Is Morality Objective?

Discuss and vote on debates.
Forum rules
Debate participants, please wait until your debate is over before engaging in discussion about your debate.

Re: Is Morality Objective?

Postby Stuart » Tue Jan 29, 2013 11:15 am

Obe, Moreno and von Rivers despite the differences of opinions you have I think you all seem to be claiming that objectivity exists through two or more subjects being in agreement. That goes back to my original question:

Stuartp523 wrote:...have you ever thought about a subject, concept, idea, etc. so long that it lost all meaning? And, whether or not you did, would you argue that the meaninglessness this over thinking gives to ideas, etc. is just a psychological illusion or could you think of some other argument?...


To expand on the question within the context of agreement, I only need to change the wording somewhat:

Have you ever discussed with someone a subject, concept, idea, etc. and felt you both came to an agreement then found out in practice you both never agreed on anything? And, whether or not you did, would you argue that the meaninglessness the application of practice to discussion may show is just a psychological illusion or could you think of some other argument?

I don't think two people ever agree on anything to a greater extent than to end the discussion amicably or for within the context of the agreement, notwithstanding unexpected events (which may be about as likely to happen as not), to not step on each other’s toes.

This illusion of objectivity within one's ideas, or within an "agreement with others" I would say just comes down to not "pushing the issues far enough". I've always pushed the issues, but it took me over twenty years of such an inner search for truth, or coherency, of any idea, and an outer search for consistency among any two people to be able to confidentially say that objectivity has no meaning.

This kind of search is not recommended, it may have a "good" effect on those around you, being that it might make you less hypocritical (that is it might), but it is of no use to one's self.
Stuart
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3027
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:32 am
Location: California

Re: Is Morality Objective?

Postby Moreno » Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:52 pm

Stuartp523 wrote:Obe, Moreno and von Rivers despite the differences of opinions you have I think you all seem to be claiming that objectivity exists through two or more subjects being in agreement. That goes back to my original question:
Just to be clear, I sometimes try to work from what I consider to be Von River's position, making arguments and clarifications, as if it was the case.

I think his position is immediately confusing when it is saying that morality is objective or seems to say this. What he is referring to as morality, which it will serve as a guide to actions, is not really what most people mean by morality, which includes things like being good, even if one is not performing an action. He is expanding prudence, or effectiveness, to include what has been covered in morality, so that morality can be worked out by things like scientific empiricism, for example.

IOW he is coupling say, Goodness, with organism homeostasis. Which really means, to me, that it is a small 'g', rather than the big G.

He may not agree with all this, but I find it interesting, and think this is a defensible position which I play around within, sometimes with a little mocking, but mostly not.

Stuartp523 wrote:...have you ever thought about a subject, concept, idea, etc. so long that it lost all meaning? And, whether or not you did, would you argue that the meaninglessness this over thinking gives to ideas, etc. is just a psychological illusion or could you think of some other argument?...
Sure.
To expand on the question within the context of agreement, I only need to change the wording somewhat:

Have you ever discussed with someone a subject, concept, idea, etc. and felt you both came to an agreement then found out in practice you both never agreed on anything? And, whether or not you did, would you argue that the meaninglessness the application of practice to discussion may show is just a psychological illusion or could you think of some other argument?
Yes, to the first part. Communication is fallible. I think people tend to be naively optimistic about the application of abstract ideas and how well people's ideas actually match, despite the same language. Also I think there are very entangled issues when one tries to separate out abstraction from application, and often people convince themselves they believe certain things, but once application comes into play, they clearly do not believe them, despite continued insistence they do.

There are ego beliefs. Which are similar to ego ideas about oneself, but include beliefs about 'external things' and beliefs about what one's beliefs are.
Then there is in the unconscious, which has a mass of beliefs people are often completely unaware, but in fact may be clearer guidelines for others to who the person is and what they are going to do or how it will feel to be around them.

I don't think two people ever agree on anything to a greater extent than to end the discussion amicably or for within the context of the agreement, notwithstanding unexpected events (which may be about as likely to happen as not), to not step on each other’s toes.
I don't think people change each other's minds that much, but I do think people can, in fact, agree, and sometimes even if their words are not aligned. They may not even realize they agree.

This illusion of objectivity within one's ideas, or within an "agreement with others" I would say just comes down to not "pushing the issues far enough". I've always pushed the issues, but it took me over twenty years of such an inner search for truth, or coherency, of any idea, and an outer search for consistency among any two people to be able to confidentially say that objectivity has no meaning.
WEll, agreement and objectivity are not the same thing. But in practical terms it would be a problem if no one really agreed. AS far as I can tell, however, there are groups out there, and they share beliefs in common, and if their beliefs take over a physical area - a corporation, a school, a family, a gathering, etc. - one can make direct predictions about what it will be like and what changes will take place there. Good predictions. And that these shifts matter. At least to me.

This kind of search is not recommended, it may have a "good" effect on those around you, being that it might make you less hypocritical (that is it might), but it is of no use to one's self.[/quote]
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: Is Morality Objective?

Postby phyllo » Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:28 pm

Obe, Moreno and von Rivers despite the differences of opinions you have I think you all seem to be claiming that objectivity exists through two or more subjects being in agreement.
No, that's not what vR claims. He says objectivity does not depend on agreement. Two, a billion, all people can agree ... they may all just be wrong.
"Who loves not wine, woman and song, remains a fool his whole life long."

"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10110
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: ->.

Re: Is Morality Objective?

Postby Orbie » Wed Feb 13, 2013 3:56 am

The agreement of two, yes, I honestly only "intuited" it, and after refreshing on Husserl, found that is his requirement--for the "intentional act" based on intuition. Honestly, this comes at complete surprise, that I intuited it, withiut prior exposure, and then finding this process intiuted by Dilthey and Bergson.
I will look his exact use of this. You may be kidding, but it is a sort of a confirmation to go on.


It's actually Heidgeer's "mitsein" or--being together, and the objection to that was that they are not objective, because the objection that the "mitsein" does not go beyond solipsism- from sarte's interpretation of "Zein und Zeit".
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Is Morality Objective?

Postby Drusuz » Wed Jun 19, 2013 3:31 am

Read about 8 posts, and they all seems extremely vague, and they both seems glaringly ignorent about how moral are a very relative and sujective, which will greatly variate from country to country, from person to person, to implement deeper psychology such as sheeple and such.
What we seems as highly moral in 1 country may be grossly abominable in another. Such as stoning, honor killing, US and guns vs EU and sex.


Quality of debate is 2/10.
All statemens must be within logic and reason!
Drusuz
Thinker
 
Posts: 601
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2013 11:52 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Is Morality Objective?

Postby Orbie » Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:36 pm

Drusuz wrote:Read about 8 posts, and they all seems extremely vague, and they both seems glaringly ignorent about how moral are a very relative and subjective, which will greatly variate from country to country, from person to person, to implement deeper psychology such as sheeple and such.
What we seems as highly moral in 1 country may be grossly abominable in another. Such as stoning, honor killing, US and guns vs EU and sex.


Quality of debate is 2/10.






Drusuz: there is an argumentativeness here which may be missed. The rightness or wrongness of a moral code, agreed upon by as few as two people, may have no appearant bearing on the wider question of rightness or wrongness of such a code. Objective morality is only a statement of perceived facts, and not an evaluation of how those facts bear upon a morality. One can extend the moral code within a wider scope of moral evaluation, but that's optional.

For instance, once upon a time in the Wild west, horse thievery resulted in summary execution was practice routinely, without recourse to any form of due process of law. This was an example of an implicit agreement of so called objective morality.

The subject needed no more elaboration or justification.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Is Morality Objective?

Postby Drusuz » Thu Jun 20, 2013 6:26 am

obe wrote:
Drusuz wrote:Read about 8 posts, and they all seems extremely vague, and they both seems glaringly ignorent about how moral are a very relative and subjective, which will greatly variate from country to country, from person to person, to implement deeper psychology such as sheeple and such.
What we seems as highly moral in 1 country may be grossly abominable in another. Such as stoning, honor killing, US and guns vs EU and sex.


Quality of debate is 2/10.






Drusuz: there is an argumentativeness here which may be missed. The rightness or wrongness of a moral code, agreed upon by as few as two people, may have no appearant bearing on the wider question of rightness or wrongness of such a code. Objective morality is only a statement of perceived facts, and not an evaluation of how those facts bear upon a morality. One can extend the moral code within a wider scope of moral evaluation, but that's optional.

For instance, once upon a time in the Wild west, horse thievery resulted in summary execution was practice routinely, without recourse to any form of due process of law. This was an example of an implicit agreement of so called objective morality.

The subject needed no more elaboration or justification.
No, i must highly disagree with you.

2 people are ample people if they actually knew what they talked about, which they seemingly don't. Sure they want to discuss the topic in a serious manner, but they both fall short of really defining it.
What you too miss, is the understanding of circumstances in your own anology.
All statemens must be within logic and reason!
Drusuz
Thinker
 
Posts: 601
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2013 11:52 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Is Morality Objective?

Postby von Rivers » Thu Jun 20, 2013 3:47 pm

Drusuz wrote:Read about 8 posts, and they all seems extremely vague, and they both seems glaringly ignorent about how moral are a very relative and subjective, which will greatly variate from country to country, from person to person, to implement deeper psychology such as sheeple and such.
What we seems as highly moral in 1 country may be grossly abominable in another. Such as stoning, honor killing, US and guns vs EU and sex.


Drusuz,

Apparently you have not studied the topic as I have, and are not as knowledgable about the topic as I am. Have you come here for cozy chatter? I have not come here for your cozy chatter. I am a philosophical genius. Please read through my posts and focus your attention, so that you may learn, and not remain in ignorance.
User avatar
von Rivers
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5792
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:24 am

Re: Is Morality Objective?

Postby Drusuz » Thu Jun 20, 2013 4:04 pm

von Rivers wrote:
Drusuz wrote:Read about 8 posts, and they all seems extremely vague, and they both seems glaringly ignorent about how moral are a very relative and subjective, which will greatly variate from country to country, from person to person, to implement deeper psychology such as sheeple and such.
What we seems as highly moral in 1 country may be grossly abominable in another. Such as stoning, honor killing, US and guns vs EU and sex.

Apparently you have not studied the topic as I have, and are not as knowledgable about the topic as I am. Have you come here for cozy chatter? I have not come here for your cozy chatter. I am a philosophical genius. Please read through my posts and focus your attention, so that you may learn, and not remain in ignorance.
Thanks mr huge mass of flowing water, for the slap in the face and motivation to do better in this thread.

If you are a genious, then what am i? Super philosophical genious?
My critique of the Academy was way better, much sharper and to the point. You have yet to surpass me in philosophy.
All statemens must be within logic and reason!
Drusuz
Thinker
 
Posts: 601
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2013 11:52 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Is Morality Objective?

Postby von Rivers » Thu Jun 20, 2013 4:20 pm

Drusuz wrote:Thanks mr huge mass of flowing water, for the slap in the face and motivation to do better in this thread.

If you are a genious, then what am i? Super philosophical genious?
My critique of the Academy was way better, much sharper and to the point. You have yet to surpass me in philosophy.


You are welcome. I am a river to those who help themselves, so please, draw from my superior wisdom on display in my debate, for your own benefit.





I am a river to those who help themselves.
User avatar
von Rivers
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5792
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:24 am

Previous

Return to Discussion



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users