The evolution of the Coca Cola can

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If morality is subjective then it would only be a matter of individual or cultural opinion. This would mean that torturing babies for fun, rape, & child abuse are not really objectively wrong, and are only a matter of opinion. Also saying God is evil for allowing suffering would also be a matter of opinion. However if you believe an objective moral law e ...[text shortened]... t a moral law giver, which in my opinion is God. There is no argument if morality is subjective.

The moral law giver is not God, it's the majority consensus.

The majority believe torturing babies is wrong. Belief or disbelief in God doesn't (and shouldn't) come into it. Do you, for example, require God to tell you that killing babies is wrong before forming an opinion on it? Without God, would you be undecided on the issue of baby killing?!

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
The moral law giver is not God, it's the majority consensus.

The majority believe torturing babies is wrong. Belief or disbelief in God doesn't (and shouldn't) come into it. Do you, for example, require God to tell you that killing babies is wrong before forming an opinion on it? Without God, would you be undecided on the issue of baby killing?!

I would still argue that we can do better than that.
A society that allowed torturing and killing babies would be measurably [and objectively] worse for humans
to live in. And thus we can say that it is objectively bad to allow such things.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I would still argue that we can do better than that.
A society that allowed torturing and killing babies would be measurably [and objectively] worse for humans
to live in. And thus we can say that it is objectively bad to allow such things.

Indeed, but only if the majority were objective.

Take for example how witches were treated in the 16th century. The consenual majority of the time viewed murder as morally wrong, but the burning of witches as morally acceptable. Thankfully there are no moral absolutes and as we progressed as human beings the majority came to reject the reality of witchcraft and hence the moral justification for the burning of those accused of being a witch. (The majority at the time though were not capable of such objectivity).

Despite what some theists may think, plucking God from morality doesn't mean each human makes up their own individual morality. Morality in a social and cultural thing which we adhere to as functioning parts of that society and culture.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Indeed, but only if the majority were objective.

Take for example how witches were treated in the 16th century. The consenual majority of the time viewed murder as morally wrong, but the burning of witches as morally acceptable. Thankfully there are no moral absolutes and as we progressed as human beings the majority came to reject the reality of ...[text shortened]... a social and cultural thing which we adhere to as functioning parts of that society and culture.

You are not making sense.

Objective means measurable, and is by definition not based upon anyone's opinions otherwise
it would be subjective not objective.

In an objective moral system it is irrelevant if a minority, majority, or none of the people are themselves
objective. It only matters if you can measure the effects of different moral choices on people and the
society they inhabit and determine which choices produce the measurably best outcomes.
[the thing being measured being wellbeing]

An objective moral system would have rightly viewed the 16th century witch trials as immoral
even in the 16th century.

A subjective system, such as those favoured by most religions, may or may not make the correct choice
and moreover and more importantly, it cannot rationally justify the choices it makes.

Despite what some theists may think, plucking God from morality doesn't mean each human makes up their own individual morality. Morality in a social and cultural thing which we adhere to as functioning parts of that society and culture.

I am not most theists 😛

Originally posted by googlefudge
An objective moral system would have rightly viewed the 16th century witch trials as immoral even in the 16th century.

I am not so sure about that. What exactly would an objective moral system find at fault with the witch trials?

I think we also shouldn't get confused here between a set of basic moral laws or ideas and a set of 'rule of thumb' rules created to try and achieve the moral laws. I personally believe morality at its heart is objective and is the basic rule - do not harm others unnecessarily, and give aid to others if it doesn't incur to great a cost. Were people tend to differ is merely interpretations of cost, and judgement calls on what is harmful. In addition cultures and societies create rules based on this concept, but the rules often get out of line with the overall goal either by accident or by deliberate manipulation by interested parties. Another major factor is who you consider the 'other' that morality applies to.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You are not making sense.

Objective means measurable, and is by definition not based upon anyone's opinions otherwise
it would be subjective not objective.

In an objective moral system it is irrelevant if a minority, majority, or none of the people are themselves
objective. It only matters if you can measure the effects of different moral choic ...[text shortened]... adhere to as functioning parts of that society and culture.[/quote]

I am not most theists 😛

I am making sense. It just isn't common.

(I meant objective as in 'unbiased.' )

Originally posted by googlefudge
You are not making sense.

Objective means measurable, and is by definition not based upon anyone's opinions otherwise
....
[the thing being measured being wellbeing]

An objective moral system would have rightly viewed the 16th century witch trials as immoral
even in the 16th century.

1. Why measure "well-being"? Surely that is a subjective decision?
Morality need not be based upon "well-being"

and

2. Even if a system of morality were based on "well-being" ... perhaps the "well-being" of
that C16th society depended on burning witches!


I think the idea of morality being objective is ridiculous.
Laws can be made and interpreted objectively but the
actual laws will depend upon the society that made them.

However - for practical purpose mankind can agree on
core principles for morality (such as the Golden Rule)
and there is no need for divine inspiration.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
1. Why measure "well-being"? Surely that is a subjective decision?
Morality need not be based upon "well-being"

and

2. Even if a system of morality were based on "well-being" ... perhaps the "well-being" of
that C16th society depended on burning witches!


I think the idea of morality being objective is ridiculous.
Laws can be made and inte ...[text shortened]... principles for morality (such as the Golden Rule)
and there is no need for divine inspiration.

I think the idea of morality being objective is ridiculous.

Sam Harris would not agree with you, along with a quite a number of other thinkers on the subject.

2. Even if a system of morality were based on "well-being" ... perhaps the "well-being" of
that C16th society depended on burning witches!

Did you feel really dumb writing that, because you really should have.

Of course the wellbeing [it's one word] of 16th century society did not depend on burning witches.
Or I should say, burning random women accused of being witches.

This is a lecture by Sam Harris on 'wellbeing' as an objective measure for morality...

YouTube

Which is expounding on the work he did for his book "the moral landscape" [not that I own or have read
that particular book].

The basic version is that through the methods of science you can learn about what is beneficial for people
and what is not, what makes people happy or unhappy [etc]. In the same way that you can use science
to do the same for health, what makes people fat, or sick, etc.

You then can use that knowledge to make moral evaluations about the consequences of actions/rules/laws/etc
that are based on the objective [measurable] understanding science has gained about how people work.
[individually and collectively].

However - for practical purpose mankind can agree on
core principles for morality (such as the Golden Rule)

The 'golden rule' is really not that great.

"Treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself"... Great, so long as everyone else wants to be treated like
you. And you want to be treated the way everyone else wants to be treated.
As everyone does not wish to be treated the same way however, it's pretty terrible.

"Treat others as THEY would wish to be treated" does better,
Or "Treat others 10% better than they would wish to be treated", which helps overcome the fact that we take more
note of the efforts we take for others than the efforts they take for us.

But even then it would not be too hard to think of a circumstance where the right thing to do would break any of
these rules.


EDIT: TED talk from Sam Harris on the topic, if you want something shorter.

YouTube

Originally posted by googlefudge

I think the idea of morality being objective is ridiculous.

Sam Harris would not agree with you, along with a quite a number of other thinkers on the subject.

2. Even if a system of morality were based on "well-being" ... perhaps the "well-being" of
that C16th society depended on burning witches!

Did you feel real ...[text shortened]... rris on the topic, if you want something shorter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww

It's really impossible to take anyone who quotes Sam Harris as an authority with any seriousness at all.
The stuff that comes out of that jackass' mouth is mindbogglingly asinine.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
1. Why measure "well-being"? Surely that is a subjective decision?
Morality need not be based upon "well-being".

I think it depends on what you mean by the word 'morality'. It has a rather wide range of meaning. One meaning is specifically about 'well being'. Other meanings include simply 'societal norms'. I think the former meaning is not therefore 'subjective'.
What is subjective is whether or not to act morally by the former meaning. Choosing to act morally is a separate question from what the morally 'correct' action is.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Of course the wellbeing [it's one word] of 16th century society did not depend on burning witches.
Or I should say, burning random women accused of being witches.

But many of the people involved, believed it did, and thus they believed they were acting morally.
This brings up the question of to what extent moral action has to do with what you know.
Suppose someone is about to go to work, just like any other day. However, in this particular case, their action of going to work is going to cause the death of someone else. They do not know this. Are they immoral to choose to go to work?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It's really impossible to take anyone who quotes Sam Harris as an authority with any seriousness at all.
The stuff that comes out of that jackass' mouth is mindbogglingly asinine.

I note that you really hate him, but never have any actual criticisms of what he has to say. He must really be so right on the money that it gets to you. (and I suspect Sam Harris would be the first to state that he is not claiming to be 'an authority' at all, but rather his arguments stand up for themselves. The great think about being able to think for yourself is that you don't have to rely on 'authority' for everything. That is something we learn to do without when we grow up. It also helps us get past thinking the world is flat.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It's really impossible to take anyone who quotes Sam Harris as an authority with any seriousness at all.
The stuff that comes out of that jackass' mouth is mindbogglingly asinine.

It's really impossible to take anyone who believes the world is flat with any seriousness at all.
The stuff that comes out of such peoples mouths is mindbogglingly asinine.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But many of the people involved, believed it did, and thus they believed they were acting morally.
This brings up the question of to what extent moral action has to do with what you know.
Suppose someone is about to go to work, just like any other day. However, in this particular case, their action of going to work is going to cause the death of someone else. They do not know this. Are they immoral to choose to go to work?

But many of the people involved, believed it did, and thus they believed they were acting morally.

But all that proves is that people can get moral/ethical evaluations wrong. It says nothing about whether
it's possible to make objective moral evaluations, or whether right or wrong answers to moral/ethical
questions exist.

This brings up the question of to what extent moral action has to do with what you know.
Suppose someone is about to go to work, just like any other day. However, in this particular case, their action of going to work is going to cause the death of someone else. They do not know this. Are they immoral to choose to go to work?

Of course moral evaluations are going to be about what you can/do/should know.
We cannot but make evaluations [of anything] but on the things we know.
That is why it is an important part of rationality that you endeavour to know as many true things as possible and as
few false things as possible. And are always willing to re-evaluate in the light of new information/evidence.

This is one of the reasons that new technology changes moral evaluations as it changes the facts as well as our
knowledge of them. Things become possible that were not before, and we learn things we never knew previously.

I note that Sam Harris explains this in detail in both the videos I linked.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I note that you really hate him, but never have any actual criticisms of what he has to say. He must really be so right on the money that it gets to you. (and I suspect Sam Harris would be the first to state that he is not claiming to be 'an authority' at all, but rather his arguments stand up for themselves. The great think about being able to think for ...[text shortened]... ng we learn to do without when we grow up. It also helps us get past thinking the world is flat.

Indeed. I for one do not slavishly follow Sam Harris, indeed there are a number of issues
upon which we severely disagree. However, this is not one of those issues. His arguments
make sense, and I find them [bearing in mind he is not the only one making such arguments,
and not the only person I have heard/read on this subject] convincing and compelling.
While still disagreeing with Sam Harris in other areas, and not being a general fan of his.