Nitpicky? Hell yes.
Started by Inevitable Droid, November 23, 2010, 10:11:58 AM
Quote from: "hackenslash"The universe doesn't give a toss how we behave, so there can be no such thing as objective morality.
QuoteAll morality is, as you say, contextual. Anything contextual is necessarily subjective.
Quote from: "hackenslash"Even in the presence of a celestial peeping-tom, there can be no objective morality. Indeed, it could be argued that if there is a cosmic score-keeper, then objective morality is even further ruled out, because then morality is subject to the whim of this individual, which is in fact what many believers argue, which is how they justify the immoral behaviour and mandates of this individual in their holy books of guff. Thus, predicated on the whim of a single individual, it is even more subjective than it would be without him.
Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"If by give a toss we mean care, and if by universe we mean the universe taken as a whole, then one could argue that the universe taken as a whole doesn't care about anything
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PMIn Asmo's grey lump, wrath and dark clouds gather force.Luxembourg trembles.
Quote from: "Wilson"In the absence of God the scorekeeper, there can be no absolute morality. You postulate that all moral "facts" are anthropologically contextual, which is sort of saying the same thing.
QuoteI agree that most (but not all) people do have a drive to be "good" or "moral" and follow the moral standards of the community
Quotewhich in my opinion came to us through evolution because groups whose members had empathy and cooperation and a certain degree of altruism survived better than those groups whose members did not.
QuoteI don't know what your last axiom means but suspect that I don't agree.
QuoteI believe that there is a kind of natural morality where those of us with the ability to empathize with others feel that things which benefit people are good and those which hurt people are bad.
QuoteFaced with a situation where someone is in need of help, most of us don't check a list of rules, we usually know right away what's right and wrong and react instinctively to do what's moral - or we act in our own self interest if the moral path isn't clear or easy.
Quote from: "Asmodean"Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"If by give a toss we mean care, and if by universe we mean the universe taken as a whole, then one could argue that the universe taken as a whole doesn't care about anythingOn the other hand, if your favourite toe gets infected, does that not also mean that your whole body is, the toe being a part of it and all..? WE are the part of the "whole", and we do tend to care. Does it matter to a black hole whether or not I choose to eat babies..? Not likely, no. But if you put that black hole in a system in which our own Earth is included, then it does matter to the system, even though on microscopic component-level. You get my drift, yes..?
QuoteHowever, as humans hold hundreds and thousands opposing moral ideals, and we have no way of knowing what is considered moral on other worlds - or even if they are familiar with the concept of morality, we can not claim objectivity beyond a given society here on Earth.
Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"I am arguing that there is no good reason to give anthropological context a different status from geographic, temporal, or other contexts. Context is context. Facts have context. Fact remain facts even so, and objective as well.
Quote from: "Asmodean"For the said group, it would be considered wrong to define 2+2 outside the said context, but for any other group, it might well seem wrong to define it within.
Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"What I am arguing is that a fact's contextuality doesn't destroy its factuality, nor its objectivity.
Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"This is what I am having a problem with. When you add "anthropological contextuality" into the equation I think you are no longer talking about "objective morality". What is objective about that? That makes it entirely subjective. So you get a bunch of subjects together who all agree on acceptable behavior (Sunday church-goers who do not wish to see a man disrobe, skinny-dippers who expect to see a man disrobe)...so what? It's still subjective.
QuoteCultural beliefs (anthropological contexts) are extremely malleable which poses a serious problem for repeatability of any moral test. If it is X degrees outside, at this precise location, at this precise time, then you can take any intelligent individual (human or otherwise) with sufficient measurement tools (thermometer) from any time (past, present, future) and place them in those exact same temporal/spatial coordinates and they will all agree on the temperature. Not so with a moral test drawing from anthropological contexts, and indeed you have said as much already, when talking about the incredible disrobing man.
Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Do you agree that a fact about subjectivity is itself an objective fact?