Are moral values objectively real?

[Grumpy Santa]

I'm talking about when parents dress up their little boys as girls and pretend he's a girl or when an older man starts dressing up as a girl and he wants everyone to pretend he's a woman. You honestly want me to believe you are oblivious to this reality? Stop lying and admit you this is what you support.

Really, these examples of yours don't make any sense. I can't recall ever hearing of the former you talk about, parents doing that to their children, and I guess the latter is what, someone coming out as transgender later in life?

The big problem with this line of exampling is that you're poisoning the example by leading it with something not demonstrable and something most of us would agree is wrong, trying to force the wrong gender on someone else. It's completely different from the latter which seems to be referring to a trans person coming out, which most people today don't really have issues with.

Basically, your example is incredibly dishonest.

 

[MarsCydonia]

Really, these examples of yours don't make any sense. I can't recall ever hearing of the former you talk about, parents doing that to their children, and I guess the latter is what, someone coming out as transgender later in life?

thenexttodie appears to have developped an unhealthy obsession with transgenderism. He sees it as an issue of, what exactly? He finds it personally icky? Asides from his indoctrination-fueled distate, does he have any serious issue with it?

And of course, that is just another prime exemple of a christian's "morality" at work:
Treating someone as the gender they identify with: HUGE problem
Treating someone as property, to be bought and owned: no problem, that's acceptable.

This is a twisted sense of right and wrong.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

Really, these examples of yours don't make any sense. I can't recall ever hearing of the former you talk about, parents doing that to their children, and I guess the latter is what, someone coming out as transgender later in life?

thenexttodie appears to have developped an unhealthy obsession with transgenderism. He sees it as an issue of, what exactly? He finds it personally icky? Asides from his indoctrination-fueled distate, does he have any serious issue with it?

And of course, that is just another prime exemple of a christian's "morality" at work:
Treating someone as the gender they identify with: HUGE problem
Treating someone as property, to be bought and owned: no problem, that's acceptable.

This is a twisted sense of right and wrong.

I'm a little more concerned with the first half... the claim of parents dressing up boys and pretending they're girls thing. It makes you wonder about his childhood.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I've been listening to a lot of William Lane Craig for the past few months. He presents a good argument in defense of his premise "Objective moral values and duties do exist", by simply appealing to our collective senses.

Point of order: who's in this collective?

Don't you mean a group of people who self-selected to listen to William Lane Craig?

I think if you acknowledge that, the mystery here clears up.

Try and pull his 'argument' here in S.E. Asia - if they even get what he's warbling about (not having 2000 years of philosophical apologetics squaring circles) then they'd be too busy laughing and pushing him out onto the street where he belongs.

Regardless of anyone else, I assuredly do not share his objective moral values nor what passes for sense to him.

We sense that at least certain things are truly right or truly wrong.

Do we? I absolutely refuse to accept that on the grounds that it's make-believe. I doubt any single person on the planet who has a functioning brain can sense all that is truly right and wrong. They might think they can through failing to inspect their own ideas, but they'll fall the moment they're asked to engage in any form of reasoning.

Rather than you preferred gedanken, let's use some that have much more utility in that they show the claim is wrong, rather than attempting to prove it right.

Is it wrong to steal? Yes, of course - someone has spent their efforts and labor to acquire that good, and it is wrong to let others do the hard work and reap the reward. Clear.

Is it wrong to steal if you are young and your single-parent mother is lying in bed dying of a fever and you need to give her food? Anyone who suggests there's a simple moral answer here is just morally stunted.

Or we could appeal to the more usual thought experiments of trains on tracks and pulling levers to save 5 peoples lives over 1 person's life. In reality, we know there are much more complex moral scenarios than any religion has ever managed to address.

We sense, for example, that it is morally wrong to torture an innocent child. And he adds that for any argument one might give to be skeptical of the reality of the moral realm, we can give parallel arguments for skepticism regarding the reality of the external world as we perceive it. IOW, we can doubt our physical senses in the same way we can doubt our moral senses. I think this is good grounds for justifying belief in objective morality.]/quote]


Quite simply, his argument is self-defeating. Firstly, children are tortured, ergo not universal morality, secondly there have been many societies (Christian ones included) which had no such respect for children who were more typically treated like cheap sweat-shop labourers.

In reality, our sense of children's innate value is very, very modern and is in many ways in direct contradiction to the millennia of Christian dominance of European nations' moral values.

The problem with WLC is that he uses post-hoc reasoning. All...the...time.

He's the most clueless educated person I've ever had the misfortune to witness. Completely blind to his own failings and prejudices.

What are some of your thoughts on this? Do you think that anything is objectively, truly wrong?

I think there are things I think that are objectively wrong, but only because I can provide a reason for them. I do not believe others hold the same reasoning, so even if they share the same answer, I still would consider them wrong.

As for morality being objective or not, I think it's a pointless question which was addressed many decades ago. Morality is not objective except when it is.

Or is it just a product of culture, evolution, etc.?

Of course it is. What's the alternative? Coded into the warp and weft of the universe by the Prime Programmer? The same dude who had his followers bash in babies heads in his Bronze Age best-seller? Come on, man.

And if it is subjective, then how do we go about condemning those who torture and kill children for their own entertainment? Are they really no more wrong than we are? After all, if it's subjective and a product of culture and evolution, then what justifies our stance seems to justify theirs equally.

How do you make an argument that goes: either OBJECTIVE or SUBJECTIVE when we're talking about morality? Do you mean RELATIVE? Relative =/= subjective.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I'd take take the options as objective/subjective or absolute/relative myself.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Sparhafoc]

For me, I am following what I believe to be the normal usage in that objective morality means that there is one universally correct moral bar regardless of circumstances and therefore wholly synonymous with moral absolutism, and that the opposite posits morality as relative to the circumstances.

I am not sure how people could call any form of morality 'subjective' when it wouldn't be morality (definitionally imo) if only one person had it, and I don't recall ever reading such a term in any relevant literature. Subjective morality seems to be a misnomer to me.

Either which way, when I use the term I mean that the morality of an action is dependent on the circumstances, which is why objective morality is flawed because it gives rules rather than rules of thumb, it tells you what to do rather than encourages you how to think about a moral contention.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I understand what you mean.

I think the confusion occurs between subjective and relative on the basis that "one man's meat is another's poison". In the sense of one person's subjective opinion on a moral issue relative to another's.

Another way to look at it is different species' evolved morality relative to each other's - a carnivore (killing/eating other animals is "moral") compared to that of a herbivore (killing/eating other animals is "immoral").

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Sparhafoc]

Another way to look at it is different species' evolved morality relative to each other's - a carnivore (killing/eating other animals is "moral") compared to that of a herbivore (killing/eating other animals is "immoral").

While I do also personally feel it useful and explanatory to root morality in social animal interactions, I wonder whether herbivores truly would hold such a morality (acknowledging of course that it's a type of morality that probably requires empathy and modeling of outcomes and therefore speech and cognition and so is probably restricted to humans).

The reason I wonder this is because I am beginning to think that herbivorism is, except in some cases, merely a lack of opportunity.

More and more herbivorous animals are being observed craftily munching a small animal which happens along their way. Ducks, cows, deer, parrots, hippos, sheep... so many animals have, in recent years, been recorded chowing down on a meaty snack when their anatomy seems barely able to process it. Presumably, though, they gain sufficient benefits from it to make it worthwhile doing occasionally when opportunity allows, but lack the necessary morphological death rays to make a habit out of it. It would be interesting, though, to see a herbivore in transition to a carnivorous lifestyle.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Well hello, old friend! Marvellous to see you here.

Edit: I should say more.

Sparhafoc here is one of the good guys, and an old friend of mine and Rumraket's, among others. A deeply experienced counter-apologist, with whom I've stood shoulder-to-shoulder in the trenches for (can it really be?) over a decade.

You are most welcome here, my friend. The chew-toys will be along presently.

Oh, my mistake. I see you've already found them. :lol:

 

[Sparhafoc]

Mr Slackatache... it is indeed good to see you, and if you don't mind me saying, even better to see Cumcracket as it's been around a couple of years!

I honestly had no idea either of you were members here - just needed to get some reason-fix. Looks like I found the right place if it's hosting you two!

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Another way to look at it is different species' evolved morality relative to each other's - a carnivore (killing/eating other animals is "moral") compared to that of a herbivore (killing/eating other animals is "immoral").

While I do also personally feel it useful and explanatory to root morality in social animal interactions, I wonder whether herbivores truly would hold such a morality (acknowledging of course that it's a type of morality that probably requires empathy and modeling of outcomes and therefore speech and cognition and so is probably restricted to humans).

The reason I wonder this is because I am beginning to think that herbivorism is, except in some cases, merely a lack of opportunity.

More and more herbivorous animals are being observed craftily munching a small animal which happens along their way. Ducks, cows, deer, parrots, hippos, sheep... so many animals have, in recent years, been recorded chowing down on a meaty snack when their anatomy seems barely able to process it. Presumably, though, they gain sufficient benefits from it to make it worthwhile doing occasionally when opportunity allows, but lack the necessary morphological death rays to make a habit out of it. It would be interesting, though, to see a herbivore in transition to a carnivorous lifestyle.

Not necessarily that they're consciously choosing to eat other animals or not but rather that they're "living in accordance with Nature", as the Stoics put it.

I'd agree that herbivores are not - indeed, can't be - pure herbivores as they accidentally eat insects on leaves, etc., so their digestive system has to have some capability to cope with animal protein, as well as vegetable proteins.

It would be interesting to know if it's easier to transition from herbivore to omnivore, at least, as against carnivore to omnivore, if not herbivore. I seem to recall reading something about it a few years ago but don't remember the details.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Sparhafoc]

See, here's the kicker. Just a single example....

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40445379

Wild mallard ducks have been observed attacking and eating migratory birds.

Ok, ok another one.... because it's twisted!! :twisted:

https://www.outdoorhub.com/stories/2013/09/09/the-meat-eating-habits-of-deer/

Many people may not know that deer, like some other herbivores, eat meat from time to time. It’s hard to imagine these creatures as steak-seeking predators, but deer will be quick to take advantage of a nutritious opportunity.

....

Other small animals are game too, as long as the deer can actually eat them. There have been documented instances of deer eating squirrels and rabbits, although it is not known if it was the deer that killed them. However, deer are not physically equipped to eat meat, and in most cases will not be able to bite through thick skin with their teeth. In cases where the deer is unable to reach the nutritious organs inside the body cavity, it instead munches on the limbs.

That's not just eating something that happened to fall into their mouths, but actively chasing down and consuming reasonably large prey.

In digestive terms, an insect or two (ok, ducks eat insects, but for obligate herbivores..) is one thing, but to actively consume an entire bird.... that's a lot of work for a largely herbivorous digestive tract and no teeth to do mechanical work in advance.

Personally, I have a feeling that it's something that all herbivores will do either when under environmental pressure, or just when there's no real cost to them. In fact, it might be considered an opportunity cost not to take some readily available protein when it's up for grabs. The dramatic rise in numbers of people equipped with recording devices is surely going to be a key component of finding out weird shit we didn't know about the animal brethren we've shared our evolutionary history with.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Another way to look at it is different species' evolved morality relative to each other's - a carnivore (killing/eating other animals is "moral") compared to that of a herbivore (killing/eating other animals is "immoral").

Beyond what Sparhafoc said about herbivores chowing down on meat, I have watched several nature documentaries where zebras will kill young wildebeest (or visa versa) for simply crying out to their mother after being separated, no eating of the dead. I have also seen documentaries where buffalo happen upon young lions and kill them, again no eating of the dead. That is to say, I do not think herbivores have anything against killing different animals. Perhaps, they would see killing one of their own species as "immoral", but killing in general does not seem like anything they see as bad.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Another way to look at it is different species' evolved morality relative to each other's - a carnivore (killing/eating other animals is "moral") compared to that of a herbivore (killing/eating other animals is "immoral").

Beyond what Sparhafoc said about herbivores chowing down on meat, I have watched several nature documentaries where zebras will kill young wildebeest (or visa versa) for simply crying out to their mother after being separated, no eating of the dead. I have also seen documentaries where buffalo happen upon young lions and kill them, again no eating of the dead. That is to say, I do not think herbivores have anything against killing different animals. Perhaps, they would see killing one of their own species as "immoral", but killing in general does not seem like anything they see as bad.

Yep, in the abstract, I think any social organism would see the killing of one of its herd as 'immoral' and for non-social species, any killing of one of its litter as immoral.

I think there's another point arising from that: morality, or the biological basis for morality is more likely to have a role in a social species, or perhaps better said - likely to have more of a role. The more closely that species lives with one another, the more likely 'rules' are generated for their conduct with other members of their tribe. Living with your own obviously means you have dramatically lowered your chances of being eaten even if every member of the herd selfishly flees when attacked - the sheer volume of moving meat is good to confuse a predator. However, I think it comes at a dramatic cost because in all species, even in obligate herbivores who are under continual threat of predation, the most immediate conflict for resources is with members of ones' own species who want all the same things as you do.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I seem to have thrown a firecracker, if not a grenade, into the discussion. :lol:

Thanks for the links - makes for interesting reading.

The duck article does point out that it's been known that they eat small fish, so their digestive system is certainly capable of coping with animal protein, including cartilage. It is astonishing that they'd eat birds given the challenges involved - "never look a gift-horse in the mouth" seems to be at play in this, and the deer, article. The latter does say that there's no evidence that the deer killed the squirrel/rabbit, just that it seems to be a case of carrion-eating. However, smaller animals - like the young bird - seem to be fair game.

I agree that herbivores killing carnivores, as a pre-emptive strike as it were, is not uncommon but killing others for food is less likely than either omnivores or, obviously, carnivores.

My original point was made in the context of "objective morality" - that it's all relative.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Sparhafoc]

S'alright! I personally think these asides are probably a damn sight more interesting for most of us than the usual endless cycle of bullshit from the couple of resident Creationists!

 

[Exogen]

I think a good case for the objectivity of morals can be found in Aristotle, and teleological ethics specifically, of the naturalistic variety. The epistemic doctrine that usually is presented as an objection against teleological ethics is that all that ever exists in nature is the 'function' of something, say an organism or part of one, but not the 'purpose.' I think that is an incoherent position to take. Also, the notion of 'purpose' has become distorted from the meaning used by Aristotle and the ancients and instead been replaced by a naive and subjective understanding of it. Taking a good and long look at Aristotle's ethics, one can see the simplicity of why ethics and the virtues are in fact 'objectively derived' and grounded in the facts of nature. Notice I said 'derived' and not 'identical with' or 'reducible to.' One of the reasons, I suspect this is often missed, is because of the tendency towards extreme reductionism in modern thought has missed the 'big,' holistic picture that was obvious to Aristotle and the ancients. If one shifts one's thinking towards seeing the whole of nature, not only at a glance, but in time, one sees that nature is riddled with purpose, and that purpose and function are related but not identical.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Nice to see you back again, Exogen!

I'd be interested to know what you mean when you say "... nature is riddled with purpose ..." - I trust you're not talking teleologically?

Also, could you clarify what you mean here?: "... that purpose and function are related but not identical.".

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Exogen]

Dragan Gias,

hi, thank you.

Yes, I would be happy to clarify.

In regards to nature being riddled with purpose, I 'do' mean teleology. But in order to answer that question, I must first answer your second, namely the distinction between function and purpose. So these two words can be synonymous, but there is a sense in which they are not, and it is that sense in which I mean. So a function would be merely an efficient causal description at a glance, like A causes B in simple terms. A more complex understanding might be how your hand closes around an object to grasp it. Purpose, on the other hand, is the actuality of a potential of something as in that for the sake of which some prior state exists. So for instance, my highest form of development of my body is that for which my less developed form exists insofar as the less developed version is the 'potential' to the 'actuality' which is my final developed form. That is what defines that relationship in time is one of potentiality to actuality, in that order. And Order is very much the issue here, not only at a glance but of nature as a whole. There is an order. For Aristotle, he sees a world of profound order, one which perpetuates itself. To answer your second question then, nature is riddled with relationships in time of potentials moving to actuals in terms of the changes in form. An organism is born, at which point its form develops towards its actuality. Once it reaches this apex, this zenith, it begins to degenerate and eventually disintegrate and is recycled along with the rest of the natural processes that facilitate the order. The order is harmoniously integrated, that is, it is 'whole.' Always a cycle of potential to actual, a fulfillment of purpose, hence purpose is riddled throughout nature. The function is a part of it, but failing to see the relationship by reducing time to single instances and not seeing the unified pattern and the relationships between instances lead will obfuscate the purpose. It is an over-reductionism.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Turritopsis nutricula

And I am not really sure that degenerating back to chemicals and atoms is best described teleologically, rather that there are competing physical forces which cause that result regardless of the best efforts by life. Life's 'purpose' is to temporarily stave those forces off - fleeting pockets of entropic reduction - not to die.