1 2 3 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Morality Isn’t Real

 
Chaz
 
Avatar
 
 
Chaz
Total Posts:  129
Joined  24-02-2018
 
 
 
27 February 2018 16:05
 

Sorry, but what people call morality is nothing more than compassion extended to people from other families or societies. Morality is defined as principles about the difference between right and wrong or good and evil. None of those actually exist as a state of being, they are only states of perception. If something is evil then the good thing to do is get rid of it, but doing so is considered evil itself, so it’s self negating. Almost everything is equally as right as it is wrong. That’s a game I can play all day. Anybody care to pick a subject?

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17722
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
27 February 2018 18:40
 

Morality is the consensus of personal preferences of a group regarding right and wrong.

 
 
Chaz
 
Avatar
 
 
Chaz
Total Posts:  129
Joined  24-02-2018
 
 
 
27 February 2018 22:01
 
GAD - 27 February 2018 06:40 PM

Morality is the consensus of personal preferences of a group regarding right and wrong.

Wrong.mo·ral·i·ty
noun
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

But if your definition was true it would prove my point better

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17722
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
28 February 2018 00:18
 
Chaz - 27 February 2018 10:01 PM
GAD - 27 February 2018 06:40 PM

Morality is the consensus of personal preferences of a group regarding right and wrong.

Wrong.mo·ral·i·ty
noun
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

But if your definition was true it would prove my point better

It is true, because there is no objective/cosmic right or wrong, only inescapable moral relativism, because we decide what is right and wrong.

 
 
Brick Bungalow
 
Avatar
 
 
Brick Bungalow
Total Posts:  5181
Joined  28-05-2009
 
 
 
28 February 2018 01:32
 

This post hurts my face…..... every proposition is value laden. There is no strata of validity without an ascription of value. Facts and values are structurally distinct but nested together.

Morality is a basket concept that applies to social systems. It’s every bit as real as money or sports or birthday parties.

Perhaps you mean to say that you don’t subscribe to moral realism…. which is far more reasonable position but would still need some kind of unique justification to pass the test of interest and relevance.

 
Chaz
 
Avatar
 
 
Chaz
Total Posts:  129
Joined  24-02-2018
 
 
 
28 February 2018 01:40
 

I only agree with there’s no objective or cosmic right or wrong, but everything else I don’t agree

 
Chaz
 
Avatar
 
 
Chaz
Total Posts:  129
Joined  24-02-2018
 
 
 
28 February 2018 01:55
 
Brick Bungalow - 28 February 2018 01:32 AM

This post hurts my face…..... every proposition is value laden. There is no strata of validity without an ascription of value. Facts and values are structurally distinct but nested together.

Morality is a basket concept that applies to social systems. It’s every bit as real as money or sports or birthday parties.

Perhaps you mean to say that you don’t subscribe to moral realism…. which is far more reasonable position but would still need some kind of unique justification to pass the test of interest and relevance.

Values aren’t real either. That includes money value. Morality doesn’t apply to social systems, unless raised by an individual. Anything describing a type or view of morals isn’t real either.

Morally wrong is a false state of being described by those who disapprove.

Here’s your unique justification: when we start to see something as right, we immediately see other things as wrong, when neither state is part of reality. Everything just is what it is. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and the same applies to right and wrong

 
Brick Bungalow
 
Avatar
 
 
Brick Bungalow
Total Posts:  5181
Joined  28-05-2009
 
 
 
28 February 2018 02:03
 
Chaz - 28 February 2018 01:55 AM
Brick Bungalow - 28 February 2018 01:32 AM

This post hurts my face…..... every proposition is value laden. There is no strata of validity without an ascription of value. Facts and values are structurally distinct but nested together.

Morality is a basket concept that applies to social systems. It’s every bit as real as money or sports or birthday parties.

Perhaps you mean to say that you don’t subscribe to moral realism…. which is far more reasonable position but would still need some kind of unique justification to pass the test of interest and relevance.

Values aren’t real either. That includes money value. Morality doesn’t apply to social systems, unless raised by an individual. Anything describing a type or view of morals isn’t real either.

Morally wrong is a false state of being described by those who disapprove.

Here’s your unique justification: when we start to see something as right, we immediately see other things as wrong, when neither state is part of reality. Everything just is what it is. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and the same applies to right and wrong

Tag out . Anyone?

 
SkepticX
 
Avatar
 
 
SkepticX
Total Posts:  14817
Joined  24-12-2004
 
 
 
28 February 2018 05:04
 
Chaz - 28 February 2018 01:40 AM

I only agree with there’s no objective or cosmic right or wrong, but everything else I don’t agree


That’s a bit different than saying it’s not real though ... eh?

It’s the same as trying to argue that fictional characters aren’t real because they’re fabrications of the mind. That’s fine, as long as you explain that by real you mean things that exist independently of the mind, but that doesn’t address their depictions in various media. Max Headroom is “real” in that he’s a real fabrication (he was an ‘80s thing), and in his case there’s even a very real actor attached to him, along with the graphics team and all the technologies that made him a real video dude.

So as long as you accept (and ideally explain) the limitations on how you’re using “real”, you’re good to go with your OP.

You should also expect push back though. There are smart people who disagree with your OP, wrong as they are (a lot fewer who’ll disagree with the above quote though). They do often have good points to make, just not points sufficient to make the contrary case ... IMO. But these people aren’t stupid or terrible or nasty or The Enemy either (well, not most of them anyway—none of those things should be uncritically assumed, and any/all of them can easily bite you in the arse if you do so—underestimating a smart person can/should be embarrassing). That’s part of what’s so awesome about humans, and hanging out with them.

 
 
EntropyPhoenix
 
Avatar
 
 
EntropyPhoenix
Total Posts:  2
Joined  27-02-2018
 
 
 
28 February 2018 07:06
 

There is a correlation between neurological dynamics and subjective state. Change the configuration of the brain (e.g. conceptualize something differently) and the resulting set of possible subjective states change.

Morality can be defined as managing neurological dynamics since these are what result in subjective experience, which is all that can matter for conscious creatures.

The traditional systems of morality were too simple - based on small sets of over-generalized rules and forced dichotomies such as good and evil.

Thinking in terms of managing neurological dynamics, morality becomes an objectively clear pursuit. The brain and civilization are still too complex to fine-tune existence, but the fact is that the nature of subjective experience is perfectly objective given its nature in physical correlation. As such, the goal is to refine understanding of the relationships instead of pretending our experience works some other way.

The are clearly more or less desireable subjective states even though the brain itself fails in its self-evaluations of what’s better in an absolute sense. For example, what’s better: enjoying childhood nostalgia or looking at the stars?

Some people might have a preference, but many will find they are comparing apples to oranges. Both states are obviously preferable to suffering, however, which is reflected in how the brain is designed.

Even though the brain itself fails to manifest a perfect, utilitarian objective function in terms of desired subjective states, what it experiences is nonetheless objective in origin and there are clearly more desirable states of being that can be understood in scientifically-refined ways. We also have to consider the whole system of conscious creatures when thinking of evaluations - or at least that consideration exists in empathetic people, which is a desireable subjective state for those who have experienced it. The well-being of conscience creatures is also important when it comes to managing existential risk.

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17722
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
28 February 2018 07:42
 
Chaz - 28 February 2018 01:40 AM

I only agree with there’s no objective or cosmic right or wrong, but everything else I don’t agree

You disagree that people define what is right and wrong?

 
 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  3350
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
28 February 2018 07:56
 

The difference in opinions regarding morality are rarely about the offensiveness of particular human behaviours, although they do (understandably) enter most of these conversations, they more often contain the component of the equation that exposes the point of contention.

There is a common argument put forth that first accepts the Laws of Nature.  Then, it further asserts that humans live within those Laws of Nature.  Humans invented morality.  Therefore, morality is ipso facto a byproduct of the Laws of Nature.

Those of us who consider morality a man made construct see a giant crater of a hole in that argument.  A conflation of the Rule of Law and the Laws of Nature.  And I’ve yet to hear an explanation that bridges that gap.

 
 
Chaz
 
Avatar
 
 
Chaz
Total Posts:  129
Joined  24-02-2018
 
 
 
28 February 2018 09:32
 
SkepticX - 28 February 2018 05:04 AM
Chaz - 28 February 2018 01:40 AM

I only agree with there’s no objective or cosmic right or wrong, but everything else I don’t agree


That’s a bit different than saying it’s not real though ... eh?

It’s the same as trying to argue that fictional characters aren’t real because they’re fabrications of the mind. That’s fine, as long as you explain that by real you mean things that exist independently of the mind, but that doesn’t address their depictions in various media. Max Headroom is “real” in that he’s a real fabrication (he was an ‘80s thing), and in his case there’s even a very real actor attached to him, along with the graphics team and all the technologies that made him a real video dude.

So as long as you accept (and ideally explain) the limitations on how you’re using “real”, you’re good to go with your OP.

You should also expect push back though. There are smart people who disagree with your OP, wrong as they are (a lot fewer who’ll disagree with the above quote though). They do often have good points to make, just not points sufficient to make the contrary case ... IMO. But these people aren’t stupid or terrible or nasty or The Enemy either (well, not most of them anyway—none of those things should be uncritically assumed, and any/all of them can easily bite you in the arse if you do so—underestimating a smart person can/should be embarrassing). That’s part of what’s so awesome about humans, and hanging out with them.

Good point. Perceived definitions are the cause of misunderstandings.

I can’t say in this situation that I’m speaking about what exists independently of the mind, but that’s a good way to think about it. I suppose the way I’m using real in this would be fact vs opinion. Not necessarily independent opinions, practically speaking we’re told what morals we should have. The main reason I say morals aren’t real, is because it’s about right and wrong. Morality can’t be real because right and wrong aren’t legitimate states of being.

I started coming to this forum in search of intelligent people to bounce my ideas off of. They don’t have to agree with me, in fact I prefer it. I’m counting on the idea that someone will present an argument I haven’t heard or I can’t beat

 
Chaz
 
Avatar
 
 
Chaz
Total Posts:  129
Joined  24-02-2018
 
 
 
28 February 2018 10:04
 
EntropyPhoenix - 28 February 2018 07:06 AM

There is a correlation between neurological dynamics and subjective state. Change the configuration of the brain (e.g. conceptualize something differently) and the resulting set of possible subjective states change.

Morality can be defined as managing neurological dynamics since these are what result in subjective experience, which is all that can matter for conscious creatures.

The traditional systems of morality were too simple - based on small sets of over-generalized rules and forced dichotomies such as good and evil.

Thinking in terms of managing neurological dynamics, morality becomes an objectively clear pursuit. The brain and civilization are still too complex to fine-tune existence, but the fact is that the nature of subjective experience is perfectly objective given its nature in physical correlation. As such, the goal is to refine understanding of the relationships instead of pretending our experience works some other way.

The are clearly more or less desireable subjective states even though the brain itself fails in its self-evaluations of what’s better in an absolute sense. For example, what’s better: enjoying childhood nostalgia or looking at the stars?

Some people might have a preference, but many will find they are comparing apples to oranges. Both states are obviously preferable to suffering, however, which is reflected in how the brain is designed.

Even though the brain itself fails to manifest a perfect, utilitarian objective function in terms of desired subjective states, what it experiences is nonetheless objective in origin and there are clearly more desirable states of being that can be understood in scientifically-refined ways. We also have to consider the whole system of conscious creatures when thinking of evaluations - or at least that consideration exists in empathetic people, which is a desireable subjective state for those who have experienced it. The well-being of conscience creatures is also important when it comes to managing existential risk.

No. I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.. morality doesn’t manage neurological dynamics, which I’d like to hear your definition of. What makes you think you can change configurations of your brain? I really don’t believe you know what you’re talking about

 
Chaz
 
Avatar
 
 
Chaz
Total Posts:  129
Joined  24-02-2018
 
 
 
28 February 2018 10:10
 
GAD - 28 February 2018 07:42 AM
Chaz - 28 February 2018 01:40 AM

I only agree with there’s no objective or cosmic right or wrong, but everything else I don’t agree

You disagree that people define what is right and wrong?


correct. It’s like and dislike even if they say it’s right and wrong

 
Chaz
 
Avatar
 
 
Chaz
Total Posts:  129
Joined  24-02-2018
 
 
 
28 February 2018 10:26
 
LadyJane - 28 February 2018 07:56 AM

The difference in opinions regarding morality are rarely about the offensiveness of particular human behaviours, although they do (understandably) enter most of these conversations, they more often contain the component of the equation that exposes the point of contention.

There is a common argument put forth that first accepts the Laws of Nature.  Then, it further asserts that humans live within those Laws of Nature.  Humans invented morality.  Therefore, morality is ipso facto a byproduct of the Laws of Nature.

Those of us who consider morality a man made construct see a giant crater of a hole in that argument.  A conflation of the Rule of Law and the Laws of Nature.  And I’ve yet to hear an explanation that bridges that gap.


You don’t know what you’re talking about either? Particular human behavior is the only thing that morality is about, and the leap you made about morality being a byproduct of the laws of nature is why you won’t hear an explanation about that gap, because It’s irrational.

 
 1 2 3 >  Last ›