Morality

[GSOgymrat]

Harm is quantifiable? Let me ask this question then, so I can _measure_ where your morals lie...

A train is speeding down a track. Further up the track, there are 5 people stuck on the rail and cannot get free. However, several hundred feet between the train and the people, you and a very large man are standing on a platform above the rail. Here are your choices.

1) Push the man in front of the train, forcing it to slow down or stop, and thus saving the 5 people.
2) Do nothing and let the train kill the 5 people.

Those are the only choices. Which one would you choose?

There is actually another choice. Jump in front of the train yourself and save everyone.

[stromboli]

By all means, quantify morality for us.

Offering hypothetical examples does not quantify anything. I  can hypothetically guess that moose fall off of cliffs because they are learning to fly. We've been discussing morality on here for quite some time, and I have yet to see any specific example that in fact portrays or "quantifies" it.

And quantify is the wrong word. the root is from quantity or number, meaning To limit the variables of (a proposition) by prefixing an operator such as all or some.

All or some objective morality?

[stromboli]

I think a better word is demonstrable. Can you demonstrate or show an example of an objective morality that covers all cultures, conditions or situations where a moral ruling is applicable? I stated the same thing some pages back. If there is one, I am not aware of it.

[Solomon Zorn]

Oh, so you just disagree with my example. Why make such a big fuss if you agree with my premise?

If you read through the thread, we had a Christian on here beating us over the head with a Holocaust hypothetical, and no one wants to hear another one.

As far as your premise, I'm not sure you stated one.

Also, Qchan, you should start an introduction thread in "the Lobby," so we can welcome you.

[GSOgymrat]

X

[Qchan]

If you read through the thread, we had a Christian on here beating us over the head with a Holocaust hypothetical, and no one wants to hear another one.

As far as your premise, I'm not sure you stated one.

Also, Qchan, you should start an introduction thread in "the Lobby," so we can welcome you.

My premise is that morality is not quantifiable. You agree with that, so that means we agree with each other.

[Qchan]

By all means, quantify morality for us.

Offering hypothetical examples does not quantify anything. I  can hypothetically guess that moose fall off of cliffs because they are learning to fly. We've been discussing morality on here for quite some time, and I have yet to see any specific example that in fact portrays or "quantifies" it.

And quantify is the wrong word. the root is from quantity or number, meaning To limit the variables of (a proposition) by prefixing an operator such as all or some.

All or some objective morality?

That's my point. Morality is _not_ quantifiable. I'm sorry you pissed the point I was trying to make.

I'm interested, though... What do you define are universal morality? My morality would be completely different than the morality of someone in another country. I'm curious as to what you consider to be moral and not moral.

[Mike Cl]

That's my point. Morality is _not_ quantifiable. I'm sorry you pissed the point I was trying to make.

I'm interested, though... What do you define are universal morality? My morality would be completely different than the morality of someone in another country. I'm curious as to what you consider to be moral and not moral.

Strom (and most everybody else here) has been saying just that all along.  It would pay you to invest the time and read some of the most recent posts by strom. 

There isn't any universal moral value.  For me being moral is causing as little harm as possible; and tying to be aware of even the unintentional harm I may cause; kind of like an interweaving of the Wicca motto and the several hundred golden rules.   

[missingnocchi]

It would pay you to invest the time and read some of the most recent posts by strom.

It would have paid you and several others to read Qchan's posts in the first place instead of assuming he was on the wrong side of the debate just because he's not an atheist and Sal is. So far as I can tell, Sal is the only one in this thread who has explicitly stated support for the view that harm is quantifiable, and everyone else, presumably baffled by the sheer stupidity of that claim, failed to realize that he was, in fact, in the wrong, and Qchan in the right.

[GSOgymrat]

I'm in the minority here believing there are moral values independent of culture, that things like rape are always wrong.

[Sal1981]

The reason I think Harm and Pain are quantifiable is because we can measure what sort of impact causing and lessening Harm and Pain. This of course isn't exactly an obvious metric, but a "fuzzy" relative one. For example, in every day life I, and dare I say most, follow some "moral compass" that has a basis in experience with dealing with other people and your surroundings. That we can't agree on one way of how to go about our business is just the nature of how own subjective worldviews.

I don't think morality can be pinned down to an "objective morality" because of the very nature of morality: interacting with other people, which means it will always be subjective in the outset. Yet, I think we can all agree on some subsets of morality, such as Harm and Pain. Sam Harris' moral landscape comes to mind, with its valleys and mountaintops of moral behavior.

One way to quantify this would be to minimize what one considers Pain in beings able to experience Pain against maximum Pain possible. Same with Harm.

To me that spells a world where I try to do the least amount of Pain and Harm as desirable against their polar opposites. Probably not realistically possible for everyone because we all have different subjective measurements of what we consider Pain and Harm.

[Qchan]

The reason I think Harm and Pain are quantifiable is because we can measure what sort of impact causing and lessening Harm and Pain. This of course isn't exactly an obvious metric, but a "fuzzy" relative one. For example, in every day life I, and dare I say most, follow some "moral compass" that has a basis in experience with dealing with other people and your surroundings. That we can't agree on one way of how to go about our business is just the nature of how own subjective worldviews.

I don't think morality can be pinned down to an "objective morality" because of the very nature of morality: interacting with other people, which means it will always be subjective in the outset. Yet, I think we can all agree on some subsets of morality, such as Harm and Pain. Sam Harris' moral landscape comes to mind, with its valleys and mountaintops of moral behavior.

One way to quantify this would be to minimize what one considers Pain in beings able to experience Pain against maximum Pain possible. Same with Harm.

To me that spells a world where I try to do the least amount of Pain and Harm as desirable against their polar opposites. Probably not realistically possible for everyone because we all have different subjective measurements of what we consider Pain and Harm.

And what constitutes as pain and harm? Pain and harm is subjective, wouldn't you say? Each person deals with those two things differently. To base your level of morality on arbitrary opinions is a bit asinine. How would you know how another prefers to be treated? I've learned that, just because you want to be treated a certain way doesn't mean another person wants to be treated that same way. So, how would you dictate what hurts some one the least?

You make morality seem so black and white. Its not black and white - and speaking of black and white: African Americans suffer discrimination every day. Yet, when whites are asked if African Americans are being discriminated against in this day and age, an overwhelming majority say they aren't. If morality was so "black and white", then wouldn't whites be able to see that African Americans are still subject to harsh discrimination? Clearly, there's pain and harm here, yet it continues.

[Mr.Obvious]

I'm in the minority here believing there are moral values independent of culture, that things like rape are always wrong.

It depends on what you mean exactly whether or not i agree. I too feel like, for example, pedophilia is  wrong. Independent of what a culture says. It was something abhorrent, i feel, even in ancient greek civilisations. And it is wrong that in Some cultures even today old men can mary eight year olds.
That in no way however implies there is a moral standard outside of mankinds subjective understandin, reasoning and interpretention. Even less one imposed on us by an omnipotent and omniscient beïng. Nor does it lead me to believe that what i hold to be wrong or right under any and all circumstances will be universally agreed upon.
For example, i find nothing at all immoral about eating meat. Yet Some people i know do find it completely immoral. I understand and comprehend their reasoning but fail to be persuaded. I even give it good odds that in first world countries in a few hundred years The eating of meat Will be widely be concidered immoral. But even if they have such a vision with solid reasoning to back it up, it will still be morality that is subjective and only existed within mankinds intelligenc; shared and individual.

[Sal1981]

And what constitutes as pain and harm? Pain and harm is subjective, wouldn't you say? Each person deals with those two things differently. To base your level of morality on arbitrary opinions is a bit asinine. How would you know how another prefers to be treated? I've learned that, just because you want to be treated a certain way doesn't mean another person wants to be treated that same way. So, how would you dictate what hurts some one the least?

Pain is a neurological reaction that we can measure in both animals and humans. I don't think plants have the same capacity, so I find it less morally intrusive to uproot a grass, than, say, slap a man, because the latter is able to experience Pain. Someone else with other moral standards might then disagree and say that the former has with it greater Harm. It really depends what your values are. I wouldn't dictate what causes the least amount of Pain, other than what we can measure and agree upon. If there's disagreement, so be it, and there'll be conflict.

You make morality seem so black and white. Its not black and white - and speaking of black and white: African Americans suffer discrimination every day. Yet, when whites are asked if African Americans are being discriminated against in this day and age, an overwhelming majority say they aren't. If morality was so "black and white", then wouldn't whites be able to see that African Americans are still subject to harsh discrimination? Clearly, there's pain and harm here, yet it continues.

You're throwing a lot of unsubstantiated claims around, who are these "overwhelming majority" substantiated by? You? Should I take your word for granted? Even if I concede there is (not that I disagree with you, I just want to see some data on the matter) just goes to show the different values Pain and Harm has to different people. I never claimed an objective moral standard, just that it just might be quantifiable and, daresay, measurable.

[GSOgymrat]

That in no way however implies there is a moral standard outside of mankinds subjective understandin, reasoning and interpretention. Even less one imposed on us by an omnipotent and omniscient beïng. Nor does it lead me to believe that what i hold to be wrong or right under any and all circumstances will be universally agreed upon.

Since I’m an atheist, I obviously don’t believe that morals are dictated by a omnipotent being. I believe certain moral values and behaviors have evolved as part of being human. These values are affected by culture but exist independently of culture. One example is that humans are territorial and believe in personal possession of property. Babies do not need to learn the concept “this is mine.” Give a baby a toy and then see the reaction when you take it away, even if he was not actively playing with it. Go to any culture where people are seated in a stadium and when someone gets up go to go the bathroom go sit in “their” seat and see the reaction. Because we have evolved to be territorial and possess property we make moral judgments and create laws regarding people who take things that belong to us. Every culture has to deal with thievery because everyone believes when someone takes your stuff it is wrong. This isn’t because God says stealing is wrong or because our culture teaches us we should be upset when someone takes our stuff. We have an emotional reaction when people steal from us. Humans could have evolved to not be territorial or to care about possession of property but, regardless of culture, we care.