No. The cosmos can't value anything because it has no means to recognize and hold values.
How do you know?
One of those unique properties is the absolute-ism of life. Life is unique because it has a purpose and can act to achieve that purpose. You can break life down all you want into matter and particles, but the division will lose the attribute of living.
What's the purpose? Is a uranium-235 isotope not purposeful, does it not purpose to decay into lead?
Huh? If there is no difference between man and ant, how can there be "fully functioning" agents?
A semi-functional agent in my intent was someone who has brain damage.
No. You get shit on for lots of reasons.
One reason! People don't agree with me. Unfotunately for them, I'm speaking fact, and it is something they will need to acknowledge in the very near future. Very near future. By 2029, Neuroscientists expect to have a complete map of the brain and a full understanding of the brain software. They are already able to interfer with brain processing, to the point that they've radio-controlled mice and bulls.
Are you sure? You just said this:
"Men or ants, there is no difference. We are all driven by universal mathematical laws. Our movements, thoughts, and vital systems are all a result of atoms behaving in particular ways, which occured due to prior causes. Our choice is limited, just as the ants."
I am not an ant, therefor ants do not matter to me, as I am a human, humans matter to me.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I think morality is the name given to the instincts necessary to have a sociable life, and are absolute for our species as we are meant to socialize. But not everyone is equal as some are born with defects, a lack of those instincts and are unable to live a "normal" social life.
I think morality is the name given to the instincts necessary to have a sociable life, and are absolute for our species as we are meant to socialize. But not everyone is equal as some are born with defects, a lack of those instincts and are unable to live a "normal" social life.
Instincts like killing each other (Caveman), spitting in someone's face because your in disagreement (Victorian Times), etc..
Morality IMO, is not an instinct and there is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I don't, actually. I simply have no reason to believe it can.
What's the purpose?
Trillions of living organisms answer this question every day: survival.
Is a uranium-235 isotope not purposeful, does it not purpose to decay into lead?
No, it exists and in time will decay into lead. A uranium-235 isotope, however, cannot act towards that purpose. It cannot act against that purpose. It cannot recognize or hold a value attached to the process of decaying.
A semi-functional agent in my intent was someone who has brain damage.
What does "brain damage" have to do with it when humans and ants aren't even different?
One reason! People don't agree with me. Unfotunately for them, I'm speaking fact, and it is something they will need to acknowledge in the very near future. Very near future. By 2029, Neuroscientists expect to have a complete map of the brain and a full understanding of the brain software. They are already able to interfer with brain processing, to the point that they've radio-controlled mice and bulls.
Dude, few people agree with me here either. But I'm treated very differently than you are. I know you're into this whole "I can't be responsible for anything since I'm a robot but everyone else can be responsible despite the fact they're robots" thing you've got going on, but perhaps you might want to examine your inputs.
I am not an ant, therefor ants do not matter to me, as I am a human, humans matter to me.
Oh, I see. But I bet when science starts radio-controlling ants, they'll definitely matter to you.
Instincts like killing each other (Caveman), spitting in someone's face because your in disagreement (Victorian Times), etc..
Morality IMO, is not an instinct and there is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise.
Well since humans started to live together there always have been sets of implicit rules. Such as refraining from killing each other as it's not good for survival. Or taking care of your children, it's better for the survival of the species etc. In fact all the instincts wich I'm referring to are sets of rule designed to help you and your specie to survive. This need is stronger than any other one and so rules wich keep social lifestyles + survival a coherent equation are more than natural.
edit: I'm talking of a limited set of morals, basic ones. Not more complicated ones wich change following historical eras.
Trillions of living organisms answer this question every day: survival.
Do you choose to survive? How can you make that choice?
No, it exists and in time will decay into lead. A uranium-235 isotope, however, cannot act towards that purpose. It cannot act against that purpose. It cannot recognize or hold a value attached to the process of decaying.
Neither can living beings. They eat, sleep and procreate because they have to.
What does "brain damage" have to do with it when humans and ants aren't even different?
Now your taking the analogy too literally.
Dude, few people agree with me here either. But I'm treated very differently than you are. I know you're into this whole "I can't be responsible for anything since I'm a robot but everyone else can be responsible despite the fact they're robots" thing you've got going on, but perhaps you might want to examine your inputs.
I suggest you examine your inputs, that is nothing I've ever said. I do not take responsibility/accountability away from people or myself. I'm simply stating facts. See, the major difference between theology and science, is that theology believes what it wants to believe, science believes what actually is. I'm reading a book with interviews with many of the leading philosophers and scientists studying consciousness. When asked "Do you have free-will?" in the sense I've described they all say "No". When asked "Would you prefer to have it?" they all say "Yes.".
Sue: Are you happy with that?
Bernard (Baars): No, I wish it weren't so; but one of the points that Freud makes about science is that science is always forcing people into believing things that they would rather not believe - and that goes back to the Copernican solar system. People were very upset about that; after Darwin's Descent of Man people were enormously upset. I think that one of the reasons why people have difficulty dealing with consciousness as a scientific issue is because it's terribly upsetting to many people that we don't have free will, that it's all due to these funny little cells firing in our heads, and all that sort of thing; and I sympathize with that. Some sort of godlike being, platonic connection to the infinite would be a rather wonderful thing to have; I just don't know of any evidence for it. (Conversation on Consciousness, Susan Blackmore, Pg.18)
Oh, I see. But I bet when science starts radio-controlling ants, they'll definitely matter to you.
Not sure what that means, but I think you misinterpreted something.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Well since humans started to live together there always have been sets of implicit rules. Such as refraining from killing each other as it's not good for survival. Or taking care of your children, it's better for the survival of the species etc. In fact all the instincts wich I'm referring to are sets of rule designed to help you and your specie to survive. This need is stronger than any other one and so rules wich keep social lifestyles + survival a coherent equation are more than natural.
edit: I'm talking of a limited set of morals, basic ones. Not more complicated ones wich change following historical eras.
Well, there is some biochemical basis, but it's mutual and goes both ways. In order for one caveman to trust another, he'd need to be the subject of an act of trust. Alternatively an act of distrust can lead to a brutal fight to the death. Perhaps, well, I'm not really sure what caveman would act like, but if we look at families of dogs or cats, we can get a good idea of what caveman might have acted like, monkeys may be a better study group.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Sorry, I didn't intend that to be condescending or anything. It's just that if "Nothing is always", that would mean "there are always no constants". It's like saying "there are no absolutes" when that statement would be an absolute
I didn't take it as condescending ffg, so no need to be sorry.
I was just trying to alert you that I take a bit longer to understand some concepts.
Like this one for instance!!!
I think yes, you are correct in your reasoning above, but I did mention death and taxes didn't I?
...
That's all things being equal... regarding the physical attributes (distance to each life, dog or human, etc...). But, toss in a few variables and it may affect the outcome, depending upon the person.
Example: The Human in trouble is a perfect stranger... the dog is your pet. Does the outcome change?
or... the dog is your neighbor's dog... the human is the ex-convicted sex offender that moved into the house on the corner. Does the outcome change or remain?
The value of life and our morality changes as the situation changes. The same way I argue to people who claimn that it is wrong for Amnericans to value the lives of americans over the lives of people of other nations. It is relative... the same way my life has less value to you than yours. If given the choice of sparing your life.. the life of your spouse, your child, family member or friend or mine... I'm a goner in every case. Right or wrong? Moral or immoral? Who's to say?
I'm just curious Cosmo, do you know for certain what choice you would make in this situation each time you had to make it? For instance, do you believe it is possible that the choice you make today could be completely different tomorrow? I'm just asking because it seems that humans act differently at different times. Perhaps today I might save my dog over you but then tomorrow, if my day was different or the circumstances different, I might go directly to saving your life over my family's, my dog's or my own.
In any given situation, are we not compelled to act based on the circumstances as we percieve them to be at the time? Doesn't it all pan out based on how things are set in motion and action and reaction or inaction?
Some days some people may just as easily walk past you, me and the dog!
I think morality is the name given to the instincts necessary to have a sociable life, and are absolute for our species as we are meant to socialize. But not everyone is equal as some are born with defects, a lack of those instincts and are unable to live a "normal" social life.
I only partly agree with this. Morality is a social construct. Different concepts of moral behaviour exist to serve the particular society they developed in. Different societies have different moral systems, so morality is not by any means 'absolute for our species'.
For example-
In New Guinea some of the highland tribes had such high infant mortality rates that they would not have been able to maintain their own populations through their own reproduction. They traditionally conducted raids on neighbouring tribes, killed and ate the adults, and adopted the children into their own families. These children would then grow up as well adjusted members of their society, usually in the household of the people who ate their parents, and would happily participate in future raids and cannabilism. Without the raids these tribes would have died out within a couple of generations. In that society it is considered normal to be raised by the killers of your parents. This boggles the mind of a westerner who grew up under the western christian derived moral system. Reading about the traditions of those tribes convinced me once and for all that there really is no such thing as 'right' and 'wrong'. Those are just arbitrary concepts invented by society to keep things running smoothly.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
No. Abortion is not murder. Murder is the willful destruction of one human life by another. A fetus is not another human life. It is a life entirely part of and dependent on the life of its "murderer".
However, that is my opinion. Abortion is a moral tightrope. I believe it is morally ok, but I'd never actually want to be party to an abortion since it is far closer to murder than I'd ever want to get.
Gay marriage cannot be "immoral". Homosexuality could be made out to be immoral, I suppose, but that would make heterosexuality immoral as well.
Homosexuality is not a moral issue. It is an issue of disgust for some people. Disgust and morals are two very different things.
Yes, in the sense they are breaking the law. Immigration as a whole is not really a moral issue either. The individual motivations for immigration are moral issues.
Ha ha...These were rhetorical questions, not to be answered specifically, to prove the point that we as a society can not agree on what is moral and what is not. I appreciate the effort, though!
And this is entirely valid. Accessing an objective morality is as difficult as accessing esoteric objective mathematical principles. But human failures of discernment do not imply non-existence.
Certainly there are assumed premises in the view that morality exists objectively. There are assumed premises required in any view that anything exists objectively, including the mind from which subjectivity would stem. The fundamental assumption of objectivism is the law of identity. We can sit around all day and discuss whether or not that assumption is correct, but we already assume it is by a) communicating with each other and b) assuming that we have distinct identifiable minds in the first place.
And how are my premises "wishful thinking"? What am I wishing for?
Again, there is no evidence supporting the hypothesis. You (and Rand) basically defined morality to be absolute and declared it "objectivism."
If someone were to systematically disagree with you about the goodness of those things you valued, what objective criterion could you turn to in order to settle the debate? Certainly you couldn't refer to social utility and so on, as that would be circular. I don't think you could objectively settle this debate any more than you could objectively settle a debate over whether broccoli tastes good or not. There is no fact of the matter as to whether broccoli is delicious or disgusting; its gustatory 'goodness' can only be evaluated on a case-by-case basis within the domains of individual, subjective tastes. The same is true for all values in general, I think; it's just that it's much more difficult to find someone who thinks e.g. that pain and suffering is to be valued than it is to find someone who thinks broccoli does or doesn't taste good. We humans do seem to have a relatively stable and conserved set of core values built into us, which can create the illusion of universal, context-free, objective and absolute truth. But in the end, to me at least, it is still seems to be an illusion.
Just to be clear: I think morality is to be valued and people should strive to act morally and so on; I just think there is no truly objective or absolute basis for this imperative. But nor do I think there needs to be one.
To adhere to the belief that morals are absolute would require belief that those morals are also of physical origin. However, what we would test are not morals themselves, but rather the biological basis for the thought processes leading to those morals. This is also why, in the context of the usual usage of the term "morals," I believe they would fall more into the realm of religion than science, because in that sense, they are not testable, but instead a belief system outside the realm of science. You used the analogy comparing "absolute morals" to esoteric objective mathematical principles. The problem with this analogy is that the esoteric objective mathematical principles can be proven, "absolute morals" can not be proved empirically.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Again, there is no evidence supporting the hypothesis. You (and Rand) basically defined morality to be absolute and declared it "objectivism."
Not exactly. Rand, along with Aristotle and others define existence to be absolute and declare, as such, "existence exists", or that "A=A", or more completely:
"Now 'why a thing is itself' is a meaningless inquiry (for -- to give meaning to the question 'why' -- the fact or the existence of the thing must already be evident-e.g. that the moon is eclipsed-but the fact that a thing is itself is the single reason and the single cause to be given in answer to all such questions as why the man is man, or the musician musical', unless one were to answer 'because each thing is inseparable from itself, and its being one just meant this' this, however, is common to all things and is a short and easy way with the question)."
Morality is no more immune from this law than is gravity, or the moon, or the mind itself.
If someone were to systematically disagree with you about the goodness of those things you valued, what objective criterion could you turn to in order to settle the debate?
Reason, of course. When, for instance, someone suggest that abortion is "wrong", it must be wrong for a reason. And if abortion is wrong, "because I feel that way", someone has established feeling as a moral standard. However, that same person would believe their own murder at the hands of another who simply felt like killing would be immoral. So an unreasonable contradiction emerges.
Morality is the linkage between value and choice. If that link is broken, we are discussing immorality. If that link is consistent and solid, we are discussing morality. If no link could possibly exist, meaning absence of value or choice, we are discussing amorality.
A man who believes his life and happines are the highest value and seeks them in all his actions is a moral man. A man who believe his life and happiness are the highest values and actively harms himself and chooses misery is an immoral man. A rock that can make no choices, hold no values and cannot act upon itself that falls on a man is amoral.
Just to be clear: I think morality is to be valued and people should strive to act morally and so on; I just think there is no truly objective or absolute basis for this imperative. But nor do I think there needs to be one.
This if fine. If you don't believe this, that's certainly your right.
To adhere to the belief that morals are absolute would require belief that those morals are also of physical origin.
All morality is of physical origin. Morals always originate from the minds of living things, based on the very physical things they value, achieved through the virtues they have that arise from the same physcial minds.
The problem with this analogy is that the esoteric objective mathematical principles can be proven, "absolute morals" can not be proved empirically.
They are proven empirically everyday. Those proofs are known as life, survival, happiness, unhappiness, success, failure, death, and so on. The achievement (or lackthereof) of value is the proof.
Not exactly. Rand, along with Aristotle and others define existence to be absolute and declare, as such, "existence exists", or that "A=A", or more completely:
"Now 'why a thing is itself' is a meaningless inquiry (for -- to give meaning to the question 'why' -- the fact or the existence of the thing must already be evident-e.g. that the moon is eclipsed-but the fact that a thing is itself is the single reason and the single cause to be given in answer to all such questions as why the man is man, or the musician musical', unless one were to answer 'because each thing is inseparable from itself, and its being one just meant this' this, however, is common to all things and is a short and easy way with the question)."
Morality is no more immune from this law than is gravity, or the moon, or the mind itself.
Have you considered that the word "law" is frequently used in two completely different senses? When we say "scientific law" we are usually referring to descriptive laws that attempt to account for the way in which things actually do happen. But when we say "moral law" we are usually referring to prescriptive laws that dictate the way in which we believe things should happen.
If you are using the word "law" as I am supposing then the argument by analogy at which your viewpoint seems to point, falls prey to the fallacy of equivocation. In this case, the scientist would not be logically or rationally compelled to admit to an absolute set of moral laws.
If one starts with the assumption that there is a supreme being and a well-defined "universal order", then moral laws become descriptive laws. I understand how a religious person arrives at their conclusion of "absolute morality", but I have to say I'm puzzled and quite intrigued by the individual that arrives at the same conclusion without a belief in a supreme being.
Scientists do not usually consider morality absolute because they do not assume the existence of a predefined set of "moral principles", but rather view morality as a result of culture- and group- dependent sets of prescriptive laws, and their interaction with individuals' motivation and behavior.
Reason, of course. When, for instance, someone suggest that abortion is "wrong", it must be wrong for a reason. And if abortion is wrong, "because I feel that way", someone has established feeling as a moral standard. However, that same person would believe their own murder at the hands of another who simply felt like killing would be immoral. So an unreasonable contradiction emerges.
You've really made my point here. You (and me as well) are a little "confused" with the issue of abortion. In one thread about abortion, I believe you stated that you personally believed abortion was immoral. In this thread, you aren't so clear on your stance.
All morality is of physical origin. Morals always originate from the minds of living things, based on the very physical things they value, achieved through the virtues they have that arise from the same physcial minds.
They are proven empirically everyday. Those proofs are known as life, survival, happiness, unhappiness, success, failure, death, and so on. The achievement (or lackthereof) of value is the proof.
The same argument can be used for the existence of God. This is not empirical proof.
Maybe what I'm advocating is a "compatibilist" view between moral relativism and universal morality. Moral relativism holds that no moral code is absolutely true, but rather only gains truth or falsity when considered with respect to some subjective value system. But if it is the case that most individuals' subjective value systems are essentially similar on some level or another, then you still have a basis for practicing a universal morality of some sort.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Have you considered that the word "law" is frequently used in two completely different senses? When we say "scientific law" we are usually referring to descriptive laws that attempt to account for the way in which things actually do happen. But when we say "moral law" we are usually referring to prescriptive laws that dictate the way in which we believe things should happen.
If you are using the word "law" as I am supposing then the argument by analogy at which your viewpoint seems to point, falls prey to the fallacy of equivocation. In this case, the scientist would not be logically or rationally compelled to admit to an absolute set of moral laws.
If one starts with the assumption that there is a supreme being and a well-defined "universal order", then moral laws become descriptive laws. I understand how a religious person arrives at their conclusion of "absolute morality", but I have to say I'm puzzled and quite intrigued by the individual that arrives at the same conclusion without a belief in a supreme being.
I'm using the word "law" in the scientific sense, and in its true meaning. A law as in an unerring principle.
No supreme being is required in order to believe the universe has order. Why would you think it is? Gravity is a law -- does it need a supreme being to create it or monitor it?
Scientists do not usually consider morality absolute because they do not assume the existence of a predefined set of "moral principles", but rather view morality as a result of culture- and group- dependent sets of prescriptive laws, and their interaction with individuals' motivation and behavior.
Yes, they do. Scientists once believed in God too. Scientists are not the arbiter on reality. Scientists are, in part, the interpretors of reality.
You've really made my point here. You (and me as well) are a little "confused" with the issue of abortion. In one thread about abortion, I believe you stated that you personally believed abortion was immoral. In this thread, you aren't so clear on your stance.
This is true. I have said that abortion was "immoral" in the sense that I would never be party to an abortion. It would be an action I would avoid. But I would avoid it not just because I feel abortions are dangerous moral territory. I simply feel there are better options for me personally. In the context of approaching abortion in a social-perspective wherein my decision is non-controlling, I don't believe I can demonstrate fully the immorality of abortion. Rather, I think abortion can be acceptably demonstrated as moral. Therefore, I don't feel I have anything approaching a right to prevent people from aborting fetuses, nor would I have any desire to.
I've simply used some terms here in different contexts, and "immoral" was likely an inappropriate word. I don't believe abortions violate an objective system of morality.
The same argument can be used for the existence of God. This is not empirical proof.
Those two things are not the same. Can you empirically prove that God gave rise to your food? No. Can you empirically prove that your food gives rise to your survival and that human actions that give rise to food are consistent with the human value of life? Certainly.
Maybe what I'm advocating is a "compatibilist" view between moral relativism and universal morality. Moral relativism holds that no moral code is absolutely true, but rather only gains truth or falsity when considered with respect to some subjective value system. But if it is the case that most individuals' subjective value systems are essentially similar on some level or another, then you still have a basis for practicing a universal morality of some sort.
I'm perfectly cool with a "compatibilist" view that states that a universal morality exists, but that man's perceptions of that morality are fallible. But that's probably not "comatibilist" at all
We may be approaching a common problem in these discussions. When I say "morality" I'm not really differentiating anything from "ethics".
I'm just curious Cosmo, do you know for certain what choice you would make in this situation each time you had to make it? For instance, do you believe it is possible that the choice you make today could be completely different tomorrow? I'm just asking because it seems that humans act differently at different times. Perhaps today I might save my dog over you but then tomorrow, if my day was different or the circumstances different, I might go directly to saving your life over my family's, my dog's or my own.
In any given situation, are we not compelled to act based on the circumstances as we percieve them to be at the time? Doesn't it all pan out based on how things are set in motion and action and reaction or inaction?
Some days some people may just as easily walk past you, me and the dog!
...
No one knows. We DON'T know for certain how we will react in a difficult situation... we ALL picture us as doing the heroic thing and rushing into a burning building to save a life... or jumping into the path of a subway train to save the life of a stranger... but, in reality, most of us would be amongst the crowd, watching in horror as the building burns or someone else jumps on the tracks.
But... I still contend... if given the choice between saving your child or saving me... you will pick your child in every instance. If not, what does that say about you as a parent? I'm not saying it is WRONG to pick me and to save my life... I would greatly appreciatre it.... really... but, I would expect you to place a greater value on your child, than some dude. The value, as well as the morality tied to it, are relative to you... and to each of us.
As for you family pet or me... I don't know. But, I do know how much people love their pets. I'm **Hoping** I save the human first. But, I am guessing that if I were given the chance to save my cat or save one of those guys on t.v. that Chris Hansen surprizes as they believe they are going to bang a 13 year old... I don't know... but, I'm guessing my cat get a reset on one of her 9 lives. All relative. Am i bad... or wrong... or evil for that? Who gets to make that distinction?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Comments
How do you know?
What's the purpose? Is a uranium-235 isotope not purposeful, does it not purpose to decay into lead?
A semi-functional agent in my intent was someone who has brain damage.
One reason! People don't agree with me. Unfotunately for them, I'm speaking fact, and it is something they will need to acknowledge in the very near future. Very near future. By 2029, Neuroscientists expect to have a complete map of the brain and a full understanding of the brain software. They are already able to interfer with brain processing, to the point that they've radio-controlled mice and bulls.
I am not an ant, therefor ants do not matter to me, as I am a human, humans matter to me.
Morality is a human invention.
the other foot in the gutter
sweet smell that they adore
I think I'd rather smother
-The Replacements-
Precisely!
Instincts like killing each other (Caveman), spitting in someone's face because your in disagreement (Victorian Times), etc..
Morality IMO, is not an instinct and there is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise.
I don't, actually. I simply have no reason to believe it can.
Trillions of living organisms answer this question every day: survival.
No, it exists and in time will decay into lead. A uranium-235 isotope, however, cannot act towards that purpose. It cannot act against that purpose. It cannot recognize or hold a value attached to the process of decaying.
What does "brain damage" have to do with it when humans and ants aren't even different?
Dude, few people agree with me here either. But I'm treated very differently than you are. I know you're into this whole "I can't be responsible for anything since I'm a robot but everyone else can be responsible despite the fact they're robots" thing you've got going on, but perhaps you might want to examine your inputs.
Oh, I see. But I bet when science starts radio-controlling ants, they'll definitely matter to you.
Well since humans started to live together there always have been sets of implicit rules. Such as refraining from killing each other as it's not good for survival. Or taking care of your children, it's better for the survival of the species etc. In fact all the instincts wich I'm referring to are sets of rule designed to help you and your specie to survive. This need is stronger than any other one and so rules wich keep social lifestyles + survival a coherent equation are more than natural.
edit: I'm talking of a limited set of morals, basic ones. Not more complicated ones wich change following historical eras.
Do you choose to survive? How can you make that choice?
Neither can living beings. They eat, sleep and procreate because they have to.
Now your taking the analogy too literally.
I suggest you examine your inputs, that is nothing I've ever said. I do not take responsibility/accountability away from people or myself. I'm simply stating facts. See, the major difference between theology and science, is that theology believes what it wants to believe, science believes what actually is. I'm reading a book with interviews with many of the leading philosophers and scientists studying consciousness. When asked "Do you have free-will?" in the sense I've described they all say "No". When asked "Would you prefer to have it?" they all say "Yes.".
Sue: Are you happy with that?
Bernard (Baars): No, I wish it weren't so; but one of the points that Freud makes about science is that science is always forcing people into believing things that they would rather not believe - and that goes back to the Copernican solar system. People were very upset about that; after Darwin's Descent of Man people were enormously upset. I think that one of the reasons why people have difficulty dealing with consciousness as a scientific issue is because it's terribly upsetting to many people that we don't have free will, that it's all due to these funny little cells firing in our heads, and all that sort of thing; and I sympathize with that. Some sort of godlike being, platonic connection to the infinite would be a rather wonderful thing to have; I just don't know of any evidence for it. (Conversation on Consciousness, Susan Blackmore, Pg.18)
Not sure what that means, but I think you misinterpreted something.
Well, there is some biochemical basis, but it's mutual and goes both ways. In order for one caveman to trust another, he'd need to be the subject of an act of trust. Alternatively an act of distrust can lead to a brutal fight to the death. Perhaps, well, I'm not really sure what caveman would act like, but if we look at families of dogs or cats, we can get a good idea of what caveman might have acted like, monkeys may be a better study group.
I didn't take it as condescending ffg, so no need to be sorry.
I was just trying to alert you that I take a bit longer to understand some concepts.
Like this one for instance!!!
I think yes, you are correct in your reasoning above, but I did mention death and taxes didn't I?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Reading along in order of posts I was just about to say, what about grey?
But I see that out of breath has done it for me.
I'll keep reading.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I'm just curious Cosmo, do you know for certain what choice you would make in this situation each time you had to make it? For instance, do you believe it is possible that the choice you make today could be completely different tomorrow? I'm just asking because it seems that humans act differently at different times. Perhaps today I might save my dog over you but then tomorrow, if my day was different or the circumstances different, I might go directly to saving your life over my family's, my dog's or my own.
In any given situation, are we not compelled to act based on the circumstances as we percieve them to be at the time? Doesn't it all pan out based on how things are set in motion and action and reaction or inaction?
Some days some people may just as easily walk past you, me and the dog!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I only partly agree with this. Morality is a social construct. Different concepts of moral behaviour exist to serve the particular society they developed in. Different societies have different moral systems, so morality is not by any means 'absolute for our species'.
For example-
In New Guinea some of the highland tribes had such high infant mortality rates that they would not have been able to maintain their own populations through their own reproduction. They traditionally conducted raids on neighbouring tribes, killed and ate the adults, and adopted the children into their own families. These children would then grow up as well adjusted members of their society, usually in the household of the people who ate their parents, and would happily participate in future raids and cannabilism. Without the raids these tribes would have died out within a couple of generations. In that society it is considered normal to be raised by the killers of your parents. This boggles the mind of a westerner who grew up under the western christian derived moral system. Reading about the traditions of those tribes convinced me once and for all that there really is no such thing as 'right' and 'wrong'. Those are just arbitrary concepts invented by society to keep things running smoothly.
-C Addison
Ha ha...These were rhetorical questions, not to be answered specifically, to prove the point that we as a society can not agree on what is moral and what is not. I appreciate the effort, though!
Again, there is no evidence supporting the hypothesis. You (and Rand) basically defined morality to be absolute and declared it "objectivism."
If someone were to systematically disagree with you about the goodness of those things you valued, what objective criterion could you turn to in order to settle the debate? Certainly you couldn't refer to social utility and so on, as that would be circular. I don't think you could objectively settle this debate any more than you could objectively settle a debate over whether broccoli tastes good or not. There is no fact of the matter as to whether broccoli is delicious or disgusting; its gustatory 'goodness' can only be evaluated on a case-by-case basis within the domains of individual, subjective tastes. The same is true for all values in general, I think; it's just that it's much more difficult to find someone who thinks e.g. that pain and suffering is to be valued than it is to find someone who thinks broccoli does or doesn't taste good. We humans do seem to have a relatively stable and conserved set of core values built into us, which can create the illusion of universal, context-free, objective and absolute truth. But in the end, to me at least, it is still seems to be an illusion.
Just to be clear: I think morality is to be valued and people should strive to act morally and so on; I just think there is no truly objective or absolute basis for this imperative. But nor do I think there needs to be one.
To adhere to the belief that morals are absolute would require belief that those morals are also of physical origin. However, what we would test are not morals themselves, but rather the biological basis for the thought processes leading to those morals. This is also why, in the context of the usual usage of the term "morals," I believe they would fall more into the realm of religion than science, because in that sense, they are not testable, but instead a belief system outside the realm of science. You used the analogy comparing "absolute morals" to esoteric objective mathematical principles. The problem with this analogy is that the esoteric objective mathematical principles can be proven, "absolute morals" can not be proved empirically.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Not exactly. Rand, along with Aristotle and others define existence to be absolute and declare, as such, "existence exists", or that "A=A", or more completely:
"Now 'why a thing is itself' is a meaningless inquiry (for -- to give meaning to the question 'why' -- the fact or the existence of the thing must already be evident-e.g. that the moon is eclipsed-but the fact that a thing is itself is the single reason and the single cause to be given in answer to all such questions as why the man is man, or the musician musical', unless one were to answer 'because each thing is inseparable from itself, and its being one just meant this' this, however, is common to all things and is a short and easy way with the question)."
Morality is no more immune from this law than is gravity, or the moon, or the mind itself.
Reason, of course. When, for instance, someone suggest that abortion is "wrong", it must be wrong for a reason. And if abortion is wrong, "because I feel that way", someone has established feeling as a moral standard. However, that same person would believe their own murder at the hands of another who simply felt like killing would be immoral. So an unreasonable contradiction emerges.
Morality is the linkage between value and choice. If that link is broken, we are discussing immorality. If that link is consistent and solid, we are discussing morality. If no link could possibly exist, meaning absence of value or choice, we are discussing amorality.
A man who believes his life and happines are the highest value and seeks them in all his actions is a moral man. A man who believe his life and happiness are the highest values and actively harms himself and chooses misery is an immoral man. A rock that can make no choices, hold no values and cannot act upon itself that falls on a man is amoral.
This if fine. If you don't believe this, that's certainly your right.
All morality is of physical origin. Morals always originate from the minds of living things, based on the very physical things they value, achieved through the virtues they have that arise from the same physcial minds.
They are proven empirically everyday. Those proofs are known as life, survival, happiness, unhappiness, success, failure, death, and so on. The achievement (or lackthereof) of value is the proof.
Have you considered that the word "law" is frequently used in two completely different senses? When we say "scientific law" we are usually referring to descriptive laws that attempt to account for the way in which things actually do happen. But when we say "moral law" we are usually referring to prescriptive laws that dictate the way in which we believe things should happen.
If you are using the word "law" as I am supposing then the argument by analogy at which your viewpoint seems to point, falls prey to the fallacy of equivocation. In this case, the scientist would not be logically or rationally compelled to admit to an absolute set of moral laws.
If one starts with the assumption that there is a supreme being and a well-defined "universal order", then moral laws become descriptive laws. I understand how a religious person arrives at their conclusion of "absolute morality", but I have to say I'm puzzled and quite intrigued by the individual that arrives at the same conclusion without a belief in a supreme being.
Scientists do not usually consider morality absolute because they do not assume the existence of a predefined set of "moral principles", but rather view morality as a result of culture- and group- dependent sets of prescriptive laws, and their interaction with individuals' motivation and behavior.
You've really made my point here. You (and me as well) are a little "confused" with the issue of abortion. In one thread about abortion, I believe you stated that you personally believed abortion was immoral. In this thread, you aren't so clear on your stance.
The same argument can be used for the existence of God. This is not empirical proof.
Maybe what I'm advocating is a "compatibilist" view between moral relativism and universal morality. Moral relativism holds that no moral code is absolutely true, but rather only gains truth or falsity when considered with respect to some subjective value system. But if it is the case that most individuals' subjective value systems are essentially similar on some level or another, then you still have a basis for practicing a universal morality of some sort.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I'm using the word "law" in the scientific sense, and in its true meaning. A law as in an unerring principle.
No supreme being is required in order to believe the universe has order. Why would you think it is? Gravity is a law -- does it need a supreme being to create it or monitor it?
Yes, they do. Scientists once believed in God too. Scientists are not the arbiter on reality. Scientists are, in part, the interpretors of reality.
This is true. I have said that abortion was "immoral" in the sense that I would never be party to an abortion. It would be an action I would avoid. But I would avoid it not just because I feel abortions are dangerous moral territory. I simply feel there are better options for me personally. In the context of approaching abortion in a social-perspective wherein my decision is non-controlling, I don't believe I can demonstrate fully the immorality of abortion. Rather, I think abortion can be acceptably demonstrated as moral. Therefore, I don't feel I have anything approaching a right to prevent people from aborting fetuses, nor would I have any desire to.
I've simply used some terms here in different contexts, and "immoral" was likely an inappropriate word. I don't believe abortions violate an objective system of morality.
Those two things are not the same. Can you empirically prove that God gave rise to your food? No. Can you empirically prove that your food gives rise to your survival and that human actions that give rise to food are consistent with the human value of life? Certainly.
I'm perfectly cool with a "compatibilist" view that states that a universal morality exists, but that man's perceptions of that morality are fallible. But that's probably not "comatibilist" at all
We may be approaching a common problem in these discussions. When I say "morality" I'm not really differentiating anything from "ethics".
No one knows. We DON'T know for certain how we will react in a difficult situation... we ALL picture us as doing the heroic thing and rushing into a burning building to save a life... or jumping into the path of a subway train to save the life of a stranger... but, in reality, most of us would be amongst the crowd, watching in horror as the building burns or someone else jumps on the tracks.
But... I still contend... if given the choice between saving your child or saving me... you will pick your child in every instance. If not, what does that say about you as a parent? I'm not saying it is WRONG to pick me and to save my life... I would greatly appreciatre it.... really... but, I would expect you to place a greater value on your child, than some dude. The value, as well as the morality tied to it, are relative to you... and to each of us.
As for you family pet or me... I don't know. But, I do know how much people love their pets. I'm **Hoping** I save the human first. But, I am guessing that if I were given the chance to save my cat or save one of those guys on t.v. that Chris Hansen surprizes as they believe they are going to bang a 13 year old... I don't know... but, I'm guessing my cat get a reset on one of her 9 lives. All relative. Am i bad... or wrong... or evil for that? Who gets to make that distinction?
Hail, Hail!!!