Is morality objective?

Verbatim · September 09, 2015, 10:18:22 AM

Why does nothing matter if there is no god?

I honestly couldn't give a fuck if there's a god or not. It makes no difference to my day-to-day life. I can be a good, moral person with or without him.

Jim · September 09, 2015, 10:21:31 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Verbatim · September 09, 2015, 10:21:55 AM

Guys... Guys. Holy shit.

I think I just got a message from God, guys.

And he said...

If Jim isn't dead in 24 hours, he's gonna blow up the universe.

Jim · September 09, 2015, 10:23:00 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Verbatim · September 09, 2015, 10:26:21 AM

Quote from: IFUKTMYMOM69 on September 09, 2015, 10:21:31 AM

Because everything you experience will be gone by the time you die, as though you never experienced it in the first place.

That doesn't mean the whole universe dies with me. When I die, I will be survived by 7.2 billion people (and probably a trillion different non-human species) in my wake. I care about them. Their welfare. I couldn't give a fuck about me in the grand scheme.

Jim · September 09, 2015, 10:27:56 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Verbatim · September 09, 2015, 10:35:13 AM

Quote from: IFUKTMYMOM69 on September 09, 2015, 10:27:56 AM

Why would you give a shit about them? What purpose could you possibly have for caring? After you die, you are physically incapable of caring, what with the whole not existing anymore.

Because I have empathy. If I don't like suffering, I can logically conclude that I wouldn't want anyone else to suffer either. This is not only humane--it's conducive to a productive and sustainable society. If no one cared about one another, nothing would ever get done.

They say it's only a matter of time before we achieve immortality. If you never died, and there's still no god, how would this affect your philosophy?

Verbatim · September 09, 2015, 10:39:09 AM

Human beings are going to be around for a very long time. It would be in our best interest, as a collective, to make sure everyone lives a safe and happy life free of all pain, suffering, or discomfort. That's an ideal. That's a goal.

Jim · September 09, 2015, 10:39:47 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Verbatim · September 09, 2015, 10:43:06 AM

Quote from: IFUKTMYMOM69 on September 09, 2015, 10:39:47 AM

A productive society has no value in the universe without a creator.

If we were to achieve immortality, and I was not able to bring back the lives of the ones I care about, I would probably kill myself anyway.

But regardless, my philosophy would be drastically different. The concept of immortality (on this Earth) is frankly terrifying to me, and something I hope we never experience.

Wouldn't you rather have a say when you die?

"A productive society has no value" is an oxymoron, by the way. "Value has no value?" I thought you said you weren't here to shitpost.

Jim · September 09, 2015, 10:45:21 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Verbatim · September 09, 2015, 10:52:36 AM

Quote from: IFUKTMYMOM69 on September 09, 2015, 10:45:21 AM

Not really. I'd honestly have to think about it, but I don't know if I want to have to make that decision.

Yes, you're right, society has no value at all is what I meant to say.

Fair enough. I'm glad I appear to have asked a question you haven't thought about before.

How about this:
I posit that we, the human race, as a collective, are taking the role of god. Not just taking the role--we are god.
We make the rules. We create value in the universe. And we decide our fate--live & prosper, or suffer & die.

What do you think of that?

More Than Mortal · September 09, 2015, 10:57:38 AM

Quote from: IFUKTMYMOM69 on September 09, 2015, 10:21:31 AM

Because everything you experience will be gone by the time you die, as though you never experienced it in the first place.

So if you eat your last every strawberry ice cream, there's no point in enjoying it? In no way does eventual non-experience devalue current experience. We're still experiencing it now.

Jim · September 09, 2015, 10:58:38 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Jim · September 09, 2015, 11:00:43 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Verbatim · September 09, 2015, 11:02:43 AM

Quote from: IFUKTMYMOM69 on September 09, 2015, 10:58:38 AM

The concept is interesting, and something else I have not given much thought. I am comfortable with that idea so long as I can live immortal with the ones I care about, but it is hard for me to accept otherwise. But it's a new idea (to me), and something I'd be interested in entertaining more often.

Because that, in a weird way, is my philosophy. I wouldn't describe us as god, but I would say that, without us, the universe really does have no value--but we're here, and we're conscious of it, and we possess the ability to make the most of it, so... why not make the most of it.

More Than Mortal · September 09, 2015, 11:04:11 AM

Quote from: IFUKTMYMOM69 on September 09, 2015, 11:00:43 AM

If I forgot the pleasure of ever eating something I enjoy right after eating it, no, I don't think it would serve any purpose to enjoy it.

This is basically saying people with Alzheimer's shouldn't do anything.

More Than Mortal · September 09, 2015, 11:05:30 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on September 09, 2015, 11:02:43 AM

I wouldn't describe us as god

Depends how you define God, I guess. If you literally define it as "that which gives the Universe value" then sentient life could indeed collectively be considered God.

But that's a silly definition anyway.

Verbatim · September 09, 2015, 11:06:19 AM

Quote from: Executioner Sigma on September 09, 2015, 11:05:30 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on September 09, 2015, 11:02:43 AM
I wouldn't describe us as god
Depends how you define God, I guess. If you literally define it as "that which gives the Universe value" then sentient life could indeed collectively be considered God.

But that's a silly definition anyway.

whatever gets me through to jim, man

Sandtrap · September 09, 2015, 11:09:35 AM

Quote from: Executioner Sigma on September 08, 2015, 08:08:18 PM

Is health objective?

Judging by how most first world countries are struggling with an ever growing(no pun) obese population, and that we surround ourselves in an otherwise toxic cancerous environment and actively constantly allow ourselves acceptable levels of harm?

No. It sure as fuck isn't. Objectively, yeah, you exist in a better state when you're healthy and physically fit.

But, objectively, you could also, almost say that nobody gives a shit.

I never put much faith into objectivity because what does it actually amount to? Tell a smoker that they're paying to kill themselves slowly and they'll say okay. 99% of them will do nothing with that.

Try telling somebody who's out to beat the shit out of you that you're going to get hurt and that it's going to suck. Or that both of you could get hurt and it would suck. They sure as fuck won't listen. Objectivity is nice and all. But utterly fruitless when it can so easily be broken and infringed on.

Jim · September 09, 2015, 11:12:20 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Jim · September 09, 2015, 11:14:03 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Verbatim · September 09, 2015, 11:16:03 AM

Lord Starch · September 09, 2015, 12:00:09 PM

Quote from: Executioner Sigma on September 08, 2015, 10:01:45 PM

Quote from: Lord Starch on September 08, 2015, 09:58:12 PM
No morality is not objective. Morality is derived from human emotion and is subject to different standards in different cultures, thus making it inherently subjective.
"Near Death Experiences are derived wholly from human experience, and are subject to different characteristics in different cultures, thus making it impossible for us to talk about NDEs objectively."

You're confusing ontology and epistemology; we can talk objectively about the ontologically subjective.

Hmm. I'm going to have to get back to you on that after class. Seems I need to do some more thinking.

More Than Mortal · September 09, 2015, 12:08:42 PM

Quote from: ⁭⁭⁭⁭ on September 09, 2015, 11:09:35 AM

Objectively, yeah, you exist in a better state when you're healthy and physically fit.

Which is the point. People not giving a shit doesn't negate the existence of facts regarding health.

Anonymous (User Deleted) · September 09, 2015, 12:10:33 PM

*whew* Okay, five page thread while I was mostly asleep.

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on September 08, 2015, 08:40:59 PM

Quote from: Kupo on September 08, 2015, 08:33:55 PM
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on September 08, 2015, 08:31:54 PM
Quote from: Kupo on September 08, 2015, 07:58:26 PM
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on September 08, 2015, 07:52:44 PM
Well it's not subjective.
Quote from: Verbatim on September 08, 2015, 07:53:02 PM
Yes, obviously.
How so?

Well let's clarify. There exist moral truths, but our interpretation of them is subjective.
Defined by who or what?

EDIT: derp, double post

Well I'm a Christian, so I'd say by God, but even that has quite a bit of interpretation. For a non-theistic explanation, some people look to naturalistic explanations, seeing evolution as a means of expressing greater degrees of morality in life. I have trouble with that ideology since evolution is almost entirely based on some species killing and eradicating all others; evolution is a system of suffering.

Without a deity though, asking who or what defines morality is like asking who defines the laws of physics.

Alright, I can understand that. I do believe that some sort of higher authority is necessary for morality to be objective.

Quote from: Executioner Sigma on September 08, 2015, 09:16:41 PM

Quote from: IFUKTMYMOM69 on September 08, 2015, 09:13:15 PM
Because we have defined health as "not being ill." We have defined morality as "the difference between right and wrong" but fail to define "right and wrong" with any objectivity.
But that criticism still applies to health. "Not being ill" is reductive to "The difference between wellness and illness"; there is no illness without wellness as a point of reference. We define one by referencing the other, and it's exactly the same case with morality. We define good and evil by using each one as a reference point; in the same way we have a general notion of well-being for "health"--because nobody wants to be not in a state of gratuitous anti-well-being--we should also have a general notion of well-being for morality--for exactly the same reason.

I don't understand this comparison--we know from science that we have white blood cells that fight off disease and foreign invaders. For that reason, there's a very clear line between healthy and unhealthy, our biology knows that (except when it doesn't), and science is devoted to deducing the facts of what that line is.

Good health would still exist even if there were no such thing as bad health.

Quote from: Executioner Sigma on September 09, 2015, 09:43:34 AM

Quote from: Winy on September 09, 2015, 08:51:15 AM
Why is that the only sane definition?
Because it's literally the only one that makes sense; the only one that is rational. Defining morality by any other standard would be like defining physics as something other than the study of physical phenomena.

I don't understand the comparison. Physics is based on provable facts, and you can't objectively prove morality.

Quote from: Executioner Sigma on September 09, 2015, 04:33:31 AM

Truth comes from definition.

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of truth?

More Than Mortal · September 09, 2015, 12:16:59 PM

Quote from: Kupo on September 09, 2015, 12:10:33 PM

Good health would still exist even if there were no such thing as bad health.

Of course it wouldn't; we wouldn't have developed a concept of health at all because it would be totally irrelevant. "Good health" and "bad health" are entirely relative to one another; in the future, it could be considered a crippling disability to not live to 250, or to not be able to run a marathon every weekend. The world could be configured such a way, in the future, so as to make our current conceptions of health starkly unhealthy in every respect; yet inequities would still exist. If we literally managed to abolish poor health, there would be no point in the concept whatsoever other than some kind of historical artefact.

Quote from: Executioner Sigma on September 09, 2015, 09:43:34 AM

Physics is based on provable facts

No, it isn't. Physics reaches 'provable' (or, more accurately, high-probability) conclusions on the assumed bases of things like physicalism, naturalism and empiricism; which we assume entirely because they are rational to assume.

Quote from: Executioner Sigma on September 09, 2015, 04:33:31 AM

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of truth?

Not at all:

YouTube

Try and ignore the religious context of the video and focus on the epistemological considerations.

clum clum · September 09, 2015, 12:26:54 PM

Not at all. Morality is subjectively objective.

Sandtrap · September 09, 2015, 12:27:47 PM

Quote from: Executioner Sigma on September 09, 2015, 12:08:42 PM

Quote from: ⁭⁭⁭⁭ on September 09, 2015, 11:09:35 AM
Objectively, yeah, you exist in a better state when you're healthy and physically fit.
Which is the point. People not giving a shit doesn't negate the existence of facts regarding health.

Except that it does. If facts and laws are actively walked over, and broken, and infringed, then what actual merit does that law have? Really, think about it. Somebody puts a gun up to your head with the intent to kill and you tell them, "Hey, it's a fact that killing me is no good for me, or my family, or my friends."

They'd still fucking shoot you. Lot of good that objective fact did you, didn't it?

How about something a little more grounded? You smoke minty smokes, Meta. I could tell you, right now, that you're paying to kill yourself. That you're actively damaging and clogging your lungs and destroying their capacity to grant your system oxygen.

And what are you going to do with that objective fact?

Likely, nothing.

And that is on all accounts, likely more than 90% of almost how all people act when you present them an objective fact. So I seriously question, what is the actual point and value of an objective fact when it can actively be ignored, stepped over, bent and broken, and discarded in favor of somebody's own personal stupidity/preferences?

What good is in stating that it's an absolute and then casually discarding it?

An objective fact is completely null until somebody chooses to actively acknowledge it.

More Than Mortal · September 09, 2015, 12:34:28 PM

Quote from: ⁭⁭⁭⁭ on September 09, 2015, 12:27:47 PM

Lot of good that objective fact did you, didn't it?

So? Facts aren't defined by utility of action. You could say religion is a fantastic way of reaching social cohesion, and you could be right but it would have precisely zero bearing on the truth of religious propositions.

Quote

Likely, nothing.

That doesn't mean I'm ignoring the fact, however; it's possible my perception on the issue is poor, but my perception doesn't define the objectivity of that fact. As far as I'm concerned, the utility of me smoking is higher than the disutility of me smoking. If information asymmetries exist, and I'm indeed wrong about my own preference that still doesn't negate the existence of the fact.

Quote

So I seriously question, what is the actual point and value of an objective fact when it can actively be ignored, stepped over, bent and broken, and discarded in favor of somebody's own personal stupidity/preferences?

Objective facts have value to us as agents because we seek it; the fact that we have perceptional biases that prevent us from reaching true objectivity--and always will--doesn't negate the journey of seeking it. Even the most incorrect, psychotic nutjobs incorrigibly believe they are objectively correct.