101 replies to this topic

[Jasi]

Why do you need a set of objective rules to do the right thing?

Because "right" is an entirely subjective. There is no way to propose an absolute, or even semi-absolute, set of morals or ethics without invoking some sort of objectivity. Unless you are a pure materialist, you are making assumptions about the existence of objective standards of morality whenever invoke the ideas of "right" and "wrong" in reference to any human action.

There is an evolutionary basis for a set of objective standards that includes things such as "don't kill people", which has been the main thing discussed here. A civilization which kills its members is highly unlikely to survive for very long. Because this has nothing to do with desire (it is evolution), it is an objective standard.

If we don't get our standards from evolution, where do we get them? Not from the Bible--many Christian views have changed over time, on such topics as slavery and the treatment of women, for example. Additionally, there are so many other holy books and it is merely geographical which you choose to read.

And yet, we all come up with the same basic rules such as don't kill, don't steal, etc., and these are things that stay constant throughout time and throughout culture.

Why is it impossible for these things to have arisen biologically?

[Poore]

There is an evolutionary basis for a set of objective standards that includes things such as "don't kill people", which has been the main thing discussed here. A civilization which kills its members is highly unlikely to survive for very long. Because this has nothing to do with desire (it is evolution), it is an objective standard.

What you mean is, "It is an objective standard given that our understanding of evolutionary biology, psychology, and sociology are all 100% correct, and we can verify their correctness objectively". If you can demostrate that this is the case, I'll concede the point.

Also, if only killing members of one's own society is evolutionarily beneficial, then what about war? Killing members of other societies frees up resources (including land, one of the most important resources) for your own society. This isn't a rhetorical question - I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts.

If we don't get our standards from evolution, where do we get them? Not from the Bible--many Christian views have changed over time, on such topics as slavery and the treatment of women, for example. Additionally, there are so many other holy books and it is merely geographical which you choose to read.

And yet, we all come up with the same basic rules such as don't kill, don't steal, etc., and these are things that stay constant throughout time and throughout culture.

Why is it impossible for these things to have arisen biologically?

I wasn't trying to claim that we should look to the Bible for our morals. I was simply trying to raise awareness that each individuals view of objective morality is marred by their own subjectivity.

If morals are biological, then why do they differ so much across cultures? Some cultures consider nudity immoral (like, say, the U.S.) while others don't. Is there a biological basis for nudity? What about differences in the age at which an individual is considered an adult? What about attitudes toward illicit substances? It;s easy to say, "oh pretty much everyone agrees we shouldn't kill so it must be biological", but there exist vast differences in what is considered moral between any one culture and another.

Also, if morals are completely biological, why do we often observe non-beneficial behaviors and then regard them as moral, or vice-versa? If two men are in a boat that capsizes, and a man saves himself and leaves his friend to drown, he will be treated differently than a man who tried to save the other man and they both died. The second is a biologically inefficient and stupid behavior, yet I believe that man would be regarded as a hero with strong ethics, while the other man would probably be considered a coward.

Why do we allow people with disabilities to live? There are often a drain on society - shouldn't we have evolved the desire to shun non-beneficial group members? If so, then why are special education teachers typically glorified for their services?

From an academic perspective, I can see your point, but from what I've gathered no one indulges in a purely materialistic, biologically-driven moral system. You don't, I don't, nobody does. We do things that are evolutionarily beneficial on a personal as well as a cultural level, and we treat those who act in non-evolutionary beneficial ways as heroes, which is totally counter-intuitive to an objective, biological morality.

[Jasi]

Also, if only killing members of one's own society is evolutionarily beneficial, then what about war? Killing members of other societies frees up resources (including land, one of the most important resources) for your own society. This isn't a rhetorical question - I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts.

I'm assuming you meant to say that killing members of one own's society is NOT beneficial, right?
War is a fact of life, in the human world as well as the animal kingdom. It is evolutionarily helpful in that it better ensures the furthering of your own genes. These things I will admit. But there are still rules against killing. Wars happen because they believe that the other side has done something so atrocious as to make death a fair punishment, thus eliminating the guilt from the parties' minds (mostly). Therefore, it doesn't seem to go against anyone's morals.
But it still stands that most cultures consider killing basically wrong, morally. Of course when anyone can find enough justification for doing something that goes against their own morals, they won't feel guilty about it. There are exceptions to every rule, etc.

If morals are biological, then why do they differ so much across cultures? Some cultures consider nudity immoral (like, say, the U.S.) while others don't. Is there a biological basis for nudity? What about differences in the age at which an individual is considered an adult? What about attitudes toward illicit substances? It;s easy to say, "oh pretty much everyone agrees we shouldn't kill so it must be biological", but there exist vast differences in what is considered moral between any one culture and another.

If you want to get technical, the biological explanation for being "against" nudity is that it can be very unhygienic, as well as being dangerous in extreme temperatures. But I know that wasn't your point. But things such as that differ from culture to culture, as well as within religions, so we can all agree that THOSE morals are subjective, regardless of religion. That's why I cited things such as slavery and women's rights as views that have changed despite the "objective" standard of God's word.

Also, if morals are completely biological, why do we often observe non-beneficial behaviors and then regard them as moral, or vice-versa? If two men are in a boat that capsizes, and a man saves himself and leaves his friend to drown, he will be treated differently than a man who tried to save the other man and they both died. The second is a biologically inefficient and stupid behavior, yet I believe that man would be regarded as a hero with strong ethics, while the other man would probably be considered a coward.

Why do we allow people with disabilities to live? There are often a drain on society - shouldn't we have evolved the desire to shun non-beneficial group members? If so, then why are special education teachers typically glorified for their services?

Humans have evolved beyond animalistic desires such as the desire to save your own skin at all costs. Humans are creatures of community: they make communities, and they try to preserve those communities. They do this partially by dealing with others through reputation. If you are a mean-spirited person and are completely self-serving, although this sounds good evolutionarily, if you should ever need help, it is unlikely that you should get it due to your reputation for being mean. This is a general example of how communities work and have evolved, and how certain morals like heroism have evolved out of the existence of communities. Similarly, this is why we try to help our fellow man and we don't kill disabled people etc. etc.

What you mean is, "It is an objective standard given that our understanding of evolutionary biology, psychology, and sociology are all 100% correct, and we can verify their correctness objectively". If you can demostrate that this is the case, I'll concede the point.

By that standard, no set of morals can truly be "objective". We can never know that anything is wholly, completely, 100% true. Except math.

Edited by Jasi, 15 July 2009 - 02:58 PM.

[Poore]

I'm assuming you meant to say that killing members of one own's society is NOT beneficial, right?

D'oh! Yes, that was what I meant to type.

War is a fact of life, in the human world as well as the animal kingdom. It is evolutionarily helpful in that it better ensures the furthering of your own genes. These things I will admit. But there are still rules against killing. Wars happen because they believe that the other side has done something so atrocious as to make death a fair punishment, thus eliminating the guilt from the parties' minds (mostly). Therefore, it doesn't seem to go against anyone's morals.
But it still stands that most cultures consider killing basically wrong, morally. Of course when anyone can find enough justification for doing something that goes against their own morals, they won't feel guilty about it. There are exceptions to every rule, etc.

This paragraph is laden with unprovable, untestable assumptions, which are by their very nature not objective. You cannot know the thoughts of others, or the psychological motivations of any person's actions, not in their entirety, and thus you will not be able to objectively assess any human action. Biology (and, indeed, science in general) relies on observation, but you cannot observe a person's thoughts. Ergo, there is no way to claim that the study of internal thought processes and morals can be objective.

If you want to get technical, the biological explanation for being "against" nudity is that it can be very unhygienic, as well as being dangerous in extreme temperatures. But I know that wasn't your point. But things such as like that differ from culture to culture, as well as within religions, so we can all agree that THOSE morals are subjective, regardless of religion. That's why I cited things such as slavery and women's rights as views that have changed despite the "objective" standard of God's word.

So morals are objective when it's beneficial to your argument, and subjective when they aren't? It's either one or the other - you can't just pick and choose examples that support your case and ignore the rest - that is bad science.

Humans have evolved beyond animalistic desires such as the desire to save your own skin at all costs. Humans are creatures of community: they make communities, and they try to preserve those communities. They do this partially by dealing with others through reputation. If you are a mean-spirited person and are completely self-serving, although this sounds good evolutionarily, if you should ever need help, it is unlikely that you should get it due to your reputation for being mean. This is a general example of how communities work and have evolved, and how certain morals like heroism have evolved out of the existence of communities. Similarly, this is why we try to help our fellow man and we don't kill disabled people etc. etc.

In some idealized utopia, maybe. People are extremely selfish. Rewards typically go to those who have the least moral compunctions about using others to get what they want. Look at the CEOs of any major company. Look at a lot of celebrities. They didn't get where they are by serving the community, or through self-sacrifice. They did what they had to do to get what they wanted, because they were greedy, power-hungry, fame-seeking, etc. True, they may be looked at unfavorably, but they aren't being ostracized from the community, or killed off. They are flourishing. Plus, if those traits were evolutionarily non-beneficial and grounds for being removed fro ma society, shouldn't we have seen a decrease in such behaviors over time? Sociology is a very tricky subject, and there's a reason a lot of scientists in other fields treat is as a realm of dubious integrity.

By that standard, no set of morals can truly be "objective". We can never know that anything is wholly, completely, 100% true. Except math.

That is exactly the point I was making. Even if objectivity exists, we, as subjective beings, can never be ensured of objectivity in our morals and actions.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

There is an evolutionary basis for a set of objective standards that includes things such as "don't kill people", which has been the main thing discussed here. A civilization which kills its members is highly unlikely to survive for very long. Because this has nothing to do with desire (it is evolution), it is an objective standard.

What you mean is, "It is an objective standard given that our understanding of evolutionary biology, psychology, and sociology are all 100% correct, and we can verify their correctness objectively". If you can demostrate that this is the case, I'll concede the point.

Also, if only killing members of one's own society is evolutionarily beneficial, then what about war? Killing members of other societies frees up resources (including land, one of the most important resources) for your own society. This isn't a rhetorical question - I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts.

I'd like to point out that it war is on the decline. With increasing globalisation, war is becoming more difficult to justify. With increasing globalisation and therefore increasing contact with other cilivisations and cultures, differences start to fade away. The less perceived differences there are, the less likely we are to wage war against said civilisation.

[Jasi]

This paragraph is laden with unprovable, untestable assumptions, which are by their very nature not objective. You cannot know the thoughts of others, or the psychological motivations of any person's actions, not in their entirety, and thus you will not be able to objectively assess any human action. Biology (and, indeed, science in general) relies on observation, but you cannot observe a person's thoughts. Ergo, there is no way to claim that the study of internal thought processes and morals can be objective.

I'm not really saying that was an example of objective standards, I was just explaining why war happens and saying that it's an exception to the rule.

So morals are objective when it's beneficial to your argument, and subjective when they aren't? It's either one or the other - you can't just pick and choose examples that support your case and ignore the rest - that is bad science.

Not at all. I'm saying that killing and causing physical harm to another ARE objective standards, as they are universal and timeless, and that "lesser sins" such as nudity and incest are subjective standards, as they have been considered right or wrong depending on the time and the culture. I'm saying that you can base the idea that killing and causing physical harm is wrong on biology.

In some idealized utopia, maybe. People are extremely selfish. Rewards typically go to those who have the least moral compunctions about using others to get what they want. Look at the CEOs of any major company. Look at a lot of celebrities. They didn't get where they are by serving the community, or through self-sacrifice. They did what they had to do to get what they wanted, because they were greedy, power-hungry, fame-seeking, etc. True, they may be looked at unfavorably, but they aren't being ostracized from the community, or killed off. They are flourishing. Plus, if those traits were evolutionarily non-beneficial and grounds for being removed fro ma society, shouldn't we have seen a decrease in such behaviors over time? Sociology is a very tricky subject, and there's a reason a lot of scientists in other fields treat is as a realm of dubious integrity.

This is again a case where we have evolved beyond the strict rules of evolution (ha!). Human beings are sentient and can choose to do however we please. I can choose to kill myself even though it's not evolutionarily wise. I was merely explaining how altruistic traits survived despite their sometimes counter-evolutionary effects.

Edited by Jasi, 15 July 2009 - 03:52 PM.

[Poore]

I'm not really saying that was an example of objective standards, I was just explaining why war happens and saying that it's an exception to the rule.

Not at all. I'm saying that killing and causing physical harm to another ARE objective standards, as they are universal and timeless, and that "lesser sins" such as nudity and incest are subjective standards, as they have been considered right or wrong depending on the time and the culture. I'm saying that you can base the idea that killing and causing physical harm is wrong on biology.

This is again a case where we have evolved beyond the strict rules of evolution (ha!). Human beings are sentient and can choose to do however we please. I can choose to kill myself even though it's not evolutionarily wise. I was merely explaining how altruistic traits survived despite their sometimes counter-evolutionary effects.

If we are sentient and have choice, then our morals are not biologically determined. What I am really driving at is this: do you believe free will truly exists, or are the physical processes of the human mind just so complex that it gives the illusion of free will? If it's the former, then I want to know your scientific basis for the existence of free will (because, as far as I know, there isn't one). If it's the latter, then morality has nothing to do with conscious decisions, and our action are biologically hard-coded - we will do what we will do. Morality doesn't enter into it except as a pleasant excuse to fool ourselves into believing that we are somehow to superior to those who act in a non-evolutionarily beneficial way (i.e. we're only good because we were not driven to kill; you can now be passively good by simply doing nothing).

This is getting convoluted, so I'm just going to come out and say it: I want you to admit your own morals are not objective, and I want you to admit that you take some parts of your existence on faith, even if it's not in a religious sense. There. I said it.

Edited by Poore, 15 July 2009 - 04:31 PM.

[Jasi]

If we are sentient and have choice, then our morals are not biologically determined. What I am really driving at is this: do you believe free will truly exists, or are the physical processes of the human mind just so complex that it gives the illusion of free will? If it's the former, then I want to know your scientific basis for the existence of free will (because, as far as I know, there isn't one). If it's the latter, then morality has nothing to do with conscious decisions, and our action are biologically hard-coded - we will do what we will do. Morality doesn't enter into it except as a pleasant excuse to fool ourselves into believing that we are somehow to superior to those who act in a non-evolutionarily beneficial way (i.e. we're only good because we were not driven to kill; you can now be passively good by simply doing nothing).

This is getting convoluted, so I'm just going to come out and say it: I want you to admit your own morals are not objective, and I want you to admit that you take some parts of your existence on faith, even if it's not in a religious sense. There. I said it.

I don't believe that free will really exists, not when you really get to thinking about it logically. That doesn't prevent me from enjoying life however. I certainly feel like I can make my own choices.

I believe that no one's morals can be entirely objective.

I'm not sure what part of my existence you think I'm taking on faith.

Edited by Jasi, 15 July 2009 - 04:59 PM.

[Egann]

@ Reflectionist: Apart from one line, ALL of my prior post was commentary, not argument. I fail to see how commentary can be "self-assuming."

It's not like you're the only one who hasn't given up turf. But stuff like the content of that spoiler does explain a lot.

And I really want to bring it back to the idea that we all have a conscience, and almost everyone's conscience, regardless of religion or upbringing, tells them that killing another person is wrong....

....Not at all. I'm saying that killing and causing physical harm to another ARE objective standards, as they are universal and timeless, and that "lesser sins" such as nudity and incest are subjective standards, as they have been considered right or wrong depending on the time and the culture. I'm saying that you can base the idea that killing and causing physical harm is wrong on biology.....

...I believe that no one's morals can be entirely objective.

I'm probably making a mess of quite a bit of thought by train-wrecking several posts worth of thought like this, but oh, well.

Woah...huh? You want to use a nebulous feeling that you admit isn't even common to all humans to create a kind of a generic moral system? Yes, we do have a conscience, but it is nowhere near strong enough to objectify it enough to do that because of how it'll muttle with the COGNITIVE aspect of moral reasoing. Yes, societies are based on a shared sense of moral obligation, but in most cases these have to be in the form of similar generalities AND similar generalities to make a culture that isn't fragmented and rife with friction waiting to explode.

Perhaps most pointed, if you cannot point to a non-arbitrary line and say "here is where morals based on the conscience becomes subjective" you cannot say that the morals it provided were objective to begin with.

The real problem with ethics is that what they say is DIRECTLY dependent on their source. Example: Doctors don't go around sterilizing people, but back in the early 1900s when eugenics was really popular, lots of people with retardation and other "undesireables" were sterilized, most without ever being informed. And yes, this happened in America as well. The moral reasoning that it would "purify" future generations justified otherwise despicable infringement on the right of another person to choose for him or herself.

Again, yes, we have a conscience, but it's a quiet voice and your mind is a rather enclosed space. Not only that, your conscience has to share that enclosed space with the cognitive elements behind the morals, your cultural upbringing, and the political aspects of possible punishments. It's rather like listening to a whisper in a noisy room. It CAN be done, but it's rare that you are sure you heard right.

[Poore]

I don't believe that free will really exists, not when you really get to thinking about it logically. That doesn't prevent me from enjoying life however. I certainly feel like I can make my own choices.

Then you're lying to yourself - your whole existence is a lie - which is why I can't take any atheists who aren't also nihilists seriously. I'm not attacking you - that's how I honestly feel about this view. It feels like, "Oh, I'm an atheist, except for the parts that make me feel bad," to me.

I believe that no one's morals can be entirely objective.

Here, we agree.

I'm not sure what part of my existence you think I'm taking on faith.

If you're a materialist (which, from your responses, it seems you are), you are saying that, in the short time you've been on Earth (especially compared to the billions of years the Universe has been in existence), you've accumulated enough knowledge and personal experience to know with absolute certainty that human logic and reasoning is an infallible system for evaluating your existence (as well as everyone else's),so much so that it can invalidate the ideas, beliefs, and personal experience of every person who disagrees with you. That seems like a lot of faith, to me.

(NOTE: you can apply this same notion to everyone - just swap materialism for any other belief. I was just trying to point out how ridiculous it is that any one person (or group of people) knows anything definitively enough to NOT take things on faith)

[Jasi]

It's not really lying to myself, because I recognize that free will doesn't exist. I know that if you put me in the exact same situation several times, I will react the same way each time. Despite this, I choose to enjoy my life, because why wouldn't you? It's very easy to enjoy life. It is a fact that I am entertained and thrilled by it. Why is that something that can't be taken seriously?

I never said that I believe I'm 100% infallible, or whatever. If those are the grounds on which you'll accept something as truth, nothing is true. But that also means you can't even have a discussion about anything, because you can sit back and say "What's the point? You don't know what the truth is, none of us do." Which, besides sucking all the fun out of every debate ever, seems a little well...nihilistic.

All my beliefs are pragmatic and realistic as far as I'm concerned. I'm not going to concern myself with questioning the very essence of our being or anything, because that gets us nowhere.

[Khallos]

Anyone who obeys the law simply due to fear of punishment is a fool. There a good reasons for doing the "right thing" and obeying it, and doing the "right thing" and disobeying it. As such I'm not convinced many atheists formulate their actions based on fear of retribution. If however your actions are dependant on those set down in a book, with the warning that disobediance will result in internal suffering, you have plenty of reasons why they might wish to avoid such a transgression. Obviously I don't believe that most Christians act solely out of a carrot or a stick response to life. However, all theists are bound by their book, yet many disobey it, but why? It's as foolish as a devout person fearing death, if they acted against the will of God, then it's their fault, their Book says they must be punished (depends to what level you believe people can get saved). And the fact that it is not too unusual for Chrisitians to say that without God they'd be monstrosities is one of the things that scares me most about religion. The godless however are often seem law abiding, although due to being a minority it's hard to judge, the only states that have large atheist populations are Communistic ones, this hardly gives a truth on the matter (although some of the nations with the largest atheist minorities are Captilistic and are pretty good at being law abiding[the criminal population could be wholly atheist possibly]).

And to the fact that without God you'd think yourselves centre of the universe is ridiculous, the majority of atheists realise they're even more insignificant than a person in theism; theism at least gives you a being to anchor yourself on, the belief that you're superior to animals. Atheists have to live with the cold, hard cosmic truth of the endless black void of oblivion. In 13 odd billion years of time one human is nothing and doomed to extinction as a species long before any foreseeable end of the universe. Why don't I act like a nihilistic bastard? The pros of living within a community of friends and family far outweigh the pros of being a selfish money grabber or psychopath, it's all down to "free will", and my will is to quietly stroll through life in a pleasing manner to me.

Pascal's Wager is something that kept me Christian til I don't know...about 10? Well I say that, when I was 10 I had know idea who Pascal or what a wager meant likely. Naturally my idea of game theory was poor too. So I came upon a crude and not very christian idea in that it allowed existance of other Gods or possibly multiple denominations. I was also very ignorant at the time of other denominations and faiths, but concluded as that Catholicism was the strictest doctrine of faith I knew, it seemed best to follow it as I'd be most likely to get a good afterlife. At some point I realised I was thinking along ridiculous and rather unwholesome lines and that if any God existed I'd forsake his salvation if he upheld such a twisted view.

I could not bear the moral cowardice (an interesting...emotion if that's the right word, it seems neither to be particularly useful evolutionarily or in faith, I prepare to be stand corrected however ) of choosing to believe in something which to my eyes is contrary to everything else I believe. What would I gain? Immortality, that sounds like a pretty sinful desire. Something to fill with "purpose"? I would be living a lie, once again not very holy. No, I reject devoting myself to a dubious entity of variable morals; instead it appears far better to try and improve the lives of the those I cherish-myself included, as well as the lives of those I don't-myself included.


This post took far too long to type and may be filled with discrepancies...I blame exhaustion.

[Poore]

It's not really lying to myself, because I recognize that free will doesn't exist. I know that if you put me in the exact same situation several times, I will react the same way each time. Despite this, I choose to enjoy my life, because why wouldn't you? It's very easy to enjoy life. It is a fact that I am entertained and thrilled by it. Why is that something that can't be taken seriously?

First: you can't really prove that you'll always do the same thing in a situation every time, because there are too many variables to consider (which makes replicating/testing this hypothesis impossible, which, once again, makes it non-scientific). I'm not saying there's anything wrong with enjoying your life, but just saying "fuck it, I'm not concerned about whether or not I'm a rational agent with a true existence," seems...lazy. If you're really secure in your worldview, why don't you want to question it? Your fine debating other people's ideas, but if you don't seriously question and develop your own beliefs, you will stagnate (again, I'm completely aware that this is my subjective view - I'm just trying to help you understand how I feel about this, so that we can perhaps agree to disagree).

I never said that I believe I'm 100% infallible, or whatever. If those are the grounds on which you'll accept something as truth, nothing is true. But that also means you can't even have a discussion about anything, because you can sit back and say "What's the point? You don't know what the truth is, none of us do." Which, besides sucking all the fun out of every debate ever, seems a little well...nihilistic.

I wasn't trying to say that nothing can be true - I was saying that truth is subjective. One of your points seems to be very flippant and suggested that believing in free will was illogical, that that was patently obvious, and (by implication) anyone who thinks that is ignorant, and to that I do not hold. Maybe to you, but not to me. I've had a near-death experience that convinced me very strongly of the existence of the human soul (or mind, or spirit, or whatever you want to call it - something beyond just the flesh and bone). No matter how strange that may seem to you, it is something that I know, so strongly, that it is impossible to express in words. I am aware that this is entirely subjective, and unscientific, and unprovable. I know that my personal experiences can never convince you of anything, because you've never had them. That's fine, but the fact that you've never had that particular experience does not invalidate it for me.

TL;DR I don't believe that anything is ever objectively true, but that doesn't invalidate subjective truth (DISCLAIMER: this does not apply to observed phenomena that have nothing to do with the human experience - I accept that the Universe exists, reality is real, and that things like gravity, physics, etc. are pretty spot on - however, these do fuck-all to help me understand the deeper nature of my existence)

All my beliefs are pragmatic and realistic as far as I'm concerned. I'm not going to concern myself with questioning the very essence of our being or anything, because that gets us nowhere.

That's your opinion, and I tend to disagree. Questioning the essence of the human experience has led me into many great conversations/debates that taught me a lot about myself. But, as I said earlier, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here, because you haven't lived my life, and I haven't lived yours.

[Nevermind]

It's not really lying to myself, because I recognize that free will doesn't exist. I know that if you put me in the exact same situation several times, I will react the same way each time.

It is the ability to acknowledge those actions and change them if you so please that substantiates "free will".

[Reflectionist]

That is exactly the point I was making. Even if objectivity exists, we, as subjective beings, can never be ensured of objectivity in our morals and actions.

This is pretty much the only objection to relativism, and it's basically a question of what someone's comfortable with. People cling to a sense of absolutism because they are unable to stomach a world without it. So I agree with you, Poore. We, as subjective beings, can never be ensured of objectivity in our morals and actions. And it sucks, I know. People like to know that what they do isn't for naught. But that's grand scale thinking, only for the religiously minded. To the entirety of the universe, sure, morality is fucking pointless because it's subjective as hell, and the way you treat a woman (for example) isn't going to change how the planets rotate around their stars, or affect the laws of physics. But to your 12 year old brother (again, for example), the way you treat a woman might mean the world, and shape his individual subjective future for the better... or for the worse, if you're a completely irreverent misogynist who hangs on every rappers every word. Or depending on how you look at it.

Tell me, if there's no consistency to morality as it is, how can we conceive of an absolute morality? Or, perhaps more to the point, how can we conceive of an absolute morality without abandoning it before all the words we use to define it are even out of our mouths? To the Christian, "absolute morality" doesn't allow room for judgement, yet to deny subjective morality is judgement, because it's saying, "This is you, and everything you stand for personally, and this is me, crushing it, because it's worthless compared to everything I stand for, personally."

It's a matter of perspective. Of what someone takes for granted. As they say, "One man's trash is another man's treasure, one man's pain is the next man's pleasure." Isn't mere disagreement proof enough of this?

[Jasi]

Okay Poore, I get where you're coming from, that everything ever is subjective and no one can say anything about anything because it's not really that thing.

It is my subjective opinion that sitting here and thinking about whether things are things or if they are just the things I think they are seems pretty pointless because you can't ever arrive at a real conclusion of any sort, because nothing is anything.

In a discussion/debate setting, I would rather assume that my perception of reality is correct, as most logical people do, and go from there in an attempt to further explore the world I'm in and the people I'm around. Even if that means there's a possibility all of it is wrong because it's subjective. Is that lazy? I would call it being interested in different subjects. You want to talk about philosophy, I would rather talk about science. If you want to sit there and say "well how do you know that's real" about everything, we can't have a productive discussion.

Because well, you say that you accept the Universe and physics and gravity as truth, but weren't they only observed by humans, and therefore entirely subjective? How do you know that the logic these scientists used wasn't influenced by their time and culture?

I don't really mean these things, but don't you understand how silly it is to do that?

Edited by Jasi, 15 July 2009 - 10:44 PM.

[Nevermind]

i.e. If your perception of the way things are is just as conclusive as anyone else's, you would prefer to just go with what you yourself think and/or feel?

[Jasi]

Weird, right?

[Nevermind]

Well, not really. It's a position I understand and practise myself. It's either them or you, really.

[Jasi]

I was being sarcastic

[Nevermind]

Actually...I think I realised that but for some reason responded anyway

Done.

[Poore]

Okay Poore, I get where you're coming from, that everything ever is subjective and no one can say anything about anything because it's not really that thing.

It is my subjective opinion that sitting here and thinking about whether things are things or if they are just the things I think they are seems pretty pointless because you can't ever arrive at a real conclusion of any sort, because nothing is anything.

In a discussion/debate setting, I would rather assume that my perception of reality is correct, as most logical people do, and go from there in an attempt to further explore the world I'm in and the people I'm around. Even if that means there's a possibility all of it is wrong because it's subjective. Is that lazy? I would call it being interested in different subjects. You want to talk about philosophy, I would rather talk about science. If you want to sit there and say "well how do you know that's real" about everything, we can't have a productive discussion.

Because well, you say that you accept the Universe and physics and gravity as truth, but weren't they only observed by humans, and therefore entirely subjective? How do you know that the logic these scientists used wasn't influenced by their time and culture?

I don't really mean these things, but don't you understand how silly it is to do that?

...because true science is testable, repeatable, and observable? I understand that our understanding of how the Universe works has changed over time as our technology got better and we were able to more accurately observe phenomena in the world around us. Free will is not a testable hypothesis, therefor you cannot use science to prove or disprove it. Essentially, I'm tired of people claiming that psychology, sociology, and other fields of "science" that deal with the metaphysical and unobservable are true science, and that somehow they can use it to validate their world view that "Free will doesn't exist" or "There is no God." I don't care if you're of the stance that "Since those things can't be evaluated with science, I don't care about them," but using science to validate untestable, unobservable truths is wrong.

Also, I think the discussion we've had is incredibly interesting. Do you disagree?

[Jasi]

I know that the non-existence of anything is unprovable. We can only continue to explain phenomena previously attributed to God with science.

Tangent story: I recently read some works by St. Augustine that were extremely interesting when talking about the relationship between science and religion. St. Augustine believed that if science discovered a truth, it is inherently compatible with religion/Christianity/God, since God is truth; even if it seemed to contradict what was previously thought about God, that is only because humans are projecting their own desires onto the words of God and we can never possibly know what God really thinks. I think that's a refreshing view of the relationship between god and science. [/tangent]

And scientifically, it is sensible to say that free will doesn't exist, because so far, we haven't discovered any form of randomness. Everything has been explainable by cause-and-effect relationships. But yeah yeah yeah--science is fallible, etc.

Also, I think the discussion we've had is incredibly interesting. Do you disagree?

Of course I do, good sir.
/handshake

[Poore]

we haven't discovered any form of randomness.

Quantum mechanics actually has. The half-life of a given element is a good example. While scientists can predict when half of a given quantity of the radioactive element will decay, how the atoms decay (i.e. which ones break apart and when) is, as far as science can tell, random. To quote John Gribbins, "Each nucleus decays spontaneously, at random, in accordance with the blind workings of chance."

Tangent story: I recently read some works by St. Augustine that were extremely interesting when talking about the relationship between science and religion. St. Augustine believed that if science discovered a truth, it is inherently compatible with religion/Christianity/God, since God is truth; even if it seemed to contradict what was previously thought about God, that is only because humans are projecting their own desires onto the words of God and we can never possibly know what God really thinks. I think that's a refreshing view of the relationship between god and science. [/tangent]

I would agree. St. Augustine was kind of a badass.

[Jasi]

It would be nice if people now could adopt more of that kind of mentality, instead of being brainwashed by conservative talk show hosts that all science is bad.

[Jasi]

Finally, in conclusion:

[Poore]

Finally, in conclusion:

Ryan North is the best person in the world.

[Jasi]

Words cannot express how much I love Dinosaur Comics.

[spunky-monkey]

Firstly I'm a former-Christian (go ahead, argue I never was one to begin with, make my day) and now a self-confessed Atheist, I've really nothing to gain from this particular discussion except backlash I suppose, though I find logic, the liar paradox and deductive reasoning being dragged into the topic matter somewhat intriguing.

I guess I do kind of feel that if I'm going to die and stop existing permanently, with no thoughts, memories or anything, then my existence, and all of our existences, would be pointless. Just typing that sentence almost gave me a mild panic attack... That thought terrifies me. I suppose part of the reason I cling to my faith is because I want to be assured of an eternal life.

Granted I don't believe in an afterlife (what a ridiculous term indeed "after-death-life") but that's an odd emotionally-based stance you have there: How exactly would you not mind not existing after death? After biological death and the utter cessation of our existence, we wouldn't exist as sentient beings anymore, we stop being self-aware, therefore there is no objection. A rock can't feel sorry that it will never experience being alive, neither can a dead man ever feel terrified his life is over.

Why do we allow people with disabilities to live? There are often a drain on society - shouldn't we have evolved the desire to shun non-beneficial group members? If so, then why are special education teachers typically glorified for their services?

Careful, this is not what Jasi was justifying and you're going way off on a tangent - people with disabilities can still contribute to society. You're basically referring to those with progressive illnesses or severely physically/mentally sick they're a danger to themselves and others around them and need constant care/supervision. There's a world of difference and you can't afford to be this vague on said topic matter.

War is a fact of life, in the human world as well as the animal kingdom. It is evolutionarily helpful in that it better ensures the furthering of your own genes. These things I will admit. But there are still rules against killing. Wars happen because they believe that the other side has done something so atrocious as to make death a fair punishment, thus eliminating the guilt from the parties' minds (mostly). Therefore, it doesn't seem to go against anyone's morals.
But it still stands that most cultures consider killing basically wrong, morally. Of course when anyone can find enough justification for doing something that goes against their own morals, they won't feel guilty about it. There are exceptions to every rule, etc.

This paragraph is laden with unprovable, untestable assumptions, which are by their very nature not objective. You cannot know the thoughts of others, or the psychological motivations of any person's actions, not in their entirety, and thus you will not be able to objectively assess any human action. Biology (and, indeed, science in general) relies on observation, but you cannot observe a person's thoughts. Ergo, there is no way to claim that the study of internal thought processes and morals can be objective.

It's de-facto in society (or civilization whatever term you prefer) that murdering another in cold blood is wrong and an act punishable by law, hence the whole justice system set up as a deterrent to those contemplating taking another's life and implanting a fear of consequence in them.

Saying that most cultures consider killing morally wrong isn't just assumption, its fact. Jasi is generalising yes, but he isn't arguing about observing any particular individual’s entire thought process, he's reflecting upon the average person's standards of behaviour which as far as the majority goes is fairly accurate. If it wasn’t and people could only display total apathy/disregard for each other then we’d all have serious problems going about trying to survive.

I don't believe that free will really exists, not when you really get to thinking about it logically. That doesn't prevent me from enjoying life however. I certainly feel like I can make my own choices.

Then you're lying to yourself - your whole existence is a lie - which is why I can't take any atheists who aren't also nihilists seriously. I'm not attacking you - that's how I honestly feel about this view. It feels like, "Oh, I'm an atheist, except for the parts that make me feel bad," to me.

How ironic you invoked the liar paradox yourself. If someone's unhappy with the theist's loose definition of "free will" then they're not simply going to cease to exist because they've challenged the concept. Why are you angry whenever anyone exposes it to scrutiny?

This has been a stumbling block for you in the past Poore because you refuse to approach this issue rationally and without emotional bias. We had a heated discussion about free-choice not so long ago which ended rather badly.

How the hell do you go about enforcing free will, in a Universe of cause and effect, where not a single one of us actually made a personal decision to come into existence? Neither you nor I ever choose who our parents would be; therefore your interpretation of freedom of choice is already invalid.

I wasn't trying to say that nothing can be true - I was saying that truth is subjective. One of your points seems to be very flippant and suggested that believing in free will was illogical, that that was patently obvious, and (by implication) anyone who thinks that is ignorant, and to that I do not hold. Maybe to you, but not to me. I've had a near-death experience that convinced me very strongly of the existence of the human soul (or mind, or spirit, or whatever you want to call it - something beyond just the flesh and bone). No matter how strange that may seem to you, it is something that I know, so strongly, that it is impossible to express in words. I am aware that this is entirely subjective, and unscientific, and unprovable. I know that my personal experiences can never convince you of anything, because you've never had them. That's fine, but the fact that you've never had that particular experience does not invalidate it for me.

This depends on your perception on events, experiences and values not quite how you subjective reality itself. We HAVE to define objective truth from a subjective perspective, without this contrast we have no definition or grasp of knowledge.

Also you've lost me on this whole "human soul" thing, how did you jump to the conclusion that the brain shutting down as it nears total organ failure is proof of an spiritual or immaterial part we all magically have? And I can't help but feel your recollection of this experience reeks of arrogance, like a person who boasts he, and he alone, had a really good dream but you can't hear about because that would be telling. Sorry if I misjudged you, but that's how you're coming off at this particular moment, with the throwing of all rationality and doubt out the window and whatnot.

...because true science is testable, repeatable, and observable? I understand that our understanding of how the Universe works has changed over time as our technology got better and we were able to more accurately observe phenomena in the world around us. Free will is not a testable hypothesis, therefor you cannot use science to prove or disprove it. Essentially, I'm tired of people claiming that psychology, sociology, and other fields of "science" that deal with the metaphysical and unobservable are true science, and that somehow they can use it to validate their world view that "Free will doesn't exist" or "There is no God." I don't care if you're of the stance that "Since those things can't be evaluated with science, I don't care about them," but using science to validate untestable, unobservable truths is wrong.

Afraid not, if science cannot prove or disprove anything that usually means it does not exist. That's where you should be worried, not relieved.

My Internet penis doesn’t grow if Science has no understanding of the pink unicorn, it shrinks.

[Nevermind]

Jasi is a she.

Granted I don't believe in an afterlife (what a ridiculous term indeed "after-death-life") but that's an odd emotionally-based stance you have there: How exactly would you not mind not existing after death? After biological death and the utter cessation of our existence, we wouldn't exist as sentient beings anymore, we stop being self-aware, therefore there is no objection. A rock can't feel sorry that it will never experience being alive, neither can a dead man ever feel terrified his life is over.

It's more about the idea of not wanting to cease existing. No one would care if they didn't exist but not a great deal of people want to STOP existing.

How the hell do you go about enforcing free will, in a Universe of cause and effect, where not a single one of us actually made a personal decision to come into existence? Neither you nor I ever choose who our parents would be; therefore your interpretation of freedom of choice is already invalid.

That's not really anything to do with free will. That is biological progression. Free will is in the realm of consciousness and self-awareness, not physical attributes.

Afraid not, if science cannot prove or disprove anything that usually means it does not exist. That's where you should be worried, not relieved.

So basically, 'existence' boils down to 'whatever we know (at the time)'? That sounds more like philosophy than science.

My Internet penis doesn’t grow if Science has no understanding of the pink unicorn, it shrinks.

That is just effing weird.