Objective morality

[tonyrey]

we would be slaves to truth, crippled by facts.

We would be slaves to truth if we were physical objects incapable of thinking for ourselves - with all our thoughts determined by physical events…

The truth makes us free but we have to be free to arrive at the truth!

 

[tonyrey]

For the most part, what happens to such people is because they do treat people in ways they would not wish to be treated, they spend their time expecting others to treat them that way, which is a miserable way to live. People absorb the kinds of behaviours they experience - that is why child abusers are often found to be the children of child abusers themselves.

You need to explain why some become child abusers and others don’t…

These are still subjective evils, however - if we were not subjective beings, as I said, we would not care - therefore it wouldn’t matter in anything other than a practical sense if we were stolen from, lied to or even murdered. These would just be things that happened that we had to deal with, rather like antelope have to deal with the persistent threat of being eaten by lions.

You are assuming that evil cannot be both subjective and objective. From one point of view science is also subjective!

 

[Sair]

You need to explain why some become child abusers and others don’t…

Some of the children of abusive parents are fortunate enough to be exposed to other influences apart from their abusers. Some are also genetically disposed to be less aggressive than others.

You are assuming that evil cannot be both subjective and objective. From one point of view science is also subjective!

Considering that we are discussing objective morality, it is as well to find a point of distinction. I don’t think anything can be objectively evil, as such - some action or other can be objectively harmful to a particular being, but it takes the subjective interpretation to consider such an action evil.

As for science, yes, there is always the danger of applying one’s own preferences to scientific experiment and data. That is why science relies upon transparency and repeatability, and because of these aspects, is a self-correcting system.

 

[tonyrey]

You need to explain why some become child abusers and others don’t…

So no one is responsible for being a child abuser…

You are assuming that evil cannot be both subjective and objective. From one point of view science is also subjective!

Considering that we are discussing objective morality, it is as well to find a point of distinction. I don’t think anything can be objectively evil, as such - some action or other can be objectively harmful to a particular being, but it takes the subjective interpretation to consider such an action evil.

It doesn’t cease to be harmful even if you ignore or deny the fact.

As for science, yes, there is always the danger of applying one’s own preferences to scientific experiment and data. That is why science relies upon transparency and repeatability, and because of these aspects, is a self-correcting system. Some of the children of abusive parents are fortunate enough to be exposed to other influences apart from their abusers. Some are also genetically disposed to be less aggressive than others.

So no one is responsible for being a child abuser…

As for science, yes, there is always the danger of applying one’s own preferences to scientific experiment and data. That is why science relies upon transparency and repeatability, and because of these aspects, is a self-correcting system.

Is science the sole self-correcting system? What about a person?

 

[Sair]

We would be slaves to truth if we were physical objects incapable of thinking for ourselves - with all our thoughts determined by physical events…

I’m still not clear on where you draw the distinction between the ‘I’ and the physical properties that make up the ‘I’. How can you claim that ‘we’ are incapable of thinking for ‘ourselves’ when ‘we’ are physical beings? I’m not sure where you’re drawing the line here.

The truth makes us free but we have to be free to arrive at the truth!

The truth is simply the truth. Sometimes it frees us, sometimes it binds us. Sometimes we misinterpret what is true, with varying results.

 

[tonyrey]

We would be slaves to truth if we were physical objects incapable of thinking for ourselves - with all our thoughts determined by physical events

Do you regard yourself as a collection of physical properties - or in Hume’s words “a bundle of perceptions”? Or a rational person?

How can you claim that ‘we’ are incapable of thinking for ‘ourselves’ when ‘we’ are physical beings? I’m not sure where you’re drawing the line here.

You are assuming we are solely physical beings - as if everything is composed of physical elements. How do you justify that hypothesis - given that thoughts are intangible?

The truth makes us free but we have to be free to arrive at the truth!

The truth is simply the truth. Sometimes it frees us, sometimes it binds us. Sometimes we misinterpret what is true, with varying results.

Are we ever responsible for our interpretations or misinterpretations? Do we ever make deliberate mistakes? Or refuse to acknowledge the truth because we dislike the implications?

 

[Sair]

Do you regard yourself as a collection of physical properties - or in Hume’s words “a bundle of perceptions”? Or a rational person?

What’s the difference between a collection of physical properties that manifests rationality and a rational person?

You are assuming we are solely physical beings - as if everything is composed of physical elements. How do you justify that hypothesis - given that thoughts are intangible?

I am assuming, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that all perceptible phenomena are of one nature. Thoughts may be intangible in the sense that we can’t touch or hold them, but so too are wind, gravity and heat, to name a few.

Are we ever responsible for our interpretations or misinterpretations? Do we ever make deliberate mistakes? Or refuse to acknowledge the truth because we dislike the implications?

Sometimes we aren’t directly responsible for our interpretations of reality. We are always subject to outside influences, and how we deal with these influences is a complex combination of internal and external factors. We are continually bombarded with sensory information (and digital information, these days) and we don’t always have the wherewithal to interpret it in what might might be called the ‘correct’ way, or even a beneficial way. I think ‘deliberate mistake’ is probably an oxymoron, since the definition of ‘mistake’ actually implies a failure to correctly interpret a situation whilst being genuinely convinced we are in the right. On the other hand, there are plenty of people who shun uncomfortable truths, no matter how much evidence they have to hand. Holocaust-deniers are an example…

 

[grannymh]

Quite so. It’s obviously a fact that certain behaviours and decisions are considered to be moral behaviours and decisions. My contention is and always has been that if we were not subjective beings, morality would not exist, simply because nobody would care what anyone did - behaviours that we consider matters of morality would be nothing more or less than matters of practical action.

I consider the difference between objective and subjective thinking as essential when it comes to evaluating actions as being either moral or immoral or neutral. With that in mind, I would respond to your contention above with this qualification. If the human person is considered a subjective being, the human person can also think objectively.

This is based on the common use (including philosophical) of subjective and objective. Information links are in post 129.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

This is why people go to jail. They have denied the objective value of treating others as they wish to be treated.

People are arrested and go to jail for having been accused of an offense. Whether or not the person actually commited the offense is what is deliberated at the trial. If convicted and given the punishment of serving time the person is then taken to prison. Legal offenses need not be associated for moral offenses; such as if one forgets their license at home (driving without a license). Also conviction can be based on a jury being convinced that a person committed an offense (which has happened without a person being the one that actually committed an offense). There’s an important yet often overlooked distinction between jail and prison. In this past month Pepsi was ordered to pay 3.13 Million USD out to people that had been fired or refused for consideration for for having been arrested (which, as I pointed out above is not by itself an indication that the person committed an offense).

Knowing that some one treated another in a manner that they themselves would not like isn’t sufficient to say that a person has committed an action for which time should be served. Though it in many cases would be considered rude.

jail - for people that have been accused and are awaiting trial
prison - for people convicted of an offense and ordered to serve time

While some laws and legal procedures may be motivated by moral and ethical consideration the laws of the land can and do diverge from what one might consider to be the more moral action.

 

[grannymh]

Sair

**Furthermore, there are plenty of people to whom self-reflection simply doesn’t come naturally, who may not even consider what it would be like if someone treated them the way they treat others. Are these people to be considered objectively evil? **

No. They are to be considered subjectively ignorant or subjectively perverse.

This is why people go to jail. They have denied the objective value of treating others as they wish to be treated.

What thief wants to be stolen from?

What murderer wants to be murdered?

What chronic liar wants to be lied to?

For the above three characters you can bet that being treated the way they have treated others is an objective evil.

The real reason in real life for people going to jail … oh, skip it. I keep forgetting that one is not suppose to think objectively. Sorry about that. I will unsubscribe for my sinful ideas about the difference between subjective and objective reasoning.:sad_bye:

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sair
**
As for science, yes, there is always the danger of applying one’s own preferences to scientific experiment and data. That is why science relies upon transparency and repeatability, and because of these aspects, is a self-correcting system. **

Your notion that only science can be objective and morality cannot is clearly false.

Morality also relies upon transparency and repeatability. When someone rapes a child, that is transparently evil. And it wouldn’t matter how many times you kept repeating that rape … it would always and everywhere be **transparently **evil.

Anyone who says raping a child is not objectively evil is living in a subjective bubble of immorality or amorality.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

granny

The real reason in real life for people going to jail … oh, skip it. I keep forgetting that one is not suppose to think objectively. Sorry about that. I will unsubscribe for my sinful ideas about the difference between subjective and objective reasoning.

The real reason for people going to jail is the recognition by society at large that objective evil exists, and that to defend ourselves against it we must put a wall around the perpetrators of real (objective) as opposed to imaginary or invented (subjective) evil.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m sure you’ll not mind me going down the philosophical rabbit hole of how one decides what is “best.”

Well, for the sake of argument I’ll concede that we can just use the word “better”.

Depends…, there’s a broad range of groups that call themselves “Christian.”

And as this is the CAFs, let’s just limit this discussion to Catholicism.

I could agree that some groups/churches promote more empathy/better conduct than others though.

Exactly.

And it is only because of the Christian (here, read “Catholic”) ethos that one can be better conduits of empathy.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Well, for the sake of argument I’ll concede that we can just use the word “better”.

Okay, sounds cool

And as this is the CAFs, let’s just limit this discussion to Catholicism.

ok

Side note, I’ve got little experience with practicing Catholics. I am in Southern Baptist territory here.

Exactly.

And it is only because of the Christian (here, read “Catholic”) ethos that one can be better conduits of empathy.

I think that gives us some room to start drawing some compatible conclusions. More thought on that later.

Pardon my brevity (or spelling mistakes). Sending this from a phone while waiting on a food order.

 

[PRmerger]

Side note, I’ve got little experience with practicing Catholics. I am in Southern Baptist territory here.

Best not to use “practicing Catholics” as the canon but rather use “Catholicism”.

 

[John21652]

I consider the difference between objective and subjective thinking as essential when it comes to evaluating actions as being either moral or immoral or neutral. With that in mind, I would respond to your contention above with this qualification. If the human person is considered a subjective being, the human person can also think objectively.

This is based on the common use (including philosophical) of subjective and objective. Information links are in post 129.

Hey grannymh, human beings are objectively described as thinking and feeling beings who interact with their environment. There are those who maintain that no two experiences of anything by humans are the same. They seem to think that the personal perspective of an individual experiencing an event automatically means that the sensory experiences are ‘different’. However, they keep forgetting to explain how traffic lights work.

 

[tonyrey]

Do you regard yourself as a collection of physical properties - or in Hume’s words “a bundle of perceptions”? Or a rational person?

Your question is begging the question! How can a collection of physical properties “manifest” rationality? The very use of the term in that context manifests itself as bizarre…

You are assuming we are solely

physical beings - as if everything is composed of physical elements. How do you justify that hypothesis - given that thoughts are intangible? I am assuming, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that all perceptible phenomena are of one nature.

Thoughts may be intangible in the sense that we can’t touch or hold them, but so too are wind, gravity and heat, to name a few.

Can you observe, measure, test, predict or calculate thoughts?

Are we ever responsible for our interpretations or misinterpretations?

Sometimes we aren’t directly responsible for our interpretations of reality.

“Sometimes” implies that we are usually responsible!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sair
**
These would just be things that happened that we had to deal with, rather like antelope have to deal with the persistent threat of being eaten by lions. **

No doubt an objective (not a subjective or imaginary) evil for the antelope, if not for you.

 

[Sair]

Sair
**
These would just be things that happened that we had to deal with, rather like antelope have to deal with the persistent threat of being eaten by lions. **

No doubt an objective (not a subjective or imaginary) evil for the antelope, if not for you.

The point is that antelope don’t tend to seek revenge or take personal affront at the fact of lion predation. They don’t put a subjective construction, such as ‘evil’, upon the circumstance. Although it is, obviously, objectively harmful and no doubt physically painful for an individual antelope to be eaten, there is no moral dimension to this situation, since neither lions nor antelope have any real say in how they are to survive in their environment - they just get on with it, not having the capacity to plan ahead and imagine how things might be better. The only way this situation could gain a moral dimension, in fact, is if it was designed and built thus by an intelligent, intentional deity who could have done differently…

 

[John21652]

The point is that antelope don’t tend to seek revenge or take personal affront at the fact of lion predation. They don’t put a subjective construction, such as ‘evil’, upon the circumstance.

If that is the case, why is it that antelope ‘bark’ a warning to other antelopes when danger is scented?

Although it is, obviously, objectively harmful and no doubt physically painful for an individual antelope to be eaten,

Nonsense. Why is it that animals being eaten alive don’t call out and struggle like crazy? It is because their bodies are so flooded with chemicals and hormones, they feel nothing.

there is no moral dimension to this situation, since neither lions nor antelope have any real say in how they are to survive in their environment - they just get on with it, not having the capacity to plan ahead and imagine how things might be better.

Gee whiz you come up with some amazing stuff! Flight or fright syndrome is based entirely on an animal’s willingness and ability to ‘plan ahead’. Lions sneak, which requires planning. Antelopes ‘bark’ as a forewarning, which shows anticipation. Antelope run and jump as an avoidance mechanism. Lions run faster so they don’t go hungry. The weak perish and the strong survive and the species survives. That is moral. The beauty of this system is that lions don’t compete with antelope. They compliment one another. That is a morality all in itself.

The only way this situation could gain a moral dimension, in fact, is if it was designed and built thus by an intelligent, intentional deity who could have done differently…

Differently?! And just what would you do differently with this amazing self regulating system?