for you to act altruistically and cooperate with the other prisoner. It has been found that doing so in an iterated series of prisoner's dilemmas is the most effective method of getting someone who has previously been ratting you out to cooperate with you.
Thus altruistic behavior is in your self-interest.
Why?
I mean, I'm assuming that you mean inherent value by real value. To me, all value comes from people and no value is inherent. I see no evidence of any value being inherent to anything. I do see evidence for people giving things value.
edited 18th Apr '13 1:57:24 PM by deathpigeon
That's what value is: something you evaluate, a subjective estimate, a perception. A ton of gold is very worthy in society, but useless on a desert island. It is a wonderful thing to have for a government, but probably not for a private individual. To a Diogenes, it is less than worthless; it gets in the way of the sun!
edited 18th Apr '13 2:10:13 PM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.I think the controversial step is 'a development being wanted is (and is objectively recognized as) a normative reason/force'. People seem to argue that this is not adequate as a solution to the is/ought problem. In that case I would ask, by what standard is it not adequate, and how does one justify such a high standard? The assumption seems to be that because the objective viewpoint has no desires of its own (which I absolutely grant), it must also somehow be actively indifferent to those desires that do exist. This is the main reason why I've separated out the part about 'there exist no normative forces other than sentient desire that could cancel it out'. I just don't think we have any basis for assuming the existence of a barrier that would stop desire from being objectively important.
This actually becomes even more absurd when we reconsider the theological angle: If people are so willing to accept a model where the desires of a deity determine morality on an objective level, then what is it about the desires of beings who aren't deities that they cannot play the same role?
Consider similarly a scenario where you remove all physical objects from the Universe and leave just empty space. Would you argue that the F=ma law from newtonian physics would vanish along with them? Probably not; the same rules would still be there, they just wouldn't have anything to act upon.
Join my forum game!
Could you phrase that another way? I have a virulent distate for the rhetoric of the Declaration of Independence, and this here style reminds me of it so much that I couldn't bring myself to finish.
No, there is. In the former's case, knowing that the laws exist is equivalent to saying "if matter pops up, it will behave in this or that way". The problem is that there's no one around to observe...
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Well, the answer to...
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Remember that I'm not saying there is some nebulous, preexisting thing out there we would call 'morality' that must be paired up with something from the physical world. Normativity is not of itself a fundamental aspect of reality, but desire (when present) necessitates it. The preexisting thing is not morality, it is merely logic. Combining logic with the observation that sentient desire exists (or alternatively, the supposition that it exists, if it didn't) is what gives rise to the particular system that deals with normative issues and that we call 'morality'.
Join my forum game!If I'm reading you right I think you're trying to say that morality is part of nature, but not independently of the elements (sentient beings) on which it is predicated. It's an emerging phenomenon that is real but not independent.
edited 18th Apr '13 7:12:26 PM by BestOf
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.It's right to the serial killer, and that's all that matters, really.
A good moral person? By whose terms, mine? Most likely so. So if I am, say, Carl Panzram, then my morality says that killing people is good, because it deprives them of future pain. And no one can say objectively that I am wrong.
Mostly, what I'm disconcerted here is that a lack of objectivity in morals leads to the conclusion that Pol Pot and Martin Luther King, Jr. are equally good if judged by their adherence to their own standards, even though most of the world says that Pol Pot is "bad" and MLK is "good" (as if these statements had any value beyond the self-righteousness produced by their minds).
Still, I think this newfound knowledge of amorality does have one advantage. Let me quote Black Mage on this one:
"Moral quandaries have lost all meaning. The complexities of life have simple, violent answers. I have to admit, it's liberating."
edited 18th Apr '13 10:03:18 PM by Icarael
"Stealing is a crime and drugs is a crime too BUT if you steal drugs the two crimes cancel out and it’s like basically doing a good."

The latin words for good and bad were bonus and malus, and referred exclusively to usefulness. In Arabic, to say of someone that they are good, you use the word saleh, i.e. useful/functional.
In Greek, virtue, aerté, means "excellence" and "realization of self-potential". In roman again, virtú is simply viritude, vir being the male of noble ascent; a virtuous man is a man of agency. Later, Niccolo Machiavelli used the term "virtue" in that sense exactly when talking about what a Prince should be like.
Insofar as one can judge one morality system over another, a good morality is one that allows you to consistently achieve what it orders you to do. Think of the phrase "Don't let moral considerations get in the way of doing the right thing"; a morality that gets in its own way is broken, not-functional.
A functional morality to have is one that allows you to follow it within your own circumstances. Christianity, for instance, is an excellent morality to have if you are a slave or otherwise downtrodden or dominated; not only does it contain non-violent tools of struggle that you can use from your position of weakness, but it also teaches you about patience and endurance and hard work, and appeases you by promising to turn the tables on the unjust masters... after you die. Alternately, a slave with the morality of, say, Kamina, is soon going to be a dead slave (and if it weren't for extremely lucky circumstances, Kamina himself was headed straight for a horrible fate). Inversely, Sinom had excellent morality for life as a digger in Jiiha village, but once in the outside world he had to switch, because it didn't work in the new context.
Yes, quite. You see, being pragmatic sometimes means not breaking rules when you've got the opportunity: not only is the respect or breaking of rules habit-forming (and a bad habit can hamper you at the most inconvenient times), but there's stuff like reputation.
Most importantly, there's the matter of reciprocity, or The Golden Rule; if you want to live in a certain type of world, you have to behave in the way people in that kind of world would. Like, a rich person can be in favour of abundant progressive taxation because, if worse comes to worse and they somehow go bankrupt, they don't want to end up homeless and they'd be quite happy for the safety nets society would institute. They could also have less-wealthy next-of-kin, preferring them to be able to rely on the state, rather than being left in the situation of having to personally be begged for money, having people giddily wait for your death in your old age, and so on and so forth.
And, most importantly, a morality is something that satisfies you. Good Feels Good. If it gives you warm and fuzzy feelings inside to help someone in a time of need, or to bring joy around you, well, why not go ahead and do it?
And finally, here;
In short, the best morality for your Niggler to have is that which manages your Beast in such a way that your pleasure and satisfaction are maximized throughout your life, and this is accounting for society, which you crave and need by nature.
edited 18th Apr '13 12:41:05 PM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.