## Objective morality finally established

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

### Objective morality finally established

“Everyone everywhere shares a common moral code. All agree that cooperating, promoting the common good, is the right thing to do.”

For the study, Curry’s group studied ethnographic accounts of ethics from 60 societies, across over 600 sources. The universal rules of morality are:

Return favors
Be brave
Defer to superiors
Divide resources fairly
Respect others’ property

The team found that these seven cooperative behaviors were considered morally good in 99.9% of cases across cultures. Curry is careful to note that people around the world differ hugely in how they prioritize different cooperative behaviors. But he said the evidence was overwhelming in widespread adherence to those moral values.

https://qz.com/1562585/the-seven-moral- ... -humanity/
phyllo
ILP Legend

Posts: 11311
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

### Re: Objective morality finally established

phyllo wrote:
“Everyone everywhere shares a common moral code. All agree that cooperating, promoting the common good, is the right thing to do.”

For the study, Curry’s group studied ethnographic accounts of ethics from 60 societies, across over 600 sources. The universal rules of morality are:

Return favors
Be brave
Defer to superiors
Divide resources fairly
Respect others’ property

The team found that these seven cooperative behaviors were considered morally good in 99.9% of cases across cultures. Curry is careful to note that people around the world differ hugely in how they prioritize different cooperative behaviors. But he said the evidence was overwhelming in widespread adherence to those moral values.

https://qz.com/1562585/the-seven-moral- ... -humanity/

K: as I see it, several problems occur with this list. For example, divide resources
fairly is not simply not a factor here in the U.S... for that would be communism.
No, the numbers are quite clear that the upper 1% has increased their wealth
to the point where 8 people in the world has more wealth then over half
the population of the planet earth. That is not dividing resources equally, in
fact, it is quite the opposite. Capitalism demands, demands that the resources
are not divided up equally... for if the resources were divided up equally,
the minium wage would be over $25 dollars an hour, instead of the California the minium wage which is one of the highest in the country and that is$11.00 dollars an hour.

and one of my problems is with the word, objective.

Objective. according to the dictionary:
Objective: having real existence outside of a person's mind, not subjective. Not
influenced by personal feelings or opinions.

the list is the very definition of the influence of personal feelings or opinions.
for example, being brave. Ask ten people what it means to be brave and you will
get ten different answers and the list doesn't take into account examples as in
the ancient Greek culture in which the real goal was Arete and bravery was simply
a part of having Arete. Arete, by the way means excellence. For the proper goal
or objective of a person in ancient Greece was achieving excellence and being brave
was simply a part of Arete.....and another problem is how do we know that
the study wasn't just a test to confirm an already held bias.... in other words,
simply confirms your bias. we cannot know if that is what happened.

to reach another point, is this idea of defering to one's superiors.
In America as well as most western countries, the greatest crime one
can commit in society is also the greatest crime to commit in the bible,
which is disobedence to authority. That is one of only two things that can get me
fired, disobedience and stealing. I cannot be fired for anything else. One of the
perks of working in a union. Anyway, if you don't defer to your superior in modern
western society, you get fired.....deferment is built into our modern economic
system. Defer or get fired...... does that mean that it is an "objective"
standard? I don't think so. I don't see how this list gets one outside of or
beyond a person's feeling or opinion.... it is feelings or opinions writ large
and that is certainly not objective. In fact, you could ask people, do
you like to get beaten up and you will get a pretty firm opinion or feeling
that people don't like to get beaten up, but is that an "objective" morality
or simply people's feeling about the matter.... the entire list is really just
how people feel or have an opinion about a certain matter and having
an opinion or feeling about something is not an "objective" viewpoint, even
if every single person on earth feels the exact same way... because the
very word "objective" means outside of a person's mind and every single
answer is given from a person's mind.... objective must mean outside of
someone's mind, not from a person mind.

this list has some real problems...…

Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend

Posts: 7455
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

### Re: Objective morality finally established

Peter Kropotkin wrote:objective must mean outside of
someone's mind, not from a person mind.

this list has some real problems...…
This would hold also for all your sense that right wing people are immoral or wrong. That's just subjective judgments on your part. And on their part of left wing and liberal people.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher

Posts: 2413
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

### Re: Objective morality finally established

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Peter Kropotkin wrote:objective must mean outside of
someone's mind, not from a person mind.

this list has some real problems...…
This would hold also for all your sense that right wing people are immoral or wrong. That's just subjective judgments on your part. And on their part of left wing and liberal people.

K: and at no point have I claimed that my "bias" is objective.....
I am solidly in the camp of the subjective, the relative.....in my book,
there is no objective.

Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend

Posts: 7455
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

### Re: Objective morality finally established

Peter Kropotkin wrote:K: and at no point have I claimed that my "bias" is objective.....
I am solidly in the camp of the subjective, the relative.....in my book,
there is no objective.

Kropotkin
Cool, that puts you in Iamb's camp. This means that you just don't like how the Republicans want things, you don't think it's wrong how they want them.

And when you post something like this:
K: and here we are two years later and what a massive clusterfuck we have......
You have the GOP clearly trying to shut down democracy in states like
Wisc and N.C and their efforts to prevent people from voting, voting,
the very essence of democracy.....then you have the shitshow in Washington
where IQ45 has sold his soul to Putin, along with the entire GOP and you say
there is no difference? No difference between the parties? How in god's name
can you say that? And this is what I rail against, the pox on both houses
game that equates the two parties, when in fact, we don't have the democrats
taking children away from their parents at the border, where we don't have
the democrats selling their soul to that terrorist organization, the NRA, where
we don't have the democrats committing treason for aiding and abetting
Putin and Mother Russia.....To equate the GOP party and the democrats is to
say the democrats have committed treason on the large scale that the GOP has,
and that is simply not true..... Have the democrats demostrated the
racist, bigoted, misogynist language and actions of the GOP?
How can you equate the GOP attempts to demonize women, minorities,
immigrants to what the democrats do? Are the democrats perfect? no,
I will not say that we are even close to being perfect.... but are you perfect?
No, of course not, but should you belong to the party that better reflects
your values... and should you encourage a party that encourages and
practices those negative values of racism and bigotry? To equate the two
parties is to say, you know what, I don't care that the GOP practices
racism and bigotry and misogyny because the other guys are just as bad...
and THE OTHER SIDE IS FAR BETTER, but not perfect.....

to say a pox on both houses is to allow the GOP their vast attempts
to deny democracy and to demonize anyone who isn't white, middle class
and rich...……

and to say a pox on both houses is to give permission to the GOP in their
attempts deny democracy and practice their racist, bigotry and misogyny
and that is what Wiesel saying..... do say nothing or to say a pox on both houses is
to permit these actions just it permitted the Nazi Holocaust to start and cause
the death of millions... there is no difference between your saying a pox on both houses
and the average German saying the exact same thing and look at what happened to the
German.. You might say, nah, it is different? And how is it different? The average German
by their silence gave their consent to the holocaust and you are giving consent by your silence
to the racist, bigoted, misogynist words and actions of the GOP.....

If you don't speak up, who will and if you don't act, who will and if
you simple say, it is not my problem that people are being denied their
their rights, their freedom, then you are in denying the
declaration of independence which has stated, quite clearly that

" We hold these truths to be self evident, all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their creator with certain alienable rights,
that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure
these rights, government is instituted among men"

To give permission by silence to the GOP, you are denying these words,
you are giving them permission to deny people their right to life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness.... and yet you claim their is no difference
between the two parties and yet, I don't see the Democrats denying
your rights by engaging in racism or bigotry or misogyny...…...or curtailing
your rights to vote as a basic function to our democracy... for if you deny
voting, you are denying democracy at its basic level and the GOP practice
denying voting is part of the heart of being republican.

If you claim I am overclaiming the words and practices of the
GOP, then I submit that you don't understand the consequences
of your ignorance or your silence and that you are complicit in the GOP
war on democracy by repeating that false meme of there is no difference
or simply saying silent and watch bad people inflict bad things on innocent
people...….or do you deny the Nazi's did anything bad?

If you cannot see that the GOP has copied the Nazi playbook
to a t.. then you are not only complicit in their war on democracy,
but you don't care...…..and that is a very sad commentary on who you are..
what you stand for and what it means to be human......for I shall continue
to speak out because to not do so says that I approve of racism, bigotry
and misogyny and I don't approve of the basic right of people to be equal
and to pursue their own happiness......to engage in life and liberty....

I shall not be silent while others have their right to have "life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness" denied....I am sorry you are ok with people
being denied their rights... for your silence condemns you, convicts you
of complicity to deny their rights and to say, a pox on both houses also condemns
you to a guilty charge of denying people their rights to life liberty and the pursuit
of happiness......

What you mean is that the people you are arguing with do things not wrong or bad, but just not to your taste.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher

Posts: 2413
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

### Re: Objective morality finally established

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Peter Kropotkin wrote:K: and at no point have I claimed that my "bias" is objective.....
I am solidly in the camp of the subjective, the relative.....in my book,
there is no objective.

Kropotkin
Cool, that puts you in Iamb's camp. This means that you just don't like how the Republicans want things, you don't think it's wrong how they want them.

K: as I have suggested on many occasions, I believe that the GOP is the most dangerous
terrorist organization in the world, bar none.....I have laid out my arguments for
such a belief many times and in many ways, however that doesn't mean I think my
arguments are "objective". They are my beliefs and my opinions surrounded by
as many facts as I can find to support my position. It is not the beliefs or opinions
that should pursuade you, but the facts....... I believe the GOP has done more to
damage America than the Taliban AND Al qaeda put together or for that matter
combine any and all terrorist groups and the GOP has done more to harm
and destroy America then all of them put together.....that is opinion but
supported by facts.

Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend

Posts: 7455
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

### Re: Objective morality finally established

Peter Kropotkin wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Peter Kropotkin wrote:K: and at no point have I claimed that my "bias" is objective.....
I am solidly in the camp of the subjective, the relative.....in my book,
there is no objective.

Kropotkin
Cool, that puts you in Iamb's camp. This means that you just don't like how the Republicans want things, you don't think it's wrong how they want them.

K: as I have suggested on many occasions, I believe that the GOP is the most dangerous
terrorist organization in the world, bar none.....I have laid out my arguments for
such a belief many times and in many ways, however that doesn't mean I think my
arguments are "objective".
But we're talking about objective morality, not the infallibility of your analysis. That you think they are dangerous, means you think they do bad things or can or will. But since without an objective morality this doesn't make any sense.

Science is objective, via empirical research. This is necessarily potentially fallible.

Objective does not mean that one cannot be wrong, but that one draws cauals conclusions based on some form of rigorous evidence.

Not believing in objective morality is something completely other.

They are my beliefs and my opinions surrounded by
as many facts as I can find to support my position. It is not the beliefs or opinions
that should pursuade you, but the facts....... I believe the GOP has done more to
damage America than the Taliban AND Al qaeda put together or for that matter
combine any and all terrorist groups and the GOP has done more to harm
and destroy America then all of them put together.....that is opinion but
supported by facts.

It's a value judgment of the effects. You are positing objective values, while, yes, admitting that your evidence that what they do is bad might be fallible.

You are conflating two issues.

To say that someone has objective morality means that they think they know what is good. Like that 'damaging' america is bad. Your language in what I cited in the previous post is saturated with objective values speak.

Saying you might be wrong about whether the GOP is bad does not remove you from the category of people who have objective morals. It just means you realize you might be in error about the effects.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher

Posts: 2413
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm