MrKurteous t1_j9jlcc3 wrote
Reply to comment by TheRushConcush in Thought experiments claim to use our intuitive responses to generate philosophical insights. But these scenarios are deceptive. Moral intuitions depend heavily on context and the individual. by IAI_Admin
Sure, but I felt the article made a compelling case for avoiding use of thought experiments as a way of arguing or discovering what's right/wrong. Also, happy cake day!
Killercod1 t1_j9jmeh9 wrote
There is no objective morality. It doesn't really matter what you say in the dilemmas, neither answer is correct or wrong. However, they're good at determining the fundamental aspects of what you personally think is right
Judgethunder t1_j9jo4z1 wrote
That's one theory anyway. There certain seems to be some pretty clear commonalities of what most people determine as harmful or helpful or what most people regardless of culture find to be a laudible goal.
Even non human animals have some basic intuitions about reciprocity, compassion, and survival. Some answers seem better suited to achieving a generally positive outcome than others.
And of course you could point to some outliers who might find for whatever reason that causing unneeded suffering is somehow ideal for them. But I could also probably find a similar number of people whom when placed in an unlocked cage decide the best way out is to defecate on the floor.
What I mean to say is people say "There is no objective morality" like that is some kind of given, obvious statement. When it's not. It's just as likely to be a coping mechanism for our lack of ability to make optimal ethical determinations due to our biases and flaws.
Killercod1 t1_j9jsllw wrote
Everyone has different desires and goals. Some want to maximize pleasure, others may want to be zealous with their religion. The only constructive argument to be made is how best to adhere to their morality.
There's definitely a moral philosophy that is the most compatible with a functioning human society. Like a morality that maximizes growth, pleasure, and health of the society (some form of utilitarianism). It may be necessary for creating the most effective and functional society. But, it's not the only morality that exists and some may desire society to be less functional or they may be completely indifferent to it.
I would argue that the most common morality is actually detrimental to society. The morality of capitalism, being that of the belief in private property, productivity, and profit being inherently good. This isn't capatible with humanity and our communal structures. However, it is the current ruling morality.
mackinator3 t1_j9jqo1n wrote
You just wrote all that but didn't really say anything. Besides that you specifically want to exclude things that don't suit your conclusion...
Judgethunder t1_j9jr491 wrote
That's an awfully interesting interpretation.
ChubbiestLamb6 t1_j9ke3vv wrote
>optimal ethical determinations
Optimal how? The thing you seem to be missing is that you must choose a yardstick to assess any decision, action, situation, etc, as better or worse than another option. How can you possibly rank things as more or less optimal unless you've picked an attribute to care about? Your appeal to common values across cultures and species--even setting aside the inherent weakness of cherry-picking examples--hinges on a false equivalence between consensus and objectivity.
The fact that there is no objectively correct yardstick to use is the whole problem. It's not about, like, logistics, or the difficulty of accurately predicting outcomes in a complex system to be able to confidently pick the best actions, or anything like that. Those are all problems that come up after you've picked a yardstick.
I'm not saying your yardstick is a bad one, or an uncommon one. But you did pick it because you like it best for whatever reasons, compelling as they may be.
It seems like what you should be arguing for is something like an "Official Morality", not an objective one. I think failure to distinguish between the two is what leads to a lot of the friction in discussions like these. Reading your comment as an argument that it is possible to create a moral policy that is best suited to promote the things most people need and care about totally avoids the disagreements you're encountering. From everyone else's point of view, you missed the point of what "objective morality" means, and from your point of view, everyone else is bumbling around acting like it's impossible to determine if starving is preferable to being safe and well-fed due to some veil of philosophical technicality. But yhe real issue is that you're talking past each other.
Judgethunder t1_j9kh9b4 wrote
>From everyone else's point of view, you missed the point of what "objective morality" means, and from your point of view, everyone else is bumbling around acting like it's impossible to determine if starving is preferable to being safe and well-fed due to some veil of philosophical technicality. But the real issue is that you're talking past each other.
Yeah. That's about the sum of it.
ChubbiestLamb6 t1_j9l5mcs wrote
Soo...if you're aware of the problem, is there a reason you don't change your approach to the conversation?
Judgethunder t1_j9mdhdk wrote
Because I think it is indeed a useless philosophical technicality.
There are many objective facts we accept as objective facts because we use our senses to perceive then. Our senses are subjective. Nothing we detect using them is truly objective, from colors, to shapes, to anything at all.
But we set a standard of objectivity based on our senses anyway.
So in the absence of the word of a deity, what kind of objective reality could we possibly expect beside what we can to the best of our ability calculate is in the best interest of all humanity and the ecosystem we are a part of?
The fact that it is usually better to eat than to starve is as objective as me looking up and observing the color of the sky.
frogandbanjo t1_j9k4gfz wrote
>What I mean to say is people say "There is no objective morality" like that is some kind of given, obvious statement.
Well, maybe it wasn't always, but I'd say Godel did some pretty compelling work on a highly analogous problem. "There is no objective morality" ought to be understood as simply claiming that you can't prove premises using an argument that initially accepts them as a given.
Remember, you're also bounded on the other side by self interest. Free-standing self interest is widely understood as being amoral, not moral... but of course, people can also disagree with that - and some philosophers have! Indeed, many have posited that it's immoral, while a minority have posited that it's moral!
How very objective.
PrimalZed t1_j9jsup8 wrote
There is no universally true moral statement. There is no way to definitively prove any moral statement. Hence, there is no objective morality.
Judgethunder t1_j9ju677 wrote
Some solutions to problems are going to be objectively better than others in their given context. Morality and ethics are problem solving tools, emergent from the evolutionary process.
Midrya t1_j9jzy2n wrote
Could you provide an example? Certainly there are solutions to problems that maximize for specific goals, but you would need to establish that the goal itself is objectively derived, and not just something that is desired.
Judgethunder t1_j9k2zil wrote
You can deconstruct all frameworks to be meaningless if you want to. But we don't. Our minds and desires are emergent products of evolution with certain common desires leaning toward survival, homeostasis, propagation.
Some outcomes are going to be better than others for this. Some desires and goals are going to be better than others for this.
Could we deconstruct these goals as philosophers and render propagation of our species and our ecosystem and our societies as relatively meaningless? Sure. But we don't. Not really.
PrimalZed t1_j9k6f1m wrote
A social or moral desire being "emergent products of evolution" does not make them objective. It's not even true that all morals are emergent products of evolution.
To give an extreme example to quickly cut to the core here, "We shouldn't press the button that kills all humans" is not an objective statement. It presumes that human life or the continuation of humanity are inherently valuable.
Your position that there is objective morality would be easily proven if you can give an example of an objectively true moral statement.
Judgethunder t1_j9k92bb wrote
Assuming that human life and the continuation of humans is a reasonable assumption to make. And an assumption that nearly everyone makes.
PrimalZed t1_j9kjbl0 wrote
"The continuation of humanity is inherently valuable" is not objective. Yes, it is a value that most people hold, but that does not make it an objective truth. At best, that makes it a common axiom.
That you had to qualify "nearly everyone" holds that value itself demonstrates that it is subjective, not objective.
There is no fundamental universal property that makes humanity inherently valuable. Humanity can cease, and the universe will continue on just fine. We can say that's bad, and construct our morals around that axiom, but that doesn't make the axiom objectively true.
brutinator t1_j9jwxaw wrote
I dont really agree. I agree that we might not know what the objective morality is, but I do think that we cant say that the existence of an objective moral theory doesnt exist.
Killercod1 t1_j9jx5q7 wrote
Why should we all adhere to one interpretation of good?
brutinator t1_j9k9ldf wrote
Why shouldnt we, if the hypothetical interpretation is the correct one?
Killercod1 t1_j9k9tj0 wrote
What makes it the correct one?
brutinator t1_j9kkmaq wrote
Thats not the question. I am not listing what makes a correct ethical theory, I am asking why a correct ethical theory should not exist.
Killercod1 t1_j9knkop wrote
It can be personally correct to you (or your group), as in it's consistent with your beliefs and desires. It may be a correct ethical theory, not the correct ethical theory (which is what "objective morality" is attempting to establish). However, using the word "correct" to define an ethical theory, is ridiculous. There's no way to prove it's correct, it doesn't make any sense to assume it can be correct. How would you define a wrong ethical theory?
brutinator t1_j9krgae wrote
Youre avoiding the question, or assuming Im saying something different.
A correct ethical theory is one that maximizes good, a wrong one is one that does not.
Again, Im not trying to define what THE correct ethical theory is. But we can say that some ethical theories are better than others. For example, the ethical theory "Murder every single person you encounter" is obviously not a good one. So it seems a logical conclusion that one is the best. What it is, I dont know.
But lets assume it exists, and is known: a system that maximizes good with no downsides.
Why shouldnt it be universally followed?
Killercod1 t1_j9kv4db wrote
What is "good"? Why should it be maximized? You sound like a zealous utilitarian.
Playing devils advocate here: why isn't killing a good thing? What's so obviously wrong about it? Perhaps, one may consider human life evil and seek for it's complete extinction. PETA members come to mind. Perhaps, human life isn't as valuable as capitalist profit is. Economy > humanity. There's some that would die on that hill to enforce these ethics.
Obviously, I dont subscribe to these ideas. I consider myself a humanist that wishes to maximize humanity's health and well-being. However, even the question of what is "health" and "well-being", is up for debate.
Whether or not something should be universally followed, is an opinion. Particularly, the "should" implies subjectivity. It's completely dependent on your personal beliefs and goals. In the real world, not everyone shares those beliefs and goals. Morals and ethics seem objective, until they face contradicting counterparts. Leading to war.
brutinator t1_j9kznhz wrote
Youre not playing devil's advocate, youre ignoring the question and diverting the discussion. If you are going to argue that all actions are amoral and/or equally ethical, then we have no basis to continuing this discussion. To put it in your terms, why bother being a "humanist" if all actions are equally healthy and increasing well being?
All youre saying is that because we dont know, we shouldnt subscribe to a single belief. While I think that position alone is contestible, thats not the question Im asking, and truth be told, is a little tautological. Obviously people cant do what they dont know.
To reiterate it a third time, if we DO know a universal ethical theory, why shouldnt everyone follow it?
Killercod1 t1_j9l3r2y wrote
Ethics have no quantifiable value. Since you cannot physically measure how "good" something is, it's entirely subjective. I'm not saying everything is equally valuable. I'm saying that there's no way to objectively determine the moral value of something. You can only determine it's value to individual people and groups. What would an all-encompassing good look like?
You always act in your own interest, even if those interests are for someone else's well-being. Your morals are your values. I never said you should be amoral. I'm sharing the fact that there are those with different values. You can call them evil, if you want. But, they will continue to exist. They may even overpower you.
You would have to prove that there is an ethical theory that trumps all others. This is conflicting with real world conditions, because there isn't one. Some people's values may align with other's. But, it's not true for everyone. The only way to make your ethics universal, is to defeat all contradicting ethics and people who uphold them. In doing so, you would be considered a fascist. The road of good intentions is paved with blood.
The point is, by enforcing your "universal objective" ethical theory, you would be eliminating all others. Who's not to say that you're the evil one?
brutinator t1_j9lbgjh wrote
Gotcha. Im not going to engage in this anymore because you are refusing to answer the central question.
Again, WHAT the "best" theory is is out of scope. I frankly do not care what it looks like.
Again, if you are going to suggest that "good" and "bad" do not exist, then I think the field of ethics is not for you: the entire core supposition of the field is that there exists good of varying degrees. What that is? How to achieve it? Sure, those are things to discuss, but it inherently relies on the premise that you CAN measure moral value. Show me a single ethical theory with decent standing that says that you can not determine if something is good or bad.
Again, you are constructing strawmen to argue against instead of engaging with the question. Never did I say everyone should be forcibly made to adhere to an arbitrarily decided moral code. Is every action that you do the same as everyone else enforced upon you by the threat of external violence? Do you eat? Do you drink water? Do you breath oxygen? Do you do those things because youll be executed if you dont? If no, then clearly there are things that everyone does, and can do, without the need for external violence. But I digress because, again, its out of the scope of the question.
Good bye.
Killercod1 t1_j9lgmzc wrote
Since "good" and "bad" cannot be materially measured, they can only be subjectively determined. They are social constructions, concepts. It's totally illogical to insist that they can be measured. You can only measure material.
How else would you make everyone adhere to your "universal" ethics, other than by enforcing them? Perhaps, you convince people otherwise. However, if you find someone adamantly opposed to it, their existence would contradict your universal theory. As it obviously wouldn't be universal if there's other conflicting ethics that exist.
People perform basic necessary tasks to live. By not performing them, they would be executing themselves, in a sense. Values are materially driven. It's likely that your values have conformed to benefit your own material conditions. If they haven't, I would consider you illogical. Your actions would be unpredictable and inconsistent.
Happy cake day
frnzprf t1_j9o1prk wrote
I agree that there is no universal moral truth.
I heard once the story that Moses went down with the ten commandments and when he saw that the Isrealites worshipped a golden cow, he destroyed the stone tablets out of anger. Then he wrote down the ten commandments again, but slightly differently.
I don't know if that's true. He definitely destroyed the tablets once. It was surprisingly difficult to find the respective parts in the bible - I'm going to try again. The story might very well be not true!
The point is: Moral laws only matter if people know them and agree with them, so in the end what people think is the only thing that matters.
That's not the intentended meaning by the bible passages, they were probably just written by different people, or the author has forgotten what he has written the first time.
Edit: The relevant section is Exodus 34. God says that he will write the same words as on the first tablet. Then he goes on to state some commandments, which aren't the classical "10 commandments" but it's not clear to me which of them will go on the stone tablets or whether they are maybe just some additions that are not important enough to be written in stone.
The bible is not important to my point though - only subjective morals matter.
Sulfamide t1_j9loi05 wrote
Because it makes a more cohesive society.
Killercod1 t1_j9lpmx2 wrote
What if a conflicting society was the ideal? It would allow for one to express themselves. A cohesive society, may be an oppressive society.
Sulfamide t1_j9nrb5u wrote
> It would allow for one to express themselves
How so? What kind of expression?
And what type of conflict are you thinking of? Doesn’t conflict allow for violence and soffering? Is it possible for those to be ideal?
Killercod1 t1_j9obiln wrote
A difference in core values. Not everyone's situation is best suited for one ethical theory. It may be that you live in inhospitable conditions, requiring one to be unethical to survive and thrive.
Conflict allows for one to express their individualality and identity. Ethics and morals allow for violence as well, punishing the unruly. Anything can be ideal.
Sulfamide t1_j9ofk9u wrote
I am a gay man and I live in a muslim country where it is illegal and punished. If I had to choose, what should I wish for, that my people would share my values, or that suddenly the laws and ethics of my county allow for differences in values?
Right now I would choose the former as it would surely make me happier. I would be happier because on top of not having to hide, I would feel closer to my family, friends, and fellow countrymen. It is more important to me to share values with people than to be permitted to have different ones, as it seems to me more like a compromise than an ideal.
ulookingatme t1_j9na2ip wrote
Morality is subjective and is of a fungible nature. You can theorize all you like, but reality and history tells us this is true.
brutinator t1_j9oqoq2 wrote
Sure, just like how the sun revolved around the earth. After all, 'reality' and history told us that was true too.
Its a special kind of hubris to just decide that we know everything about anything.
ulookingatme t1_j9qy66c wrote
If you give me an example of one morally objective rule that is universally accepted I'd say you may have a point. Standing by.
brutinator t1_j9rbzg2 wrote
Its morally permissible to breathe.
ulookingatme t1_j9rv13c wrote
Tell that to the guy on death row.
brutinator t1_j9rxfck wrote
That's odd, I've never seen someone say that a guy on death row breathing is immoral or unethical. Want to show me some evidence of that?
cloake t1_j9l5ik8 wrote
Right like the trolly problem is more about people not wanting to get their hands dirty rather than risking something to do some good in the world.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments