Author Topic: Let's rename objective morality  (Read 2155 times)

Offline Solomon Zorn

Re: Let's rename objective morality
« Reply #15 on: March 01, 2017, 01:56:47 PM »
Moralists = hypocritical, delusional, deceitful ass holes.

Quote from: Websters
Definition of moralist
1
:  one who leads a moral life
2
:  a philosopher or writer concerned with moral principles and problems
3
:  one concerned with regulating the morals of others
Pick one.
If God Exists, Why Does He Pretend Not to Exist?
Poetry and Proverbs of the Uneducated Hick

http://www.solomonzorn.com

Online Baruch

Re: Let's rename objective morality
« Reply #16 on: March 01, 2017, 08:06:01 PM »
Pick one.

Dictionary writer: see Ambrose Bierce, Samuel Johnson, Voltaire, Noah Webster ... the first level of escape from the Matrix, is to burn the dictionary.
שלום

Re: Let's rename objective morality
« Reply #17 on: March 03, 2017, 09:51:49 PM »
Not sure how this thread got off track but I will give it more try to anyone who would like to respond to the actual topic I broached.
The term objective morality carries a lot of baggage in the theist eyes. I think a more accurate and less inflammatory term would be qualitative morality. IF the metric for morality is agreed upon then the relative morality of any action compared to another isnqualitafively more less. This is true regardless of observer just as a 6in nail is longer than a 5in nail assuming your using the same metric. 
In my limited experience when discussing morality with theists it seems to derail or defuse some of their arguments about where I get my morality and the need for god for this morality. It's not perfect and I'm not a professional debater but has worked for me and wanted to get interested folks feedback

Offline Solomon Zorn

Re: Let's rename objective morality
« Reply #18 on: March 04, 2017, 06:40:47 AM »
Not sure how this thread got off track but I will give it more try to anyone who would like to respond to the actual topic I broached.
The thread is off track, because you are ignoring me(I gave at least one direct reply to your contention), and responding to Baruch, who loves to sidetrack any thread, with his contrarian tangents.
Quote from: Awakepuddle
The term objective morality carries a lot of baggage in the theist eyes.
Objectivity is often equated with omniscience. This is because, in order to be 100% absolutely objective, an observer has to be outside the thing being observed, as God is supposed to be outside the universe. If omniscience is required for objectivity, then the word is meaningless to man, for the obvious reason, that humans are not omniscient. So objective morality, as the theist defines it, is not possible for any human.

Objectivity as a journalist, scientist or judge, uses a more realistic standard, which is primarily, to let the facts lead the investigation, without imposing preconceptions. Detachment.

Objectivity, for a moralist, is not sufficient without empathy.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2017, 06:42:31 AM by Solomon Zorn »
If God Exists, Why Does He Pretend Not to Exist?
Poetry and Proverbs of the Uneducated Hick

http://www.solomonzorn.com

Re: Let's rename objective morality
« Reply #19 on: March 04, 2017, 09:25:14 AM »
It is more of a thought experiment. I'm not defining social norms. Rather I'm describing a frame work of evaluating morality that can be considered independent of the individual observer and their personal bias. It is not numerical. Hence i proposed a qualitative term. They key of course is the metric. But the reason for the proposal as I previously mentioned was not to prove the validity of method (how do you do that if your method claims to be god) but rather give less hot button terms to relate to our theistitic colleges with and allow us to move past maybe one quagmire and potentially steer our conversations on to a more fruitful subject. In fact nowhere in my statement do I use the word truth nor have I proposed a metric mr philosopher.  I'm not trying Prove anything (or dispel a null either) so not sure where experimentation came from. I never claimed this was the only way to look at morality. I was merely pointing out a common argument and word choice that I thought could be changed.
It just seems that using the term objective morality carries with it baggage that while definitionally required is connatatively present. Instead let's just use something else that is equally definitionally true and does not have the attached societal or historic connotation
Easy; remove want/gain for self from all moral equations.

Presto; general objective morality for the theist/deist/atheist/ agnostic....All.

Too easy?

faith in selfless unity for good


Re: Let's rename objective morality
« Reply #20 on: March 04, 2017, 10:00:52 AM »
@zorn I agree I haven't been here long so I didn't realize that barusch was a tangentialist (she or he who worships the magic of the 90 degree arc). Thanks for responding to me. I agree with you completely which is why I was proposing that we as atheist stop using the term objective when discussing with theists. They are often fixed on the concept of absolutes that i atleast feel is impossible. So I don't engage on that level. When asked how I can determine morality I say I believe in qualitative morality. Maybe the ones I've spoken with haven't been smart enough to equate that to relative morality but I try to define it quickly in a more objective way, again saying hat we don't have to agree on the unit but if we agree on the ruler we can agree on greater and less than terms. This is true regardless as long as we agree on the same measurements. Now if you measure temperature and I'm measuring decibels we are at an impasse.  Anyway my limited experience it has defused the you need to have a god for morality otherwise eating children could be ok arguement. Just thought I would throw it out there.
@pop not sure what throwing out gain has to do with it. Actions can be moral irrespective or any gain or loss. In fact I would argue there is always a personal gain for doing something you consider moral. I remember a friends episode (jeez have we devolved so far as to quote early 2000s sitcoms for phylosoohical insite) when phoebe worried about givin away some money because even if no one else knew she would and her happiness is a personal gain therefore no one can be completely selfless. Anyway my 2 cents. Thanks

Offline SGOS

Re: Let's rename objective morality
« Reply #21 on: March 04, 2017, 10:20:29 AM »
I was proposing that we as atheist stop using the term objective when discussing with theists.
Is that what atheists do?  Maybe I haven't been paying close enough attention, but I never think of morality in objective terms, and I can't think of any atheists that do.  I see morality as subjective.  All morality.  All cases.  When talking about morality, "objective" is simply a word that has no place in the discussion.  Just because morality happens to be subjective doesn't require that it's opposite (objective) requires equal consideration.

Yeah, OK, if theists demand that it does, let them provide an explanation, which we can disregard until they first get the rest of their shit sorted out.

Offline SGOS

Re: Let's rename objective morality
« Reply #22 on: March 04, 2017, 10:27:40 AM »
If Matt Dillahunty wants to use it, I guess that's OK, as long as he defines it.  But you know, I'm going to disregard that one too.  Does Matt actually quantify morality?  Gee, I don't have the time or the interest, and I'm suspicious about whether he does.

Online Baruch

Re: Let's rename objective morality
« Reply #23 on: March 04, 2017, 11:08:33 AM »
@zorn I agree I haven't been here long so I didn't realize that barusch was a tangentialist (she or he who worships the magic of the 90 degree arc). Thanks for responding to me. I agree with you completely which is why I was proposing that we as atheist stop using the term objective when discussing with theists. They are often fixed on the concept of absolutes that i atleast feel is impossible. So I don't engage on that level. When asked how I can determine morality I say I believe in qualitative morality. Maybe the ones I've spoken with haven't been smart enough to equate that to relative morality but I try to define it quickly in a more objective way, again saying hat we don't have to agree on the unit but if we agree on the ruler we can agree on greater and less than terms. This is true regardless as long as we agree on the same measurements. Now if you measure temperature and I'm measuring decibels we are at an impasse.  Anyway my limited experience it has defused the you need to have a god for morality otherwise eating children could be ok arguement. Just thought I would throw it out there.
@pop not sure what throwing out gain has to do with it. Actions can be moral irrespective or any gain or loss. In fact I would argue there is always a personal gain for doing something you consider moral. I remember a friends episode (jeez have we devolved so far as to quote early 2000s sitcoms for phylosoohical insite) when phoebe worried about givin away some money because even if no one else knew she would and her happiness is a personal gain therefore no one can be completely selfless. Anyway my 2 cents. Thanks

Negative credit for propagating spelling mistakes of others (Baruch ... puulease).  Theist, not tangentialist ... spell checker says that isn't even a word.  No, you haven't presented any objective criteria, just talked about criteria for criteria.  OK ... so you have a 90 year old woman, it will cost one million dollars to keep her alive for one more month, should she pay for that surgery out of her own funds (if she has that much) or should the taxpayer be stuck with the bill?  Your answer would be illuminative as to whether you have any morality at all.
שלום

Re: Let's rename objective morality
« Reply #24 on: March 04, 2017, 04:24:24 PM »
Pick one.
I see the definition from Websters assumed to be positive.  I don't think moralists are positive.  I think as Baruch on this; they are blowhard assholes; making the assumption that their set of morals is the the correct and only set.  Morality is the same as beauty--defined differently by each and every viewer.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Re: Let's rename objective morality
« Reply #25 on: March 04, 2017, 09:40:49 PM »
Awakepuddle


"@pop not sure what throwing out gain has to do with it."

It's okay to not understand where I am coming from.

"Actions can be moral irrespective or any gain or loss."

In theory your premise is correct, but in reality as you say immediately following "I would argue there is always a personal gain for doing something you consider moral."

Greed is the ultimate sliding scale, pride being relatively close behind.

Surely you aren't so daft as to posit that ones own gain or rather, the proposition of such, in no way bears weight on ones moral decisions?

Some mutual profit or mood altering benefit may come from a morally right decision and action, but what makes it moral is the reason it was done. If that reason is for self then it isn't exactly moral.

 Anyway my 2 cents. Thanks

peace



[

faith in selfless unity for good
« Last Edit: March 04, 2017, 09:43:18 PM by popsthebuilder »

Re: Let's rename objective morality
« Reply #26 on: March 04, 2017, 11:21:46 PM »
Some mutual profit or mood altering benefit may come from a morally right decision and action, but what makes it moral is the reason it was done. If that reason is for self then it isn't exactly moral.
I dunno, I think morally right* decisions don't necessarily have to be entirely selfless.  For example, helping someone in trouble on the off chance that they'll return the favor (aka reciprocal altruism).  That's precisely what vampire bats do when sharing blood.

* Imo, moral right and wrong is more of a socially-constructed concept (like law and justice) rather than something that exists in nature apart from people.  In reality, there are simply actions with beneficial and detrimental results.  Evil is just shorthand for actions deemed to be reliably detrimental.

Morality works as long as the rubber stays on the road and moral precepts are tied to beneficial results.  When moralists stop thinking about human living conditions and focus on what God doesn't like or what they personally don't like, it can lead to some seriously maladjusted morality where right and wrong is totally arbitrary.

Re: Let's rename objective morality
« Reply #27 on: March 04, 2017, 11:23:52 PM »
I dunno, I think morally right* decisions don't necessarily have to be entirely selfless.  For example, helping someone in trouble on the off chance that they'll return the favor (aka reciprocal altruism).  That's precisely what vampire bats do when sharing blood.

* Imo, moral right and wrong is more of a socially-constructed concept (like law and justice) rather than something that exists in nature apart from people.  In reality, there are simply actions with beneficial and detrimental results.  Evil is just shorthand for actions deemed to be reliably detrimental.

Morality works as long as the rubber stays on the road and moral precepts are tied to beneficial results.  When moralists stop thinking about human living conditions and focus on what God doesn't like or what they personally don't like, it can lead to some seriously maladjusted morality where right and wrong is totally arbitrary.
I do agree with what was said.

But altruism in nature isn't for the benefit of the one giving/sacrificing.

Doing a thing because chance may allow for  you to collect on some debt is not moral and actually more closely resembles the injustices you where attempting to allude to.

peace

faith in selfless unity for good
« Last Edit: March 04, 2017, 11:27:01 PM by popsthebuilder »

Re: Let's rename objective morality
« Reply #28 on: March 04, 2017, 11:37:31 PM »
Doing a thing because chance may allow for  you to collect on some debt is not moral and actually more closely resembles the injustices you where attempting to allude to.
Reciprocal altruism is immoral and resembles an arbitrary form of morality unconcerned with human wellbeing?  A fascinating, though dubious claim.  Probably much easier to assert than to support.  I'd like to see you support that claim if you can.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2017, 11:39:29 PM by Hydra009 »

Re: Let's rename objective morality
« Reply #29 on: March 05, 2017, 06:29:41 AM »
Reciprocal altruism is immoral and resembles an arbitrary form of morality unconcerned with human wellbeing?  A fascinating, though dubious claim.  Probably much easier to assert than to support.  I'd like to see you support that claim if you can.
So the wolf that dens the young does it for her own sake?

What of the orca that will defend and raise a pup from a wholy different family?

Ants and bees? There are so many....What would the difference be if a few weren't selfless? They do these things out of instinct (nature) and for the sake of others.

Not for reward for themselves.

Please show otherwise as I have studied altruism for some time.

peace friend

faith in selfless unity for good