...........VERY SEXY MAN ..................

talks about atheists call to arms

Where's @gwiz665 to comment on her tits?

This does nothing to prove objective morality exists. It shows people can think about the consequences of their actions in the long term and decide, based on the expected outcomes, what the best mode of behaviour would be in terms of what kind of life they want to lead.

I have moral objections to objective morality.

Also, ZOMGitstits!

>> ^rebuilder:

This does nothing to prove objective morality exists. It shows people can think about the consequences of their actions in the long term and decide, based on the expected outcomes, what the best mode of behaviour would be in terms of what kind of life they want to lead.


It's not a question of proving objective morality, it's a question of how we want to define it or if such a definition is possible. You can respond by saying:

1) There is objective morality, that we derive from some religious text such as the bible
2) There is no objective morality and everyone's idea is just as legitimate as anyone else's. This is the position that Sam Harris is always attacking. His response would be to provide examples that are clearly objectively immoral, such as throwing battery acid in the faces of little girls for the crime of learning to read in the middle east.
3) The other option is that there is objective morality, and we choose to define it in the most logical way possible. That is, in terms of minimizing the suffering of living things.

3 is the closest we get to objective morality, but it's not really objective, it's just our best guess.

>> ^eventualentropy:

>> ^rebuilder:
This does nothing to prove objective morality exists. It shows people can think about the consequences of their actions in the long term and decide, based on the expected outcomes, what the best mode of behaviour would be in terms of what kind of life they want to lead.

It's not a question of proving objective morality, it's a question of how we want to define it or if such a definition is possible. You can respond by saying:
1) There is objective morality, that we derive from some religious text such as the bible
2) There is no objective morality and everyone's idea is just as legitimate as anyone else's. This is the position that Sam Harris is always attacking. His response would be to provide examples that are clearly objectively immoral, such as throwing battery acid in the faces of little girls for the crime of learning to read in the middle east.
3) The other option is that there is objective morality, and we choose to define it in the most logical way possible. That is, in terms of minimizing the suffering of living things.

Morality is simply survival mechinisms. If everyone was selfish, we would have nothing for everyone. Just something for one who will have very little and still live in a cave or the dark ages.

I'm not going to get into #1 and #3. I don't agree, let's leave it at that for now. As for Harris' objection to #2, it makes no sense to me. Why is it "clearly" objectively immoral to throw battery acid on little girls? What is the basis for making that judgment? As I recall from his speech on the subject, it was simply an appeal to a person's feelings on the matter. The standard used for judging morality is in that case a subjective one, and it only takes one person to feel that it is indeed morally justifiable to harm children in such a way to disprove the notion that such an act is objectively immoral.

Edit: Actually, let's get into #1 a little as well. Religious morality is often portrayed as a form of truly objective morality, since, at least in the religions of the Book, it is derived from a supreme, infallible authority. But can objective morality change over time? It seems to me that many of the actions considered justified, even mandatory, as ordained by God many centuries ago are now considered reprehensible. What does this mean for the objectivity of morality as derived from religion?

>> ^eventualentropy:


It's not a question of proving objective morality, it's a question of how we want to define it or if such a definition is possible. You can respond by saying:
1) There is objective morality, that we derive from some religious text such as the bible
2) There is no objective morality and everyone's idea is just as legitimate as anyone else's. This is the position that Sam Harris is always attacking. His response would be to provide examples that are clearly objectively immoral, such as throwing battery acid in the faces of little girls for the crime of learning to read in the middle east.
3) The other option is that there is objective morality, and we choose to define it in the most logical way possible. That is, in terms of minimizing the suffering of living things.

@rebuilder

The main issue is that people have a tendency to give way too much credit to any other given person's views on what's moral and good and what isn't (as you just demonstrated). As harris states in his talk, this does not apply to other realms of knowledge (eg. we have less respect for the 'opinion' of a member of the flat earth society than we do for a physicist).

We could argue semantics about the term objective morality but all we're really trying to do is come up with a working definition so that we can talk about these subjects in a more meaningful way. All Harris is saying is that this definition must relate to the well-being/suffering of conscious creatures. If we can accept that then we can start seeking actual, scientific answers to these questions instead of just having a mish-mash of everyone's random biases.

>> ^rebuilder:

<snip>
Edit: Actually, let's get into #1 a little as well. Religious morality is often portrayed as a form of truly objective morality, since, at least in the religions of the Book, it is derived from a supreme, infallible authority. But can objective morality change over time? It seems to me that many of the actions considered justified, even mandatory, as ordained by God many centuries ago are now considered reprehensible. What does this mean for the objectivity of morality as derived from religion? .


Didn't see this the first time. I think one of the most attractive qualities about religion is the idea that objective morality exists as whatever way God chooses to judge us (not so much the way we interpret the bible). There is actually something really comforting in the knowledge that somewhere out there some omniscient being is watching us and taking note when we are good/evil. It really taps into our evolutionarily ingrained ideas of fairness.

Personally, I'm wary of any attempt to define a universal morality. As I see it, morality is something a person must subjugate their own ethics to. Any universal moral code would be very scary to me, since it would require people to stop thinking for themselves. This kind of thinking has backfired too many times - just a cursory glance at what happened in the last century alone should be proof enough of that.

>> ^eventualentropy:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/rebuilder" title="member since May 7th, 2009" class="profilelink">rebuilder
The main issue is that people have a tendency to give way too much credit to any other given person's views on what's moral and good and what isn't (as you just demonstrated). As harris states in his talk, this does not apply to other realms of knowledge (eg. we have less respect for the 'opinion' of a member of the flat earth society than we do for a physicist).
We could argue semantics about the term objective morality but all we're really trying to do is come up with a working definition so that we can talk about these subjects in a more meaningful way. All Harris is saying is that this definition must relate to the well-being/suffering of conscious creatures. If we can accept that then we can start seeking actual, scientific answers to these questions instead of just having a mish-mash of everyone's random biases.