Do you view morality as a metaphysical truth or a socially created abstraction?

[RedSonRising]

When determining notions of ethics, the validity of cultural customs, spiritual-religious beliefs, and other sociological aspects of life, most examiners of human history approach such considerations with a reductionist viewpoint.

As revolutionaries, I'd assume most of you feel a large moral compulsion to actively strive for a better world with a greater sense of equality in terms of social relations and the development of human society. However, I'd also assume many of you would admit a nihilistic tendency in regarding morality as simply a human invention resulting from evolution's design of our hormonal processes that have no metaphysical or actual truth beyond the feelings of satisfaction or dissatisfaction we feel in reaction to our interactions with each other.

I was curious in wondering if any of you view morality as something other, perhaps something akin to intelligence and the ability to empirically observe material phenomenon- uniquely human and restricted to human perception, susceptible to change and long-term development/change, with a greater understanding of right and wrong beyond that of other animals' social rules.

Right and Wrong is a malleable concept, and I was curious to see whether or not people who believed justice was a lie were content admitting their dedication to revolutionary activism was grounded in material abstractions, and I am curious to hear any comments you have on the matter. The question is sort of odd and without a specific philosophical trend in question, but I'd appreciate what your thoughts are regarding the validity Right and Wrong, and whether or not such thoughts play a role in your daily life and practical political choices.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Morality is something humans create for themselves, not something that is found "out there" so to speak.

Now some people seem to conclude that if human morality isn't somehow validated by the rest of the universe, it doesn't matter or that it is a "lie". Not so. Morality matters, after all we created it.

[Meridian]

I have no idea about "abstractions", but I think morality, right and wrong are just words we use for different purposes.

Say, if you disagree with someone's actions and think that they will end up causing harm, you say "that was wrong of you to do that".

I don't think "morals" is anything else than that, a way of speaking which serves a function for our way of living.

[TheSamsquatch]

It's extremely tough to break yourself of morality. You're not born "knowing in your heart what's right or wrong." It's pounded into you from birth.

[Raúl Duke]

Morality is a social construction with no value beyond human functions

That sounds about right...I agree with this and I agree with what Noxion said. Ethics/morality are rules that society creates. Some are needed so to maintain stability in society, after all if murder was allowed freely society would be very unstable.

[Foldered]

"Morals" are a socio-cultural creation, though I am unclear what you mean by "no value beyond human functions."

Either way, I don't think "morality" exists as some sort of inherent human quality.

[it_ain't_me]

i view mortality as a socially constructed abstraction. morality i have no opinion on.

[mikelepore]

I think morality isn't a social construction, but an individual construction, which sometimes coincides with a social trend and sometimes it doesn't. It expresses the state of mind of the individual who expresses a judgment. For example, when I say "It would be morally wrong if you were to kill someone", that means that the state of my brain is such that I have a very strong preference that you will not kill someone. The difference between this and a minor preference, for example, I prefer not to eat broccoli, is a difference only in intensity -- the moral expression is one that is of such magnitude that the individual considers it completely intolerable that the preference would not be granted.

[Rjevan]

I voted for "morality is a social construct", the other option implies a metaphysical and idealist worldview. How could there be a "definite and true morality", a concept somehow existing outside of the world or hovering over humanity and just waiting to be discovered? That makes about as much sense as "divine truth" does.


I think morality isn't a social construction, but an individual construction... it expresses the state of mind of the individual who expresses a judgment.
I agree partially, it is clear that not everybody holds the same moral views as the mainstream society upholds; some people's views largely coincide with the morality of society but some also significantly differ from it.
But ultimately I'd argue that in both cases (and in all other in between them) their morality is a social construction.

In case people subscribe to society's definition what's ethical and what's immoral the case is clear. They simply adopted the moral views of their time and these views are determined by the concrete relations of production and their superstructure. And when the relations of productions develope morality developes (you could say "gets adjusted"), too. So while today most people will agree, you would have had a hard time to find many people in Slave Society who would have agreed that slavery is deeply immoral. But there would surely have been a few people who would have agreed and condenmed slavery. Not because they had insight into some "absolute moral truth" but because they saw what was wrong with the concept of slavery based on their observations and experiences in their society.

Same goes for every "personal moral", you can't get your moral concepts out of nowhere or create entire new ones just out of your mind, completely separated from old moral concepts in both the positive and negative aspects; you have to base them on something. And today people who would argue that slavery is great base this on their rejection of contemporary society and its morals and on their nostalgia for an old society.

[Adi Shankara]

Morality in humanity is universal, but the definition of Morality and what it means is not.

[ZeroNowhere]

Morality is a language-game of its own, and thus derives from social forms of life. Saying that it is a 'fact' that something is morally right or wrong is nonsense based on taking the word 'fact' out of context in which it has sense. However, I'm not sure what it would mean to say that it was an 'abstraction'.

I don't think that there's any evidence of it deriving from either genes or developmental noise (just-so stories are not evidence), and I'd say that ultimately it's too complex to originate simply from genes in the same way as eye colour. One could hardly have it be a natural thing to believe that it is immoral to have an abortion, or that IV treatment is pretty much alright. Indeed, it's not entirely clear that even killing being wrong could be genetic, quite aside from the fact that generally people don't hold this to be without exceptions. One could perhaps have a natural reaction of disgust when faced with killing, but this is not moral in itself. As said, morality is a specific language-game, and the utterance, "Ew!", is quite different from, "That is wrong." The latter only makes sense with the language-game of morality already existing. A private language is an absurdity, and as such this would presuppose society and social interaction. In other words, this utterance only makes sense given a society and language-game for it to exist in already, and it's not clear that genes may presuppose these.


For example, when I say "It would be morally wrong if you were to kill someone", that means that the state of my brain is such that I have a very strong preference that you will not kill someone.No, it means that you shouldn't. It's not an expression of a preference, it's an imperative. Expressing a preference and stating an imperative are distinct facets of language, and one is not simply an amplification of the other; similarly, morality and expression of one's own feelings are distinct language-games, and not reducible to each other. "You should not kill this beetle," and, "I would really, really prefer it if you did not kill this beetle," have different uses in language, and therefore different meanings.


Morality in humanity is universal, but the definition of Morality and what it means is not.The use of the word 'morality' is generally quite universal. You probably mean that people don't agree on what is moral and immoral, but that's not a matter of definition. If a new technology which turns trees into ant-eaters is suddenly created, and one were to consider it immoral, one would not be redefining the word 'immoral'. Indeed, the use (hence meaning) of the word 'immoral' is quite universal, although what is considered immoral may differ.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

"Morality" is a combination of letters that if agreed upon, could refer to an apple. I have difficulty dealing with moral debates as people often argue as if the word has a meaning that jumps out at people. It's like this:

Emotivism: There are emotions associated with why people often refer to things as "moral." Yes, just not always.

Relativism: Different cultures refer to different things as "moral." Yep, but what's "moral" then?

***

In terms of the "can you observe facts about the world and determine something that should or shouldn't be done in accordance with what is moral" there is an answer. Then morality is the maximization of "good" and minimization of "evil" to make things as vague as possible.

I'm not quite sure what morality is entirely. I've got things I think it isn't (egoism). I'm working with something where "Morality is the maximization of equal average utility within acceptable parameters where individual members of society are introduced only where this utility remains stable."

So consider it like this. Our population of 10,000 in village Y is happy. Someone says "let's add 1 more person." Then we have to do these "100" things and our average happiness will go down. Now I'm not sure if the person can be added if their happiness outweighs that of the average reduction for a sort of "mid-ground" happiness level. I'm inclined to think not.

So something like multiple-step functionality. It's all an elaborate attempt to combine the pragmatism of James with the worries of Parfit towards utilitarianism.

If I were being less practical, metaphysical morality is probably a rare form of utilitarianism. Rare being the form where if torturing millions of people makes a super-sadist happy and this "maximizing overall happiness" then it's the right thing to do. Logically speaking, I think that's almost probably morality whether we find it appealing or not.

[ReVoLuTiOnArY-BrOtHeR]

Well morality is an interesting topic. What is it? What is right, what is wrong? What is it? The truth is that we don't know. Nietzsche would say that morality is a social construction and that we created it because it is practical for us. I would agree with him on that. Rjevan said something similar on his post.

[mikelepore]

No, it means that you shouldn't. It's not an expression of a preference, it's an imperative. Expressing a preference and stating an imperative are distinct facets of language, and one is not simply an amplification of the other; similarly, morality and expression of one's own feelings are distinct language-games, and not reducible to each other. "You should not kill this beetle," and, "I would really, really prefer it if you did not kill this beetle," have different uses in language, and therefore different meanings.

I'm not talking about the form of the sentence. I'm talking about the psychological source. Suppose someone is thinking that you shouldn't invite them to a party and then feed them food that was undercooked or overcooked - they express a generalization that they can more easily shrug off if they don't get their own way. But if someone says you shouldn't come to kill their family, when it looks like they won't get their own way they can't let it go, it's intolerable, they have to take action. I think the point of reaching the psychological intensity where a person can't tolerate the undesired result is the point when people say "that action is morally wrong."

We can see this distinction switching over in real time at the boundary cases, where something that is merely aesthetic, like a neighbor who neglects to mow the grass or rake the leaves, and gets in trouble with the law because of it, will trigger some of the neighbors to use the language of right and wrong. It is as though they want to amend the bill of rights to say "freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right never to have to see a unmowed lawn." The only thing that changed was the feeling of tolerance. That's what the flag desecration laws were all about: people said it's "wrong" - why? - "because I get mad when I see it."

[WhitemageofDOOM]

I'm not talking about the form of the sentence. I'm talking about the psychological source. I think the point of reaching the psychological intensity where a person can't tolerate the undesired result is the point when people say "that action is morally wrong."


As a psychologist.
Short Answer: No
Long answer: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Morality isn't an emergent property, we have two i wouldn't say systems but two "Types" of morals built into our brain structure. Like any part of humanity it's designed to be adaptable of course, but our brain has unique processes for handling morals.

[ZeroNowhere]

I'm not talking about the form of the sentence. I'm talking about the psychological source. Suppose someone is thinking that you shouldn't invite them to a party and then feed them food that was undercooked or overcooked - they express a generalization that they can more easily shrug off if they don't get their own way. But if someone says you shouldn't come to kill their family, when it looks like they won't get their own way they can't let it go, it's intolerable, they have to take action. I think the point of reaching the psychological intensity where a person can't tolerate the undesired result is the point when people say "that action is morally wrong."
The statement cannot be reduced to this psychological source, however. For example, the query, "What direction is it to the nearest station?" is not equivalent to, as a mere description of our own mental state, the statement, "I am curious about the direction to the nearest station." (One can, of course, use the second statement in the same sense as the first, but then its role is not that of a simple description of a mental state.) Similarly, it is hardly equivalent to say that somebody should not kill a person because it would be wrong to do so, and to just state that you would prefer it that they didn't. Of course, one could say that they should not kill them because you would prefer that they didn't, but then the moral 'should' comes back into play anyhow. If I were to conclude that I should not kill somebody because it is wrong, it is different from concluding that the state of my brain is such that I have a very strong preference that I not kill anybody. Which is to say that statements about one's mental states and moral statements occupy different positions in language, and are used differently, thus have different meanings and are not reducible to each other.


Well morality is an interesting topic. What is it? What is right, what is wrong? What is it? The truth is that we don't know.Of course we do, as much as we know what the word 'game' means.


"Morality" is a combination of letters that if agreed upon, could refer to an apple.As are 'superfluous' and 'statement'.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

I believe there to be an Eternal Law given to us by God, but because of free will, it is our choice as to whether or not we want to follow it. With that said though, from what I can tell, every government that has tried to implement parts of it have in turned warped those parts. Therefore, it should be something followed personally rather than being followed nationally.

[Telemakus]

I think the term "morality" is used in multiple ways. As with many terms, this leads to heated debate which comes down largely to semantics.

If you define morality as being those views held by people with regards to how they think you should behave in such and such a situation, then the "socially created abstraction" or the "morality comes from evolution" views are fairly accurate.

However, as I assume the majority on this forum probably believe also, I believe that some states of being are indeed better than others, and that actions which promote these, or have some positive correlation with them, could be defined as "moral", with contrary actions being "immoral". As I see it, this is expressed adequately in Utilitarianism.

I tend to associate the word "moral" with the former use, as this is how it is often used in recent times, and "ethical" with the latter, to keep in line with the philosophical use. Alternatively, ethical can be used to describe business practices, and moral used to describe personal practices.

tl;dr: Either. It comes down to how you define it.

[mikelepore]

WhitemageofDOOM and ZeroNowhere,
My explanation corresponds to the way people in practice use such terms as "moral" or "right" and "wrong." When people say that it's "wrong" for people to gamble, smoke dope, smuggle bootleg whiskey, or read erotic books, they mean that they desire to live in a society in which such things will not be done by anyone. When other people say that it's "all right" to do those things, they mean that they feel no great discomfort living in a society in which there exist people who do those things. This pattern applies to the most extreme cases also, say, the massacre of aboriginal people by invaders. When the people doing it believe and argue that it's the "right" thing to do, they mean that they want the real world to be the kind of world that they are producing by the act, a world in which some people have been massacred. But when we say that the act is "wrong", that means that we want to have a reality which excludes such an event from taking place. In all cases, "right" and "wrong" are words that are purported to describe events that are external to us, but what the words really refer to is the state of mind of whomever is speaking at the moment.

[Unkut]

I think morals are pretty innate and a natural instinct but attractive for some to dismiss because they're restricting. I don't think gender is a social construct either.

[MellowViper]

Basically, I view us all as being one fragmented, universal consciousness, and the pinnacle of human morality and potential can be found in realizing the oneness we share with each other and the rest of the universe. Human awareness is really a means by which the universe can subjectively experience itself. That's an intrinsic purpose we have. Whether humanity decides to acknowledge it or ignore it is humanity's problem. Humanity shouldn't keep fighting itself. If you look at the biological aspect, you may come away with the conclusion that competitive, selective pressures are a good thing, but that doesn't set us apart from the apes. What sets us apart is our higher sense of consciousness. If we can achieve peace and harmony as a species, it'll be a wonderful gift to the universe perceived and reflected through us mutant apes. I think this will ultimately pave the way for an interstellar culture. If business as usual is continues, it won't lead to a more evolved humanity. In fact, it'll possibly lead to the end of all biological life one earth. Were mutant chimpanzees with enough nuclear weapons to destroy the earth several times over. Were not just fighting with fang and claw anymore. We have no other choice but to become more collaborative and choose a cultural path that will lead to a more egalitarian, less prejudiced species. Our ancestors in the past had to decide whether to leave the trees or die, and we have to make a similar decision now.

[Sosa]

I cannot vote for the two options listed. Morality may be partially a social construct, but we have seen animals act morally (at least altruistically). Many examples have shown of animals from many species who have risked their own physical safety in order to help others (we would consider this to be of high moral value among humans). Dogs going into burning houses to rescue humans, raccoons risk their own safety to help other raccoons who are blind, primates imprisoned in zoos act to protect humans who have fallen into the zoo enclosures, etc. A great example was a dog in Chile that risked its life to help another dog that was hit by a car. You cannot explain away this conduct as being instinct or self-interest behavior.

[Sosa]

I am a little surprised that nobody has put much emphasis on the evolutionary basis of our morals. The code of what is morally right is so universal throughout the world that it in my opinion can not be a matter of culture or upbringing. It has to be a common evolutionary trait

[Thirsty Crow]

I am a little surprised that nobody has put much emphasis on the evolutionary basis of our morals. The code of what is morally right is so universal throughout the world that it in my opinion can not be a matter of culture or upbringing. It has to be a common evolutionary trait
Evidence?

[Sosa]

Evidence?
Read The Descent of Man by Charles Darwin

[Thirsty Crow]

Read The Descent of Man by Charles Darwin

I don't think that Darwin is the right author when it comes to explaining social codes of behaviour which we call "morality". At best, the biologistic approach may account for a natural basis for the development of social codes of behaviour. However, this approach cannot account for the historical character of these codes (in other words - it cannot account for changes).

For example, there is nothing biologically determined in the shift from the following instances of the before mentioned social codes:

1) it is immoral to engage in a sexual activity/familial life without the "consent" of a authority which derives its power from the divine hierarchy

2) it is not immoral to engage in sexual activity outside the confines of the traditional religious view on sexual morality

[Widerstand]

I don't think that Darwin is the right author when it comes to explaining social codes of behaviour which we call "morality". At best, the biologistic approach may account for a natural basis for the development of social codes of behaviour. However, this approach cannot account for the historical character of these codes (in other words - it cannot account for changes).

For example, there is nothing biologically determined in the shift from the following instances of the before mentioned social codes:

1) it is immoral to engage in a sexual activity/familial life without the "consent" of a authority which derives its power from the divine hierarchy

2) it is not immoral to engage in sexual activity outside the confines of the traditional religious view on sexual morality

The substance of morality may not be biologically determined - although certain universalities can be noted, such as "thou shalt not kill", which in one form or another exists in most moral codes - but I wouldn't call it a stretch to say the function - simplified: regulation of human interaction - is at least a necessity of humanity's social organization. This is true for all imaginable human societies, including communism: Communism, to varying degrees, stems from the moral assumption that all humans are equal (in how their interests should be considered) and that none of them may be mistreat for the benefit of another.

[Thirsty Crow]

The substance of morality may not be biologically determined - although certain universalities can be noted, such as "thou shalt not kill", which in one form or another exists in most moral codes - but I wouldn't call it a stretch to say the function - simplified: regulation of human interaction - is at least a necessity of humanity's social organization. This is true for all imaginable human societies, including communism: Communism, to varying degrees, stems from the moral assumption that all humans are equal (in how their interests should be considered) and that none of them may be mistreat for the benefit of another.

Of course it is a necessity of humanity's social organizations. Umm, I do not see how does this contradict my position (and I agree wholeheartedly with your view on this)...?:confused:

[Widerstand]

Of course it is a necessity of humanity's social organizations. Umm, I do not see how does this contradict my position (and I agree wholeheartedly with your view on this)...?:confused:

I agree with you for that part:


the biologistic approach may account for a natural basis for the development of social codes of behaviour.

But...


However, this approach cannot account for the historical character of these codes (in other words - it cannot account for changes).

One could say that biological possibility or necessity has been a driving force in changing/eroding certain moral codes, such as your example, while it has lead to a consolidation of others, such as "thou shalt not kill". Of course I would agree that biological determinism is a wrong approach - as I would call cultural determinism a wrong approach.

[Queercommie Girl]

Marxism believes that ethics is ultimately a socio-economic construction, but relative to a particular social epoch, a particular type of ethical system still has an objective social reality.

Confucianism, on the other hand, believes in a "platonic" kind of ethics, in "goodness" and "justice" as an absolute ideal. Confucianism is classified by Chinese Marxists as a variant of "objective idealist" philosophy, not materialist philosophy. Confucians worship this "ethical platonic ideal" similar to how monotheists worship God. This is of course a mistake by the standards of Marxist historical materialism, but relatively speaking to literally worship Justice is still less irrational and less reactionary than to literally worship God. In this sense Confucianism is relatively more progressive than the Abrahamic religions. Western thinkers such as Voltaire who played an important role during the era of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution had a very good opinion of Confucianism, preferring Confucian ethics-centrism over Catholic faith-centrism.

[NGNM85]

The question is fundamentally flawed. Morality is unique to humans, or, at least, (I would think) sentient lifeforms, of which we are the only example, at present. However, this relativistic idea that morality is just an arbitrary construct is absurd. We can create, or at least envision, a system of logic based entirely on the application of logic and reason. I mean, I think it's demonstratably obvious that it is not better to beat a child than to care for it. I think we can definitely deduce a qualitative difference. Also, much of the roots of what we call morality is ingrained behavior patterns developed through evolution.

[~Spectre]

I mean, I think it's demonstratably obvious that it is not better to beat a child than to care for it.

So demonstrate it.



Also, much of the roots of what we call morality is ingrained behavior patterns developed through evolution.

So is behavior such as rape and assault.

[NGNM85]

So demonstrate it.

You're being kind of duplicitous, here. You're framing it as if it were a quadratic equation or something. We know from our own personal experience what brings us joy and what causes us physical pain and so forth. Any analysis of right and wrong ultimately has to confront the immediate consequences of any given action. These consequences are not theoretical. Getting back to my initial statement, we can imagine the physical and emotional pain inflicted by systematic abuse. We can observe that this has a deleterious effect on human beings physically and psychologically. Using very simple deduction we can come to very important and profound conclusions about what we should or should not do. This can also be extended to the macro scale; for instance, it should be immediately apparent that Nazi Germany was not an ideal model for social organization. We can observe that these actions, or this system of social organization are fundamentally at odds with anything that could be called ideal.

I know you’re going to dismiss that completely, because I said it. However, in fairness, I leave it up to you to make a better counter argument. What is the ethical defense of systematic child abuse? Is grounding you’re teenage daughter for sneaking out with a boy on a school night just as good as covering her in petrol and burning her to death, as is customary in some places? Are you completely bereft of any metric that could answer that question? Otherwise, you have no point.


So is behavior such as rape and assault.

I never said, or even implied, that because behavior was rooted in evolutionary biology it was inherently good, or the opposite. I was simply pointing out that a lot of what we consider moral has it’s roots in evolved behavior patterns, which you, apparently, agree with, although, I expect a retraction to follow shortly.

[~Spectre]

You're being kind of duplicitous, here. You're framing it as if it were a quadratic equation or something.

"I think it's demonstratably obvious"

Your words^^. If you think it's unfair to ask you to demonstrate, then you were the one being duplicitous when you called it demonstratively obvious.



We know from our own personal experience what brings us joy and what causes us physical pain and so forth.Are you asserting that the same things cause us all joy?





Any analysis of right and wrong ultimately has to confront the immediate consequences of any given action.Why?



These consequences are not theoretical. Getting back to my initial statement, we can imagine the physical and emotional pain inflicted by systematic abuse. We can observe that this has a deleterious effect on human beings physically and psychologically. Using very simple deduction we can come to very important and profound conclusions about what we should or should not do. This can also be extended to the macro scale; for instance, it should be immediately apparent that Nazi Germany was not an ideal model for social organization. We can observe that these actions, or this system of social organization are fundamentally at odds with anything that could be called ideal.

I know you’re going to dismiss that completely, because I said it.


You didn't do anything in this paragraph except make a bunch of assertions. Anyone can assert the opposite. Next,




However, in fairness,
I leave it up to you to make a better counter argument. What is the ethical defense of systematic child abuse? Is grounding you’re teenage daughter for sneaking out with a boy on a school night just as good as covering her in petrol and burning her to death, as is customary in some places? Are you completely bereft of any metric that could answer that question? Otherwise, you have no point.1) My making or not making an ethical case for child abuse (which you have left undefined and switch from beating to murder by fire), has nothing to do with your case against it being arbitrary or not. My defense of it can be terrible and yours could still be arbitrary at the same time.

2) I could reject the concept of morality entirely.

3) I could accept a system in which acting in my own self interest is all that matters (that's about as arbitrary as your method), thus if I get a kick out of abusing kids, or if I find not burning my daughter to death to be too intolerable, I'm all set. :)

4) I could accept that the relevant moral actions are what is best for society.

-I capture the child of mass killer. I make it known that the child will be systematically abused until the killer turns himself in. It works. I'm all set.

-I travel back in time and abuse the child form of a shitty new atheist author and it gets him to stop writing stupid shit that his followers will swallow, thus raising the collective IQ of humankind. *cough* http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Landscape-Science-Determine-Values/dp/1439171211

-The result of the petrol burning is that kids stop seeing each other as minors, and the aids rate plummets. I'm all set.

5) I could accept that intentions matter (about as arbitrary as your system).

-I believe that the only way for my child to live forever in a paradise, is if I mutilate his/her genitals. Being that I honestly had good intentions, under some systems I'm all set.

-If I honestly believed that beating a child when he/she misbehaves is the only way to instill behavior that is good for the child and for society, under some systems I'm all set.

6) Let's take a real world example. If you believe that it's moral for there to be any sort of penal system, then you are morally OK with their being some degree of child abuse. Why?

-Realistically, false convictions are intrinsic. You can't ever be totally rid of them.

-Some false convictions will be children. Congratulations you've sanctioned child abuse whether you've thought it through that far or not.

___

The point is, your system is completely arbitrary, or at the very least not any less so than several of the POVs and arguments advanced above. The idea that because Sam Harris asserts so -there's a tangible indisputable and non-arbitrary morality- strikes me as a tad silly.




I never said, or even implied, that because behavior was rooted in evolutionary biology it was inherently good, or the opposite. I was simply pointing out that a lot of what we consider moral has it’s roots in evolved behavior patterns, which you, apparently, agree with, although, I expect a retraction to follow shortly.What exactly do you mean by a lot? For instance we live in a capitalist world where capitalist morality is upheld, when our biological tendencies seem to be more communal.

We consider it moral not to hurt people simply to show dominance over them, yet this is what our biological tendencies seem to be if we go by the dynamic of the Alpha male of a group getting to reproduce more successfully.

[RadioRaheem84]

How does NGN not notice that most of what he says (on any topic) are blatant assertions with layers upon layers of presupposed nonsense? Yet, he brazenly asserts them as "obvious" facts.

[~Spectre]

How does NGN not notice that most of what he says (on any topic) are blatant assertions with layers upon layers of presupposed nonsense? Yet, he brazenly asserts them as "obvious" facts.

I think the funniest part is that Sam Harris has such contempt for his audience (which is where NGN got this from, check the link), that he relabels utilitarianism, and tries to sell it to them as something new and indisputable. It's really all you need to know about a guy like Harris, and it's why the book has been ripped to shreds since its publication. I suspect that a few decades from now when Harris finally dies, his followers will try to pretend this embarrassing episode never happened.

[RadioRaheem84]

Damn! You mean what he posted was straight Harris?

Does NGN have an original bone in his body? That explains a lot.

[NGNM85]

"I think it's demonstratably obvious"

Your words^^. If you think it's unfair to ask you to demonstrate, then you were the one being duplicitous when you called it demonstratively obvious.

No, you’re being duplicitous because you’re framing the question in a particular way that is irrational in the context of the subject matter. It’s like asking a nurse or a surgeon to physically verify that a patient has agoraphobia. You can do a million x-rays, sample every fluid, lobotomize the poor patient, and you still won’t find evidence of agoraphobia. (Although, theoretically, a blood test might reveal an as-yet-undiscovered genetic predisposition, which would still be inconclusive. An fMRI scan would probably yield results.) The absence of any evidence of agoraphobia on X-rays, blood tests, urine and stool samples, spinal fluid, even cross sections of the unfortunate individuals’ gray matter does absolutely nothing to confirm or disprove this diagnosis.


Are you asserting that the same things cause us all joy?

Certainly not. However, we can notice some fundamental recurring themes.


Why?

Well, I could theoretically construct a system of morality predicated on how often my cat uses the litter box. However, this would not withstand even a cursory analysis.


You didn't do anything in this paragraph except make a bunch of assertions. Anyone can assert the opposite. Next,

Yes, anyone can assert the opposite. That, in no way, means that those objections have equal, or, for that matter, any, degree of merit. You can just as easily say the holocaust was the worst example of genocide in the 20th century, or you can say it was simply a Jewish conspiracy, that it never happened. There is no significantly greater expenditure of effort in making either statement, however, if we put them to the test, if we start probing and asking questions, things come into focus very quickly.



1) My making or not making an ethical case for child abuse (which you have left undefined and switch from beating to murder by fire), has nothing to do with your case against it being arbitrary or not. My defense of it can be terrible and yours could still be arbitrary at the same time.

I’ll grant that last part.



2) I could reject the concept of morality entirely.

That’s true. However, I think you’d be setting a precedent. There are any number of individuals who clearly have no system of morality. One can find abundant examples in the true crime section. However, Ted Bundy, or Carl Panzram did not embark on their campaigns of rape, murder, etc., based on a philosophical principle. Jeffrey Dahmer didn’t have a flash of inspiration after reading Nietzsche. (Also, Nietzsche prescribed creating a new morality, not simply abandoning the old.) Moral nihilism, this sort of relativist outlook, is really philosophically bankrupt. It would also, incidentally, make it completely impossible to be a Communist, Anarchist, or anything of the sort.



3) I could accept a system in which acting in my own self interest is all that matters (that's about as arbitrary as your method), thus if I get a kick out of abusing kids, or if I find not burning my daughter to death to be too intolerable, I'm all set.

The biggest problem with this is it succumbs to the delusion that you can have discrete interests.



4) I could accept that the relevant moral actions are what is best for society.

This is a form of utilitarianism, the most logical, and probably the most widely used (Although, often, improperly) approach to moral questions.



-I capture the child of mass killer. I make it known that the child will be systematically abused until the killer turns himself in. It works. I'm all set.

See, you’re adding extra modifiers.


-I travel back in time and abuse the child form of a shitty new atheist author and it gets him to stop writing stupid shit that his followers will swallow, thus raising the collective IQ of humankind. *cough* http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Landscape-Science-Determine-Values/dp/1439171211 (http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Landscape-Science-Determine-Values/dp/1439171211)

How is ‘New Atheism’ fundamentally different from ‘Old Atheism’? (It isn’t.)

I have no idea who these ‘followers’ are.

You keep stating you’re distaste for Dawkins or Harris authoritatively without ever making a substantive, legitimate criticism. Admittedly, I’m at a disadvantage if you’re criticism is specific to Harris’ new book, as I haven’t read it, yet, although I plan to.



5) I could accept that intentions matter (about as arbitrary as your system).

Measuring actions by the way they affect things is not arbitrary.



-I believe that the only way for my child to live forever in a paradise, is if I mutilate his/her genitals. Being that I honestly had good intentions, under some systems I'm all set.


-If I honestly believed that beating a child when he/she misbehaves is the only way to instill behavior that is good for the child and for society, under some systems I'm all set.

Yes, there are different systems. You’re comparing variants of deontology. However, we can compare and contrast these beliefs. We can analyze them just like anything else. These propositions do not stand up equally under the microscope, so to speak.



6) Let's take a real world example. If you believe that it's moral for there to be any sort of penal system, then you are morally OK with their being some degree of child abuse. Why?

-Realistically, false convictions are intrinsic. You can't ever be totally rid of them.

-Some false convictions will be children. Congratulations you've sanctioned child abuse whether you've thought it through that far or not.

Again, I’m not pushing deontology, so this is a pointless criticism. However, broadly speaking, on the macro scale, we can verifiably state that child abuse is;
A. Painful.
B. Generally undesirable.
C. Generally destructive to the individual and to society.

You can come to that conclusion without ever going outside the bounds of reason.


The point is, your system is completely arbitrary, or at the very least not any less so than several of the POVs and arguments advanced above.

No, it isn’t. See above.


The idea that because Sam Harris asserts so -there's a tangible indisputable and non-arbitrary morality- strikes me as a tad silly.

If you mean an absolute morality, such as one finds in various religions, absolutely not. I don’t even think that’s desirable. However, again, the arguments for or against (religious) human sacrifice, at this stage of the game, are by no means equal. We don’t have to go outside the scope of reason to make that decision.

Moreover, assuming you actually do subscribe to what we might call nihilism, or moral relativism, such a belief system is fundamentally incompatible with Communism or Anarchism.


What exactly do you mean by a lot? For instance we live in a capitalist world where capitalist morality is upheld, when our biological tendencies seem to be more communal.

There is no such thing as capitalist morality, nor is there such a thing as bourgeois morality.


We consider it moral not to hurt people simply to show dominance over them, yet this is what our biological tendencies seem to be if we go by the dynamic of the Alpha male of a group getting to reproduce more successfully.

However, unlike non-sentient mammals, we have the capacity for reason and judgement. Therefore, we can rise above outdated evolutionary software, in fact, we’re obligated to.
Second, while behavior witnessed in chimpanzees or other high-functioning apes may seem barbaric, and some of it is, they aren’t wantonly atavistic. They generally care for their young, etc.

[NGNM85]

I think the funniest part is that Sam Harris has such contempt for his audience (which is where NGN got this from, check the link), that he relabels utilitarianism, and tries to sell it to them as something new and indisputable. It's really all you need to know about a guy like Harris,

Not having read the book I can't really respond, spurious as your accusation is. I suspect somewhere in the process of receiving his Bachelor's in Philosophy at Stanford he encountered Utilitarianism, and I seriously doubt he would merely plagiarize Bentham.


and it's why the book has been ripped to shreds since its publication. I suspect that a few decades from now when Harris finally dies, his followers will try to pretend this embarrassing episode never happened.

It has gotten some bad press, indeed. Apparently, Deepak Chopra didn't like it one bit. Then there's criticisms like this bit from Canada’s National Post where the critic denounces Harris’ attempts at using science to answer moral questions, failing to realize “..the greatest horrors of the past century have all been perpetrated in the name of 'scientific' socialism..” Indeed. I take the piece by Kwame Appiah in the New York Times a little more seriously, (I won't accuse you of 'plagiarizing' it.) however, a number of the circumstances where he claims this philosophy is inadequate it is, in fact, quite capable, some are genuine. (Again, I haven’t read it.) However, it is interesting that he notes, as an aside, that a recent survey of philosophy professors found that a substantial majority share the same view. I just thought that was interesting.

It was also endorsed by Steven Pinker, and Lawrence Krauss, as well as Richard Dawkins but you've already decided he doesn't know anything about anything.

[NGNM85]

Damn! You mean what he posted was straight Harris?


The idea of using reason to answer moral questions wasn't new when Jeremy Bentham took up the project. I, personally, came to this way of thinking after shrugging off the last vestiges of the religious nonsense I'd had forced on me. I do plan on reading the book when I get around to it.


Does NGN have an original bone in his body? That explains a lot.

Produce one original idea, now, please. (You can't, don't bother trying.)

Like Voltaire said; "Originality is nothing but judicious imitation. The most original writers borrowed from one another." Not my favorite quote, but it is prescient.

[syndicat]

there is a reality that moral perception attempts to perceive, altho our faculty of moral perception often goes wrong. for example oppression and exploitation are primary forms of injustice. this is a moral concept, but the reality of oppression and exploitation is a moral reality of injustice. human solidarity is the basis of real morality. solidarity in particular against oppression and exploitation. to put it another way, we see what the moral realm is when we see protests and struggles against oppression. why is this? It's because humans are by nature moral equals. Within the present system we can say that the moral is that which is required by the collective intersts of the oppressed and exploited. this is because the moral is not taking advantage of others because of your power to do so.

marxists are often wrong about these things because marx was confused in regard to morality.

[Sosa]

If one looks at the world from a general “non-personal” perspective...Reason will aid moral judgment by clearly showing the facts of the situation. There are no moral facts about the world. We only have subjective feelings, but we can still evaluate some moral judgments as better than others. Feelings generated from a clear understanding of the facts are better than feelings generated from a distorted understanding of the facts.

[Jimmie Higgins]

There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written.


Morality is simply the attitude we adopt towards people whom we personally dislike.

I love Oscar Wilde.

Morality is subjective and socially constructed. The evidence of this is most obvious to us when we look at capitalist morality where it is immoral for an individual to be a junkie, but totally justified and moral to make profits off of preventing poor sick people from receiving treatment. It is immoral to steal bread if you are starving, but moral to steal someone's home in a foreclosure. It is immoral for gangs to kill in turf battles but considered heroic and honorable to kill in a war to preserve your nation's power and place in the world.

All societies have dominant moral systems formed by the needs and perspective of the dominant class and so morality can not be seen outside of a class context. Morality in capitalism is directed at individual actions and often used for social control of the general population - laziness is immoral and thrift and hard work are moral... how convenient in a system that pushes workers to work harder and harder.

So in this sense, there is also a "moral system" that works in the interests of the proletariat: solidarity is a main part of that. After a revolution, ideals of cooperation, participation, solidarity would probably be the morals promoted by people but I think a working class society would not need to promote a moral code for personal behavior like in capitalism because a working class ruling class would have little need to enforce it's morals on others - but while there are some reminiscent of other classes a "revolutionary morality" of non-exploitation, non-top-down-hierarchy and so on would be needed to promote hegemony of working class needs over any individual shop-owners or artisan producers or peasants. It wouldn't really be until there are no classes and society is based on free mutual cooperation that any kind of universal morality could emerge - it would probably be very basic: empathy, respect of individual autonomy etc.

[~Spectre]

No, you’re being duplicitous because you’re framing the question in a particular way

"you it's demonstratably obvious(SIC)"

I ask you to demonstrate. Your latest whining is essentially "that's not demonstratively obvious!!!

Words have meaning. Don't say something and then act like it's unfair to hold you to what it is you actually say. I wouldn't want to be associated with what NGNM85 says either, but being that you are in fact, NGNM85, you should probably at least try to demonstrate something that you think is demonstratably obvious".






Certainly not. However, we can notice some fundamental recurring themes.1) For some, not all.

2) Why does it matter?



Well, I could theoretically construct a system of morality predicated on how often my cat uses the litter box. However, this would not withstand even a cursory analysis.
Why is that any less arbitrary than your other system?

How on earth is cat litter morality "not withstanding even a cursory analysis", a justification for your previous claim.

If you can't do better than "well cat litter morality fails", it should be a big clue as to how intellectually bankrupt your position is.




You can just as easily say the holocaust was the worst example of genocide in the 20th century, or you can say it was simply a Jewish conspiracy, that it never happened. There is no significantly greater expenditure of effort in making either statement, however, if we put them to the test, if we start probing and asking questions, things come into focus very quickly.
I agree. We can prove that the holocaust happens because there is extensive evidence for it. You didn't, and can't provide any evidence for your position though. I'm still waiting to see it.




That’s true. However, I think you’d be setting a precedent.
Wrong and irrelevant.




It would also, incidentally, make it completely impossible to be a Communist, Anarchist, or anything of the sort.
Wrong and irrelevant. You've still yet to provide evidence for your claim. I'll postulate that this is because your claims are arbitrary and empty. Appeal to emotion all you'd like.



The biggest problem with this is it succumbs to the delusion that you can have discrete interests.
Wrong and irrelevant. Even if it's based on fallacy, you're burden here is to prove that yours isn't. It provides a moral framework under which it could be moral to do so, thus annihilating your claim that it is never under any circumstances moral to do so.



This is a form of utilitarianism, the most logical, and probably the most widely used (Although, often, improperly) approach to moral questions.
Pausing for a moment, why do you always do this? The whole "I have nothing to really respond with but I'll throw in what additional things I know that might be relevant as a substitute for substance". I imagine it's a bad habit acquired from casual conversations.

It's like in another thread where I think the actual back and forth involved Switzerland or something like that, and having very little to rebut you're reduced to babbling on something like "Oh yes, Switzerland, they have a lot of good laws there, I've heard of it". (only slightly paraphrasing of course. ;))




See, you’re adding extra modifiers.
If child abuse is not immoral in all its iterations, then your claim "child abuse is always immoral", is wrong.

For someone who seems interested in taking about the real, you seem allergic to context, other than these appeals to emotion.

Still waiting on the evidence for why your system is not arbitrary. All you've given so far is a failed line by line nitpick.






I have no idea who these ‘followers’ are.You're one. Pretend otherwise all you like.




Measuring actions by the way they affect things is not arbitrary.Why? Provide some evidence please.

If intentions don't matter, and only the effect does, then according to you the following is a moral action:

The United States launches a nuclear ICBM at Iran. The device malfunctions and it fails to detonate. The resulting useless missile lands in a park and kills a child molester as he was on his way to capture a new victim.

According to you this was a moral action since only outcomes matter.








Again, I’m not pushing deontology, so this is a pointless criticism. However, broadly speaking, on the macro scale, we can verifiably state that child abuse is;
A. Painful.
B. Generally undesirable.
C. Generally destructive to the individual and to society.

You can come to that conclusion without ever going outside the bounds of reason. Why does A. Matter? Why is B true? Why does C matter?

And how is that relevant to what I said. Even though you're an "anarchist" you seem to in your posts support some sort of a state prison system. That's child abuse.




No, it isn’t. See above.I've looked at the above several times now, I still don't see where you advanced evidence for your view being non-arbitrary.



If you mean an absolute morality, such as one finds in various religions, absolutely not. I don’t even think that’s desirable. However, again, the arguments for or against (religious) human sacrifice, at this stage of the game, are by no means equal. We don’t have to go outside the scope of reason to make that decision.There are arguments against it. That doesn't mean your moral case isn't arbitrary.

Is a man who truly believes that the only way to save humankind is by a human sacrifice, acting immorally when he offers it? Maybe, maybe not. The point is that whatever distinction you come to won't be any more or less arbitrary than most others.



Moreover, assuming you actually do subscribe to what we might call nihilism, or moral relativism, such a belief system is fundamentally incompatible with Communism or Anarchism. And why does that make what you say non-arbitrary? Things aren't true or false simply because they disagree with Communism or Anarchism.

Besides, I've never once been arguing about what my beliefs are. I'm just illustrating why your claims are false.


There is no such thing as capitalist morality, nor is there such a thing as bourgeois morality.Sure there is. It's considered by most Americans that paying back your mortgage and debt is the "moral thing to do". It's equally as prevalent to believe that violence by non-state actors is almost always wrong unless done for immediate self defense from a physical attacker.

Those are two claims that are essential to maintaining a capitalist system.

Much like under a feudalist system, it was considered moral to respect the feudal organs of power and property.

If you don't think specific moralities are popularized by the way societies are structured, then I'm not sure what to tell you other than to read up on the beliefs held by different societies as it relates to how they set shit up.



However, unlike non-sentient mammals, we have the capacity for reason and judgement. Therefore, we can rise above outdated evolutionary software, in fact, we’re obligated to.
Sure, but then that has nothing to do with a biological morality or whatever it was you were getting at.

[~Spectre]

I suspect somewhere in the process of receiving his Bachelor's in Philosophy at Stanford he encountered UtilitarianismI strongly suspect that too. It's a testament of how little he thinks of you that he sells it to you as something new.



It was also endorsed by Steven Pinker, and Lawrence Krauss, as well as Richard Dawkins
They all work with him, and I doubt they've actually read it.



but you've already decided he doesn't know anything about anything.Now you're just making things up.

[ZeroNowhere]

Sure there is. It's considered by most Americans that paying back your mortgage and debt is the "moral thing to do". It's equally as prevalent to believe that violence by non-state actors is almost always wrong unless done for immediate self defense from a physical attacker.

Those are two claims that are essential to maintaining a capitalist system.

Much like under a feudalist system, it was considered moral to respect the feudal organs of power and property.
However, if moral views are in fact shaped by one's general life experience, by social systems, and so on, essentially by one's life, would it be entirely apt to call them simply 'arbitrary'? Indeed, it would seem that the usual usage of 'arbitrary' denotes quite different situations; for example, one would not ordinarily call an ordinary judgement of the beauty of a piece of art 'arbitrary', despite aesthetic statements also not being descriptive, 'factual' ones. However, I do generally take your side in this debate, and this is more or less just a quibble over words.

Incidentally, a corollary of act utilitarianism would be that the moral act would be to force a person to stay alive against their will, let's say if they wished to commit euthanasia or ordinary suicide, if such would lead to greater happiness for others than is negated. Now, this may be entirely logical, indeed even derivable by modus ponens, but nonetheless I know some perfectly logical people who would disagree.

[NGNM85]

"you it's demonstratably obvious(SIC)"

I ask you to demonstrate. Your latest whining is essentially "that's not demonstratively obvious!!!

Yes, but you’re at least implying that you’re looking for a kind of evidence that doesn’t even make sense in this context. Going back to my earlier analogy, I can’t prove via mathematics or surgery, or hundreds of very sound investigative techniques (At least, in other fields of study.) to verify that a patient is agoraphobic. That doesn’t mean I can’t verify it, or that it isn’t true. That’s simply the wrong way to go about it. My initial answer was sufficient. We understand what physical and emotional pain feels like, we can also know the physical and psychological effects of prolonged brutalization. Based on this information we can multiply this out and envision a society which practices systematic child abuse, as a policy. We can also do the opposite. If we compare these hypothetical experiments in social engineering side by side, the better course of action should be quite apparent. Or, as I was saying, on the macro scale, we can compare modern-day Switzerland or Norway to the Third Reich or South Africa under Apartheid. There are clear qualitative differences.



Words have meaning. Don't say something and then act like it's unfair to hold you to what it is you actually say…etc.

See above.


For some, not all.

There are differences, and there are some exceptions. However, the commonalities are far greater. It’s pretty fair to say most humans ideally want to be happy and healthy, that most humans want to have food, water, the biological necessities, to love and to be loved. Many of this things probably apply to at least 90% of the human race. We can also observe that humans tend to thrive under conditions where they have these things.


2) Why does it matter?

It matters because this information is valuable within certain contexts, it can guide us in coming to certain conclusions. Armed with this information we need nothing more than the tools of logic and reason to conclude that the superior social arrangement is one that maximizes these conditions, in general.



Why is that any less arbitrary than your other system?

It isn’t arbitrary because, it is logical to factor the results of any given action into a judgment about that action. Even if you had no emotion or any intuitive sense either way, strictly through the application of reason you would ultimately reach this conclusion.


How on earth is cat litter morality "not withstanding even a cursory analysis", a justification for your previous claim.

It doesn’t, however, I took it for granted that the fundamental logic of analyzing the results of an action into any kind of analysis of that action was understood, as I’m sure it is.


If you can't do better than "well cat litter morality fails", it should be a big clue as to how intellectually bankrupt your position is.

If I couldn’t that might be a meaningful statement.


I agree. We can prove that the holocaust happens because there is extensive evidence for it. You didn't, and can't provide any evidence for your position though. I'm still waiting to see it.

You merely said; “Anyone can assert the opposite.” Don’t look now but we’re actually in agreement, at least on a very small point. (I expect an immediate retraction.) You are (For the moment.) absolutely sure that the holocaust in fact took place. You are sure of this despite not having been there, personally. This judgment is radically different from a definitive diagnosis of cirrhosis or mathematical proof of Newton’s inverse square law. Different types of problems require different standards and techniques. Psychoanalysis is a sound and, at least in certain instances, helpful technique, but it is of little use in coming to the aforementioned conclusions, it is fundamentally unsuited for such a purpose.


"Wrong and irrelevant.

That isn’t even one of your half-assed arguments. That is completely meaningless.


"Wrong and irrelevant. You've still yet to provide evidence for your claim. I'll postulate that this is because your claims are arbitrary and empty. Appeal to emotion all you'd like.

I’m not really interested in your emotions. This kind of moral nihilism, or relativism IS fundamentally, philosophically incompatible with the tenets of (Especially) Anarchism, or Communism. From this position it is impossible to be an Anarchist or a Communist.


"Wrong and irrelevant. Even if it's based on fallacy, you're burden here is to prove that yours isn't. It provides a moral framework under which it could be moral to do so, thus annihilating your claim that it is never under any circumstances moral to do so.

I never said it was ‘never under any circumstances moral’ to do anything. What I’m saying is it depends on the context, and that we can draw meaningful conclusions simply through the application of logic.

No-one in society can be said to have discrete interests. This is a myth, it is also the biggest failing of Rand’s Objectivism.



"Pausing for a moment, why do you always do this? The whole "I have nothing to really respond with but I'll throw in what additional things I know that might be relevant as a substitute for substance". I imagine it's a bad habit acquired from casual conversations.

This is a casual conversation, or, it was. We’re not writing thesis papers, we’re just talking.

You were listing possible conclusions that one could consider and I was responding to each one. This particular conclusion was;” I could accept that the relevant moral actions are what is best for society.” That is a Utilitarian outlook. It’s also quite logical. There need not be any emotion involved in coming to this conclusion, which goes back to the larger point, even if one were bereft of any intuitive sense, or any prejudice of any kind, simply by examining the facts you can arrive at this result. The part about being probably the most widely (Although not always correctly.) was a bit of an ‘argumentum ad populum’ but that’s hardly a mortal sin, it was more of an observation, than anything else.

While we’re discussing personal idiosyncrasies I must admit I’m a bit vexed myself. I find your conduct most unusual. You seem to have a personal motivation to denounce whatever I say, simply because I’ve said it. You virtually never offer an alternative point of view, which is a very safe form of pseudo-debate, if you never actually take any position than you can’t be wrong. This also makes me increasingly skeptical that you, in fact, necessarily disagree with me at all, or that it matters. Now, it could be that you have benevolent intentions, that you fancy yourself as some kind of Yoda figure, subjecting me to some kind of test. However, it’s very clear this is not the case. I can only conclude you are simply pursuing a personal vendetta for some perceived slight. This is one of the many key differences, I don’t argue with people simply for the sake of arguing with them, and I have no interest in you.


"It's like in another thread where I think the actual back and forth involved Switzerland or something like that, and having very little to rebut you're reduced to babbling on something like "Oh yes, Switzerland, they have a lot of good laws there, I've heard of it". (only slightly paraphrasing of course. )

More than slightly. The issue at hand was an objection to a fairly innocuous statement about legal rights in the West. It would be fair to say most of this board’s population come from North America, but the poster, Majakovskij, happens to be Swedish. Now, my offending statement was simply that there are legally-protected rights in the West. (Another example of the unique neurosis of the radical left that the painfully obvious is the subject of such impassioned debate.) Of course this is beyond contention.

It made no sense to refer to Us legislation, also, I’ve noticed that some foreigners tend to be blasé about their comparatively more limited rights of expression, probably because they are accustomed to it, that has just been my personal experience, and by no means the rule. Out of curiosity, I thought I’d take a quick gander at the Swedish legal system, and government. I went to Wikipedia and browsed through their electoral system, the two houses of the Riksdag, the Swedish Parliament, and how their elections work, the article was not as informative as I might’ve liked, but more than sufficient for the purpose at hand. I checked the Democracy Index. I also looked at their laws regarding legally protected speech, which are a little regressive, but, while not equal to the United States, seem to be better than some, like Germany, or England, for example. This is, as I pointed out, partly due to history. Some of these more regressive laws are vestiges of Europe’s past, in some ways the United States benefits by not being burdened by all that history, in some respects it’s also a deficit, but not in this case. I don’t think I ever claimed or implied that I was an expert on Swiss politics.



If child abuse is not immoral in all its iterations, then your claim "child abuse is always immoral", is wrong.

I never said it was ‘always immoral’, although I would say it is in most cases, and it’s generally a bad idea.


For someone who seems interested in taking about the real, you seem allergic to context, other than these appeals to emotion.

This whole thing is sort of a farce because any issue that you raise implies that you are actually objecting to what I said, I don’t see any evidence that what I say is really a significant factor.

Second, as I’ve said, you could be completely devoid of any prejudice whatsoever, and still come to the same conclusion. That was my whole point. Emotion can be instructive, but we don’t need it to realize that Nazi Germany was not a model for the ideal social structure for human beings, etc.


Still waiting on the evidence for why your system is not arbitrary. All you've given so far is a failed line by line nitpick.

I don’t think you’re even interested, for example, you already have all the ‘evidence’ you require.


You're one. Pretend otherwise all you like.

This is really laughable considering ubiquitous gushing and the reverence over Lenin and Marx, that goes on here, which can only be described as 'religious.' I don’t think Sam Harris is some kind of Ubermensch. I don’t think he’s god. I don’t think he’s even equivalent to someone like Noam Chomsky or Steven Hawking. (Although, they largely exist in different fields.) I just think he’s an intelligent, modern writer who has some interesting things to say. I also happen tothink he’s wrong about some things. I wouldn’t even feel the need to discuss him or his work so frequently if I wasn’t consistently hounded with questions and accusations pertaining to him and my interest in his writing.

My own interest in a secular approach to ethics goes back to when I finally threw off the shackles of Roman Catholicism.


Why? Provide some evidence please.

Because it makes rational sense. Even if you have no moral barometer of any kind. You could try a number of theories, like cat litter morality, except unless the specified action affects the litter box, the cat, or the cat’s bowel movements and urination this probably don’t pertain in any way to the matter at hand. There is no logical reason to connect these two things. However, there is a direct correlation between cause and effect.


If intentions don't matter, and only the effect does, then according to you the following is a moral action:

I didn’t say that outcomes are all that matters, nor did I say that intentions are irrelevant.


The United States launches a nuclear ICBM at Iran. The device malfunctions and it fails to detonate. The resulting useless missile lands in a park and kills a child molester as he was on his way to capture a new victim.

According to you this was a moral action since only outcomes matter.

It might be if I had said that. However, I did not, probably because I don’t believe it, and I think it’s a dubious contention.


Why does A. Matter? Why is B true? Why does C matter?

It’s pertinent data. You could also consider the barometric pressure in Beijing, but that has no bearing whatsoever on the matter being considered. Part of the result of child abuse is physical and emotional pain. Again, even if we completely subtract emotion from the picture, if we apply logic, we must ultimately consider the consequences. Child abuse is generally undesirable for personal reasons, first of all. Secondly, for the deleterious effect it has on individuals and society. We can know the pathologies that result from brutalization in childhood, the psychological illness and maladaptive tendencies that tend to arise from it. Here is a list of the common symptoms of child abuse; “behavioral problems, attention problems, anxiety, alcohol abuse, or drug abuse, bed-wetting, academic difficulties, concentration problems and chronic sexual behaviors. The abused child suffers from depression, insomnia, eating disorders, dissociative states, fear or shyness, failure to thrive, learning problems, inability to concentrate, panic attacks, malnutrition and repeated self-injury. An emotionally abused child suffers from low self-esteem, paranoia, loneliness, poor relationship with the opposite sex, interpersonal sensitivity, lack of interest in daily activities and sense of dissociation.” A society comprised of individuals like this will always, inevitably, be a less ideal environment for human beings, in general, than a society which nurtures and cares for it’s children.



And how is that relevant to what I said.

I’m assuming that’s a question. It matters because you are engaging in a straw-man argument. You are phrasing the question as if I had posited an absolute moral law forbidding child abuse.


Even though you're an "anarchist" you seem to in your posts support some sort of a state prison system. That's child abuse.

Even a Libertarian Socialist society could conceivably have a penal system. There is absolutely no reason to think murder or pedophilia would be more permissible in such a society.

I’d be curious as to the nature of this conflict you perceive between something I’ve said and what you think are the fundamental principles of Anarchism, however, I do not expect a straight answer.


I've looked at the above several times now, I still don't see where you advanced evidence for your view being non-arbitrary.

Then you don’t understand it.


There are arguments against it. That doesn't mean your moral case isn't arbitrary.[

By itself? No. You’re going to have to change your mind on that, as well.


Is a man who truly believes that the only way to save humankind is by a human sacrifice, acting immorally when he offers it? Maybe, maybe not. The point is that whatever distinction you come to won't be any more or less arbitrary than most others.

Not true. Is there any factual reason to believe this sacrifice will have the intended results?


And why does that make what you say non-arbitrary? Things aren't true or false simply because they disagree with Communism or Anarchism.

It doesn’t. However, one might get the impression that you were advocating nihilism or relativism, yet you are some kind radical Leftist, which would mean some hypocrisy or inconsistency on your part. However, I doubt you subscribe to either of these ideas, which begs the question as to what your deal is.


Besides, I've never once been arguing about what my beliefs are. I'm just illustrating why your claims are false.

This really cuts to the heart of the matter. You aren’t remotely interested in anything resembling an actual argument or an exchange of ideas. You are against whatever I say, simply because I said it. I’m hardly the most popular person on the board, and I have no interesting in trying to be, however, I only argue with things I actually disagree with. This renders any attempt at actual dialogue pointless.


Sure there is. It's considered by most Americans that paying back your mortgage and debt is the "moral thing to do". It's equally as prevalent to believe that violence by non-state actors is almost always wrong unless done for immediate self defense from a physical attacker.

Those are two claims that are essential to maintaining a capitalist system.

Much like under a feudalist system, it was considered moral to respect the feudal organs of power and property.

If you don't think specific moralities are popularized by the way societies are structured, then I'm not sure what to tell you other than to read up on the beliefs held by different societies as it relates to how they set shit up.

Again, this is a fictional entity, like dragons or unicorns. (Or discrete interests.) There are capitalists or bourgeois individuals who subscribe to some form of ethics or school of thought, however, there is nothing intrinsically ‘capitalist’ or bourgeois about any system of ethics.


Sure, but then that has nothing to do with a biological morality or whatever it was you were getting at.

I simply said that our moral instincts, our ‘gut feelings’, are rooted, in part, in evolved behavior patterns. This is simply a fact.


I strongly suspect that too. It's a testament of how little he thinks of you that he sells it to you as something new.

Is that what he is actually doing?

Have you actually read this book?

Again, I will demure from accusing you of plagiarizing the review.



They all work with him, and I doubt they've actually read it.

Now you're just making things up.

I think it’s clear how you feel about the ‘shitty’ ‘new Atheists.’ Besides, then we might agree on something, and it’s been established that isn’t psychologically possible.

[Adorno4498]

I cannot vote for the two options listed. Morality may be partially a social construct, but we have seen animals act morally (at least altruistically). Many examples have shown of animals from many species who have risked their own physical safety in order to help others (we would consider this to be of high moral value among humans). Dogs going into burning houses to rescue humans, raccoons risk their own safety to help other raccoons who are blind, primates imprisoned in zoos act to protect humans who have fallen into the zoo enclosures, etc. A great example was a dog in Chile that risked its life to help another dog that was hit by a car. You cannot explain away this conduct as being instinct or self-interest behavior.
A lot of these examples can be reduced to struggle for survival of the respective species and leader submission. Species A and Species B are domesticated by Species C. C teaches A and B that they depend upon eachother, and that C is he who they shall follow. A sustains an Injury, and B sustains a different injury. However, injury A does not impede caring for injury B, and vice-versa. From socially-constructed moral code of C, B cares for A, and A cares for B, until they recover. C sustains an injury, so A and B care for C. The only reason this occurs is because of repetition and various simulated circumstances (i.e proverbs, fables and songs), the minds of A and B learn behaviours, and thus act upon them. Read Erich Fromm's work. He talks about child behaviour being influenced greatly by socio-economic circumstance.

[Sosa]

A lot of these examples can be reduced to struggle for survival of the respective species and leader submission. Species A and Species B are domesticated by Species C. C teaches A and B that they depend upon eachother, and that C is he who they shall follow. A sustains an Injury, and B sustains a different injury. However, injury A does not impede caring for injury B, and vice-versa. From socially-constructed moral code of C, B cares for A, and A cares for B, until they recover. C sustains an injury, so A and B care for C. The only reason this occurs is because of repetition and various simulated circumstances (i.e proverbs, fables and songs), the minds of A and B learn behaviours, and thus act upon them. Read Erich Fromm's work. He talks about child behaviour being influenced greatly by socio-economic circumstance.

How do you account for those animals who are not domesticated by "C".

[Adorno4498]

OK. Let's say Group Y sees Group Z enact behaviours W and X. Group Z takes note of Group Y's enactment of Behavior X. Upon enactment, Group Y receive food. Group Z also enacts behavior X, knowing it will bring them food. Group Z also enacts Behavior W, bringing them children. Group Z repeats the behavior. Knowing it will expand their species

[L.A.P.]

I believe the only absolute morality is the obvious such as don't murder and don't rape because I can easily logically back that up. Don't murder because you take away someone's free will to live and don't rape because it takes away someone's sexual free will. Besides that, I'm pretty much an Existential Nihilist.

[Amphictyonis]

Morals are subjective :)

[Apoi_Viitor]

Morals are subjective :)

If that is the case, then why are you a communist?

[Technocrat]

I think the question poses a false dichotomy. A certain degree of "morality" may be innate as a result of consciousness and the action of mirror neurons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron)which are thought by many to play a vital role in empathy.

This would provide a basis for the "Golden Rule."

[Amphictyonis]

If that is the case, then why are you a communist?

Why isn't everyone a communist then? Is everyone who's not a communist immoral?

[ZeroNowhere]

You should objectively fetch my slippers.

Really, 'objectivity' makes no sense as regards imperatives.

[∞]

Moral guidelines are what we should look to dismiss. However morality itself is actually akin to human survival. Though morality varies among individuals all in all, society seeks to establish it's morality through a dialectal process.

[black magick hustla]

why is this? It's because humans are by nature moral equals.

this is completely wrong or makes absolutely no sense. moral equals under whom? god, other men? the idea ofmoral equality is relatively new and it has its basis in liberal thought. but if men are naturally moral equal then why do we live in a class society

[ZeroNowhere]

If morality describes a state of the world, it would therefore be contingent (logic only sets boundaries). If 'torturing infants senselessly is bad' is then a proposition about the world, then its negation, 'torturing infants senselessly is good', must describe a possible state of the world if the former is to have sense (affirmations are negations of their negation, and thence their negation must have sense, hence picture a possible state of the world). There would be no necessity but logical necessity, namely that senseless torture of infants could not be simultaneously both good and bad, and must rather be either good or bad or between the two (this is simply defining the logical space). Nonetheless, in a possible world torturing infants senselessly could be good. In actual fact, one may simply have been looking wrong when checking how things are in this world, and torturing infants senselessly could in fact be good, or it could have changed into something good. In fact, one should also not discount relativistic effects.

Of course, all that this shows is that morality as a description of the world is more or less incoherent. Morality deals with absolute value, not contingent facts. If torturing infants senselessly is wrong, then it could not be right, no matter how the state of the world is. Ethics evaluates, it does not describe. If the proposition 'Our genetic makeup inclines us to view torturing infants senselessly as bad' is true, then it does not follow that torturing infants senseless is bad, any more than the proposition 'Our genetic makeup inclines us to view torturing infants senselessly as good' (a contingent proposition, as all are) being true would mean that torturing infants senselessly is good.

[black magick hustla]

If morality describes a state of the world, it would therefore be contingent (logic only sets boundaries). If 'torturing infants senselessly is bad' is then a proposition about the world, then its negation, 'torturing infants senselessly is good', must describe a possible state of the world if the former is to have sense (affirmations are negations of their negation, and thence their negation must have sense, hence picture a possible state of the world). There would be no necessity but logical necessity, namely that senseless torture of infants could not be simultaneously both good and bad, and must rather be either good or bad or between the two (this is simply defining the logical space). Nonetheless, in a possible world torturing infants senselessly could be good. In actual fact, one may simply have been looking wrong when checking how things are in this world, and torturing infants senselessly could in fact be good, or it could have changed into something good. In fact, one should also not discount relativistic effects.

Of course, all that this shows is that morality as a description of the world is more or less incoherent. Morality deals with absolute value, not contingent facts. If torturing infants senselessly is wrong, then it could not be right, no matter how the state of the world is. Ethics evaluates, it does not describe. If the proposition 'Our genetic makeup inclines us to view torturing infants senselessly as bad' is true, then it does not follow that torturing infants senseless is bad, any more than the proposition 'Our genetic makeup inclines us to view torturing infants senselessly as good' (a contingent proposition, as all are) being true would mean that torturing infants senselessly is good.

be careful not to get too caught up with the positivism of the tractatus. its outdated, after all. things can be said "outside logical space", because logic is merely another language game.

[ZeroNowhere]

It's not entirely clear how the Tractatus could be 'outdated' as such. However, yes, ethics is also a language-game, but nonetheless it is a separate one from those in which we make descriptive statements, such as science and so on. Nonetheless, if it were to be equated with those, then it would have to make statements about contingent facts, and this would lead to approximately the above scenario.

[syndicat]

this is completely wrong or makes absolutely no sense. moral equals under whom? god, other men? the idea ofmoral equality is relatively new and it has its basis in liberal thought. but if men are naturally moral equal then why do we live in a class society

you're asking for an explanation of how class society came into existence. why is this relevant to the question of whether humans are moral equals?

class society is a condition of injustice because domination is a primary form of injustice, and class is a form of domination.

solidarity against forms of injustice generates a basis for a moral critique of those froms of injustice. a person's persception of who they are prepared to have solidarity with may be bounded in some way, such as by racism, say, or misogynistic prejudice, or distorted by their own interests. so their moral understanding may be limited in various ways. but if we want to understand the objective reality that is the basis of the moral perception, I'm saying it is the need for human solidarity. humans are social animals and are highly dependent on each other. and the support of others is critical for opposition to, defeat of, injustice in how groups are treated by other groups. morality can't be "merely subjective" because that would imply that there is no objective reality to oppression and exploitation. so the objective basis of morality is the need of groups who are subject to oppression for solidarity in order to fight it, defeat it, reduce it.

if a worker crosses the picket line and is denounced for being a scab, a job thief, the strikers may feel strongly about it but their denunciations have an objective basis, not just an expression of their feelings. the objective basis is that it is contrary to the interests of the working class as an oppressed group for people to undermine and defeat the solidarity needed to defend, expand the freedoms & benefits of the working class.