Is there such a thing as objective morality?

[Rum]

To return to discussion - a rock is not a rock independent of our view to my way of thinking. Imagine for example a loose collection of material in zero gravity with only 30% the density of rock as we know it on earth. Is that a rock? When does it become one? When it has 50% the density? 90%? It is human definition and consciousness that brings form to the thing.

I have to agree with born-again-atheist on this point. The error there is in the human taxonomy and labeling of language, not in the 'rock' itself. For example, there's nothing particularly baffling about the duckbill platypus under the cladistic model of life (which categorizes species based on ancestry.) It's only because of the artificial notion of 'mammal' or 'bird' that people think that there is something odd about the animal. You are suggesting that words are not a reflection of reality, but instead it is the other way around. Well the moment prayer or any other form of wishful thinking proves to be able to manipulate the universe outside of human minds, I'll concede defeat, but that's never going to happen because that tree does make a noise regardless of whether I'm there to hear it or not, and you can't deny that without denying the very existence of physics.

Ignoring BAA (as he deserves given his post), I think you probably posted drunk here. (kidding!)

The tree causes an 'effect' when it falls. It only becomes sound when and if there is an ear to interpret the phenomena that the fall of the tree caused, i.e. the airwaves caused by the impact of the material on the ground etc. . Thus the presence of consciousness and perception is essential for the event not to simply be a multiple, really complex set of circumstances and micro-events which include time, energy, the history of the tree, the detail of every movement and change in the tree as it collapses and so on.

The presence of humans seems to be essential for such events and for all material phenomenon, to take on the crystallised nature that our common sense view of the world seems to demand.

I guess I am the ultimate relativist here. But think about it. Every time someone has taken what you might call a Newtonian mechanical view about natural phenomenon, someone else has shown how much of a shadow puppet reality we truly inhabit.

[Drewish]

In keeping with Rumertron's theory I shall henceforth stop reading his posts in this topic, as so long as I do not read them, they do not actually exist.

[Rum]

In keeping with Rumertron's theory I shall henceforth stop reading his posts in this topic, as so long as I do not read them, they do not actually exist.

Oh they exist of course, but as a fuzzy set of quantum events which only pop into 'reality' when trapped by human consciousness!

I kinda like that notion actually.

[Drewish]

I screwed up and read your post. Oh by the way, maybe you should check these out...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism

[BlackBart]

I'm reminded of this...

[Trolldor]

To return to discussion - a rock is not a rock independent of our view to my way of thinking. Imagine for example a loose collection of material in zero gravity with only 30% the density of rock as we know it on earth. Is that a rock? When does it become one? When it has 50% the density? 90%? It is human definition and consciousness that brings form to the thing.

I have to agree with born-again-atheist on this point. The error there is in the human taxonomy and labeling of language, not in the 'rock' itself. For example, there's nothing particularly baffling about the duckbill platypus under the cladistic model of life (which categorizes species based on ancestry.) It's only because of the artificial notion of 'mammal' or 'bird' that people think that there is something odd about the animal. You are suggesting that words are not a reflection of reality, but instead it is the other way around. Well the moment prayer or any other form of wishful thinking proves to be able to manipulate the universe outside of human minds, I'll concede defeat, but that's never going to happen because that tree does make a noise regardless of whether I'm there to hear it or not, and you can't deny that without denying the very existence of physics.

Ignoring BAA (as he deserves given his post), I think you probably posted drunk here. (kidding!)

The tree causes an 'effect' when it falls. It only becomes sound when and if there is an ear to interpret the phenomena that the fall of the tree caused, i.e. the airwaves caused by the impact of the material on the ground etc. . Thus the presence of consciousness and perception is essential for the event not to simply be a multiple, really complex set of circumstances and micro-events which include time, energy, the history of the tree, the detail of every movement and change in the tree as it collapses and so on.

The presence of humans seems to be essential for such events and for all material phenomenon, to take on the crystallised nature that our common sense view of the world seems to demand.

I guess I am the ultimate relativist here. But think about it. Every time someone has taken what you might call a Newtonian mechanical view about natural phenomenon, someone else has shown how much of a shadow puppet reality we truly inhabit.

Human consciousness has nothing to do with anything of what you've said. It's all physics, and to a lesser degree chemistry. Both of which pre-dated and are therefore independant of human consciousness. A tree will always make a sound, and that sound can always be heard or tasted. Our translation of the information does not change the information. That information is the fall, not our perception of it. Our perception of it is just one of an almost infinite number of possible perceptions of that one event which occurs the same way no matter from which angle it's seen, or tasted, or felt.

And secondly, it's nice to know that you can say something that nobody else is allowed to, and it's also convenient you choose to ignore the post which poses the very simple question of asking for any evidence you've got. Any at all. Any actual, real evidence.

[Rum]

BAA - you turn everything into a fight.

..and that stops it being fun. You win if it means that much to you.

[FBM]

I was hoping for a more intellectual and less empassioned thread, too. Oh, well. Maybe a different topic, one that doesn't touch the emotions so strongly.

[Feck]

I was hoping for a more intellectual and less empassioned thread, too. Oh, well. Maybe a different topic, one that doesn't touch the emotions so strongly.

Yeah Ratz not only can we argue about that bloody tree in the forest ,but we can make it personal too.

[leo-rcc]

Maybe I missed something here, but from where I am standing what BAA is writing hardly constitutes as personal. He challenges the concept that morals are objective and asks evidence backing up claims that they are.

[Drewish]

BAA,
Was that last post direct at me or Rumertron or someone else? To be clear, Rumertron is saying that there's no such thing as Objective Reality let alone Objective Morality (He's clearly wrong and has fallen to emotional appeals and feigning victimization at this point.)

You seem to transition out of the blue and claim that Rumertron has not yet produced evidence of Objective Morality, when he was never arguing that there was such a thing. I have posted in response to this claim on the last page, directly responding to such a call, so I know you're not talking to me, so who was that directed towards?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

BAA,
Was that last post direct at me or Rumertron or someone else? To be clear, Rumertron is saying that there's no such thing as Objective Reality let alone Objective Morality (He's clearly wrong and has fallen to emotional appeals and feigning victimization at this point.)

You seem to transition out of the blue and claim that Rumertron has not yet produced evidence of Objective Morality, when he was never arguing that there was such a thing. I have posted in response to this claim on the last page, directly responding to such a call, so I know you're not talking to me, so who was that directed towards?

Re: my emphasis. As for out-of-the-blue transitions, mind explaining exactly where that follows from anything Rum has said?

A little bit of elaboration on why you feel so strongly that there is some kind of objective morality, and exactly what that entails - what is objectively good and what is objectively bad, just a few examples of each - would be nice here.

This is not an attack - I really do want to see the logic that leads you to this conclusion.

[Drewish]

Read over Rumertron's posts. He is clearly stating that he believes that reality itself is subjective. BAA and I disagree with him on this and have gone to lengths to show why he is wrong. However BAA and I disagree on the existence of objective morality. I am simply attempting to clear up what is being said here, because it appears as though people are confused as to whether or not posts that have been made were talking about objective reality or objective morality. The only reason I took time to refute Rumertron's notion of there being no objective reality (which I have been doing for the past page and a half or so) is because if there is no objective reality, then none of us can say anything about anything with any kind of confidence. I see that as a cop-out and people who claim to believe that there is no such thing as truth still manage to have opinions on things, which makes them innately hypocritical. It's blunt, I know. But it needed to be said. If you don't have an opinion, then what's there to say? And if you do have an opinion then it's based on something, so defend it. Saying essentially, " I disagree, because of how I feel, but if you really feel strongly then fine, you win because I'm so humble..." is nothing more than false modesty and a fairly blatant attempt at painting the 'other' as aggressive and unreasonable.

Now as to some examples of things that are innately right or wrong, I've just asserted above that hypocrisy is wrong. If there is such a thing as objective morality, then I assert that integrity must be its most basic arche. No system that is not internally consistent could be said to have any credibility as a moral philosophy. (I am attempting to establish objective morality point by point here, so I must first know if there is any contention as to whether this criteria must be met by any supposedly objective morality.)

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Read over Rumertron's posts. He is clearly stating that he believes that reality itself is subjective. BAA and I disagree with him on this and have gone to lengths to show why he is wrong. However BAA and I disagree on the existence of objective morality. I am simply attempting to clear up what is being said here, because it appears as though people are confused as to whether or not posts that have been made were talking about objective reality or objective morality. The only reason I took time to refute Rumertron's notion of there being no objective reality (which I have been doing for the past page and a half or so) is because if there is no objective reality, then none of us can say anything about anything with any kind of confidence. I see that as a cop-out and people who claim to believe that there is no such thing as truth still manage to have opinions on things, which makes them innately hypocritical. It's blunt, I know. But it needed to be said. If you don't have an opinion, then what's there to say? And if you do have an opinion then it's based on something, so defend it. Saying essentially, " I disagree, because of how I feel, but if you really feel strongly then fine, you win because I'm so humble..." is nothing more than false modesty and a fairly blatant attempt at painting the 'other' as aggressive and unreasonable.

Now as to some examples of things that are innately right or wrong, I've just asserted above that hypocrisy is wrong. If there is such a thing as objective morality, then I assert that integrity must be its most basic arche. No system that is not internally consistent could be said to have any credibility as a moral philosophy. (I am attempting to establish objective morality point by point here, so I must first know if there is any contention as to whether this criteria must be met by any supposedly objective morality.)

It was the way you said, "He's clearly wrong," that got to me. Such claims are meaningless without evidence to back them in a debate.

The discussion is about objective morality, not reality, I quite agree. However, you appeared to dismiss both of these in that statement, as both were explicitly mentioned in the lead up to it. Apologies if that was not what you intended but I am sure you can forgive me for thinking that.

You have asserted that hypocrisy is wrong. Please describe why. And remember that we are talking objectively wrong here - not subjectively. What are the objective grounds for hypocrisy being universally wrong.

You said, "No system that is not internally consistent could be said to have any credibility as a moral philosophy. " Why not? Why should moral codes have to be internally consistent? Going back to hypocrisy, why is it wrong to allow oneself more leeway than one allows others in moral matters?

I am afraid that I see merely opinion here. I would like to see more of a rationale behind that opinion.

[Drewish]

"He's clearly wrong," that got to me. Such claims are meaningless without evidence to back them in a debate.

Of course, though I wasn't, as this had been something discussed over the past page of this thread. But if you missed seeing that then I can see how you might think I was being dismissive.

You have asserted that hypocrisy is wrong. Please describe why. And remember that we are talking objectively wrong here - not subjectively. What are the objective grounds for hypocrisy being universally wrong.

I assume that we are agreed that logical arguments and evidence gathered through scientific inquiry are our most dependable means of understanding the world. If we are attempting to see if there is such a think as objective morality (and then if there is, what its nature is) then we must also use these same methods. In logic and science when we arrive at mutually exclusive truths, we know that an error has been made. We must thus assume the same for morality, if indeed objective morality exists. Therefore, if there is objective morality, it must be internally consistent and not self-contradictory.

Going back to hypocrisy, why is it wrong to allow oneself more leeway than one allows others in moral matters?

This is getting a little ahead of ourselves, I'll answer this, but I don't want to take this out of order. If we're going to do this using logic argument, then I want to go through step by step, to make sure that there are no disconnects.