Yes I'd say they do. Mostly the rather basic ones, such as "if you live in a society okay with x, you are more likely to be subject to x", which is the basis of the concept of the social contract.

I do think it's possible to rate different societies based on how happy the people living in them are as well, but I hesitate to call that a fact.

Its subjective.

Its subjective.

Is it.

Would you not call a society which scoops the eyeballs out of every third child immoral?

Quote from: Meta Cognition on October 02, 2014, 04:29:48 PM

Quote from: Yutaka on October 02, 2014, 04:22:13 PM

Its subjective.

Is it.

Would you not call a society which scoops the eyeballs out of every third child immoral?

Wouldn't that prove his point to its' subjectivity seeing as there is a contrast between the two culture's views on eye scooping?

No.

If a Christian believes God created water before the stars, as he did, thus making the hydrogen-oxygen composition of water impossible he is simply wrong. The same applies for morality, insofar as you admit human well-being is the aim.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on October 02, 2014, 04:29:48 PM

Quote from: Yutaka on October 02, 2014, 04:22:13 PM

Its subjective.

Is it.

Would you not call a society which scoops the eyeballs out of every third child immoral?

A man can think highly of his morals which he believes are right and just.
Another man can believe in the opposite of the other, and think it normal to do so.

And yet that doesn't rule out the possibility of one - or both - of them being wrong.

You kinda lost me at the last half of the last sentence.  Are you saying there is logical order to morality?

I suppose that's one way of phrasing it, although you could run into a quagmire going by such an axiom. Logical orders to morality are often treated to reductio ad absurdum by people imagining instances where rape, murder, genocide or all manner of atrocities could be logically permissible.

As Harris notes, however, it's merely a shortcoming in the ability of people to think reasonably about what a consequence is. The idea that if you have a value to uphold, then facts will follow as you look for the best approach to uphold such a value.

Science itself is based on the values of empiricism and open discussion.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on October 02, 2014, 04:57:28 PM

Science itself is based on the values of empiricism and open discussion.

Technically, science is based on the art of mastering alchemy.

I can't tell if you're trying to make a really obvious joke, or whether you're going to engage in some sort of sophistry >.>

Or is it a reference to Newton's apparent fondness for mercury?

Wow, someone is really upset over something so miniscule. How exactly does it work that people get so mad just by a blatantly obviously non-serious post.

dont be a prick

the internet is srs bsns

espeshly in srs 4um

Quote from: Yutaka on October 02, 2014, 04:48:30 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on October 02, 2014, 04:29:48 PM

Quote from: Yutaka on October 02, 2014, 04:22:13 PM

Its subjective.

Is it.

Would you not call a society which scoops the eyeballs out of every third child immoral?

A man can think highly of his morals which he believes are right and just.
Another man can believe in the opposite of the other, and think it normal to do so.

And yet that doesn't rule out the possibility of one - or both - of them being wrong.

Nor right, its merely up for interpretation.

Nor right, its merely up for interpretation.

And yet there is a clear distinction between actions which depress or appreciate human well-being, when sufficiently separated. We can say with a fair degree of certainty that not removing the eyes of every third child would generally appreciate human well-being more so than removing their eyes.

Quote from: Yutaka on October 02, 2014, 05:14:22 PM

Nor right, its merely up for interpretation.

And yet there is a clear distinction between actions which depress or appreciate human well-being, when sufficiently separated. We can say with a fair degree of certainty that not removing the eyes of every third child would generally appreciate human well-being more so than removing their eyes.

And you'd be right, but when some twisted individual comes along and doesn't know any better, thats where the perspective skews, but only for the individual.

Quote from: Yutaka on October 02, 2014, 05:21:48 PM

And you'd be right, but when some twisted individual comes along and doesn't know any better, thats where the perspective skews, but only for the individual.

And the argument is that those people are wrong. There needn't be a sacralisation of personal morality to the point of respecting the moral positions of psychopathic, psychotic and deranged individuals. We, as a society, are generally capable of calling people who seriously go against the grain as immoral or evil or even, which is perhaps worse, amoral.

We are so intrinsically social that morality can't be separated from it. There are correct and incorrect ways to appreciate human well-being in the same way that medicine tries to appreciate physical health.

I know thats the case, though to said certain individuals they just don't realize or care for morality, to them its fine.

Quote from: Yutaka on October 02, 2014, 05:27:41 PM

I know thats the case, though to said certain individuals they just don't realize or care for morality, to them its fine.

Then they're wrong. That's all there is to it on my side.

My points is, morality exists, just not to all.