|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 379 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
My position is that there is no such thing as an objective "good." Hey Stile, so does this mean that for something to be objectively good that it would have to be good for everybody? I can think of a few things that are good for everybody like health or prosperity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 379 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Don't you need people to have morality?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 379 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
This is what I meant by 'no such thing as an objective "good"'. There is no external measurement system for "good" that indicates good/bad is some sort of intrinsic property of a situation or idea. It's just a concept that we think about (and likely made up). I agree that there is no external point of reference but the environment itself is a reference point. By that I mean that good can be measured by an entities success within any given environment. I wouldn't say that we invented the concept of good. Our notions of good are driven completely by our nature and we certainly didn't invent our nature. A full stomach is good.
I'm pretty sure I could find a single person who would not be included in your "everybody" statement. Ah but the truly healthy and prosperous person would never find themselves in the position of wanting or needing to commit Seppuku.
If you need people then it cannot possibly be "objective" (in the rigorous sense of the word I'm going for here). The concept of morality requires the self aware actor. Without this we only have amoral behaviour. Can we say objectively that amoral behaviour is good or bad?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 379 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Even if you want to define moral behavior as beneficial to life in general it would still be a human perception. Yes it would but who could possibly disagree?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 379 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Good can be measured by an entities success within any given environment. It doesn't have to be measured that way. Success within the environment is the most objective standard that we can employ given that there are no external or more universal reference points. In fact there can never be any external reference points because if there were then they would be either supernatural or, more likely, they would be immediately recognized as part of the environment. The environment and laws of nature are like the board and the rules of the game. They are entirely objective and universally applicable. Success within this paradigm is objectively good and I would challenge anyone to produce a more objective standard.
I can agree with this. It's quite possible that our basic good/bad concept evolved within us before we were "humans." But, it doesn't really matter. I say that it does matter because the evolution of our nature preloaded us with our behaviour patterns that are all selected based on their tendency to help us survive and procreate. So these characteristics all come from an amoral environment where good characteristics are retained and bad ones are not. When we become self aware and enter the realm of morality we then recognize good characteristics as ones that need to be promoted. The good characteristics being recognizable by their tendency to help us survive and prosper.
A full stomach is only "good" if we agree upon a standard basis in the first place. Some people think that hunger strikes are good. These people would not agree that a full stomach is "good." Oh yes they would. The hunger strike uses the goodness of a full stomach to contrast the badness of an empty stomach. A hunger strike wouldn't mean anything if a full stomach wasn't universally and objectively good.
The problem here is your qualification of "truly healthy and prosperous..." These are subjective terms that have no objective basis either. Again... we're left with starting from a subjective basis that needs to be agreed upon initially. IF we agree that heath and prosperity are things we should morally aim for... THEN Seppuku or other rational methods of suicide can be seen as immoral. I, however, do not agree that "health and prosperity" are things we should morally aim for Health and prosperity are not really subjective terms. Health can be measured against sickness and prosperity against poverty. The scales may not be strictly linear and have subjective reference points but they are still scales. So a monk who has eschewed wealth may be considered as successful as a rich man who has sought wealth. Both of these disparate goals lead the subject to happiness and if they don't then they were the wrong choice.
3. Therefore, what is "good" and "bad" is different for each and every person you run into. (Evidenced by the confusion of morality that differs completely between cultures and time and even friends) What is good is different for each subject but the assessment of good/bad is the same for each subject. (edit) I, however, do not agree that "health and prosperity" are things we should morally aim for I meant to ask you why not. Edited by ProtoTypical, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 379 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Pol Pot, Jeffery Dahmer, Christopher Columbus, David Koch to name a few. I think there is a wide variety of thought on what is beneficial to life in general. Sure there is a wide variety of thought but the proof is in the pudding. We can see if life benefits from our actions or not. Short term gains are short and sustainable prosperity is greater.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 379 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
If you want to define moral behavior as beneficial to the species then we could consider natural selected behavior - memes - as moral behavior for each species and then compare what is similar and what is not. And I would be astounded to find much in common with all species. But this is still a human perception of the behavior being moral - most animals would not even think about it. The idea that has been coalescing for me is that certain behaviour for any given entity is more beneficial to that entity than some other behaviour. Whether or not the behaviour is beneficial to that entity is determined by the environment in a completely objective manner. It is this objectivity that we can use as a reference point. For example, the universe has shown us that cooperation is a successful tactic and therefore cooperation is both objectively and morally good.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 379 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
If instead we measure the behavior by how it benefits the group, then such selfish greed is seen as 'bad' for the (majority of the) group. Yes and so the group is part of the environment for the social individual and harming ones own environment is bad. Short term gains are short term and usually expensive like a high interest loan. What I am trying to get at is that those actions that are good for an individual are determined by the environment and that this process is objective as it not made by any conscious entity. Therefore, moral behaviour is classified in an objective manner by the environment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 379 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
"Most" objective? I think this is the problem. Are you sure you understand what "objective" means? You can't be kind-of objective. And something can't be more-objective than another thing. I was comparing the existent available standard of success within the environment with the hypothetical outside of nature standard which would be more objective were it actually available.
If "success within the environment" was an objective standard... you wouldn't have to convince me of it, you could just show me. Like how 10" is objectively longer than 8"... I don't have to convince you of it, I can show you a ruler. No I would reject that line of reason. My agreement does not affect the objectivity of your claim. I do not think that simplicity and apparentness are necessary qualities of objective and just because the topic is complicated shouldn't disqualify it from being assessed objectively.
How is "success within the environment" a more objective standard than, say, things that are closer to the colour green? Well because morality doesn't have much to do with what colour things are...right? In order to have morality you need a self aware being and every self aware being will possess a will to survive. It will be a part of their nature. No self aware being will evolve without the primal will to survive. It can't happen and therefore we can know that trying to survive long enough to propagate is an essential quality of existence for a self aware being. (Probably for any other thing that needs to propagate as well.) Therefore, if a self aware actor is achieving this we can recognize it as success within the environment. This is an objective goal set by the nature of our existence and judged objectively by the environment in which we exist. Strikes me as being a more objective goal than striving to be green. I am sure that even Kermit the Frog would agree.
If, however, we define "health and prosperity" to mean something along the lines of "whatever makes the individual happy.." then I do agree. But, I only agree because this then aligns with what I've been saying from the beginning... that good/bad can only be decided by the person being affected by the situation. That is, "being happy" is something that each individual can only decide for themselves, and it's going to be different for many people. Because that's the way people are. I would define the terms that way. This again goes back to our nature and why certain things make us feel good. It all boils down to 'do what makes you feel good.' The group upon which you depend to survive will help you with deciding what makes you feel good. I think that Joseph Campbell had it right when he said "Follow your bliss."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 379 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
There's also a wide variety of thought on what constitutes a "benefit". Many people seem to agree that life would "benefit" from a lower population - but few people agree on how to remove the surplus. That's OK. Don't confuse our ability to know what the best course of action is with the idea that there is a best course of action. Once you have a goal then you can have a best course of action. Nature has uniformly provided us with that goal and morality involves recognizing the goal and having the intent to move toward it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 379 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Why not link our goal of survival to competition instead? Or happiness? Why not link morality to our fears or curiosity instead of survival? I think that the will to survive is the most primal of all and is necessary for any other goal to exist. So while curiosity and competition may also be necessary or beneficial I think that without the will to survive you wont survive long enough to be curious about anything much. (A competitive nature is very close to having the will to survive.) So it is a hierarchical thing. Without survival there is nothing.
I see that "self-aware beings have morality" is objective. I see that "a goal of self-aware beings is to survive" is objective (or, at least... I'm not going to argue against it here). I do not see that the two are objectively linked in the way you're implying. I would say that if you have a goal that is identifiable as part of your very nature and if morality is 'right' behaviour then it follows that knowingly working towards that goal is moral. This bridges the gap from amoral to moral. Those things that we think are 'right' come directly from our amoral past when we knew nothing of morality. This is the lineage that gives objectivity to our concept or right and wrong. Of course this assumes that our natural behaviour is 'right' behaviour.
Can you show me why good is along-the-lines of surviving and why bad is along-the-lines of dying out? No I don't think that I can give an objective reason beyond the thought that without survival there is nothing and something seems more interesting than nothing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 379 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Why not? How can we know something "is" if there's no what of testing for it?
We can test for it and because we don't know we have to test for it but morality comes in with our intent. It matters more that we are trying to be right than that we actually are right.
And yet we're continually trying to thwart that goal. No we don't climb mountains for fun until we are thoroughly surviving and even then we are not trying to thwart the goal but rather leveraging it for excitement and excitement is practice for survival.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 379 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
If we're assuming that our natural behavior is "right" behavior, then I completely agree with you. My point, and issue, is why should we make this assumption? That is a good point/question. In fact morality seems to be that intellectually driven behaviour that is often aimed at suppressing our natural or instinctive behaviour. So I offer a retraction in that regard but I can't let go of the idea that survival is an objective goal that is inseparable from our existence. Behaviour that supports that goal is thus justified.
Why do you even want morality to be objective? (or do you? ) What makes objectivity better than subjectivity? If there is an objective base to our morality it becomes much easier to rationalize and defend. For the same reasons that it is better to have an objective litre or kilogram.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 379 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Morals evolved. Behaviour that "works" for our species - e.g. helping each other - is generally considered moral. Behaviour that endangers our species - e.g. killing each other - is generally considered immoral. This is what I was getting at earlier. Is this not an objective base for morality? What 'works' can be seen in hindsight.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 379 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
PT writes: ringo writes: Morals evolved. Behaviour that "works" for our species - e.g. helping each other - is generally considered moral. Behaviour that endangers our species - e.g. killing each other - is generally considered immoral. Is this not an objective base for morality? What 'works' can be seen in hindsight. ringo writes: I personally wouldn't call it objective if it can only be observed in hindsight. That's like saying Columbus was objectively searching for America. No it isn't like that at all. It is like looking for the cure for a disease and then checking to see if your recipe works after you have concocted it. The objective assessment comes from being able to see if the remedy actually works. In relation to morality, we behave a certain way and then we can see if that behaviour actually helps more people to survive and or thrive. Like gun laws or prohibition. We can make the law and then see in hindsight if it was a good idea. The objective objective of the most good for the most people remains.
In evolution, there is no "higher"; there is no "perfection". There is only fitness for the current conditions. A creature's ability to adapt to changing environments is an objective measure of greater fitness. Being able to survive in many environments is 'higher' up than being able to survive in only one environment. Being able to survive in any environment is evolutionary perfection.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024