Morality is objective — 180 Proof
Taking "human flourishing" as one's main goal is so ripe for exploitation. — BitconnectCarlos
Would it mean that if I saw you with a cheeseburger I should slap it out of your hand to stop you from eating something unhealthy? — BitconnectCarlos
You lost me again. — 180 Proof
Morality is objective — 180 Proof
... "for nothing" surely. — 180 Proof
Same reason, I suspect, falling into holes distresses folks. — 180 Proof
Schopenhauer argues that philosophy and religion have the same fundamental aim: to
satisfy “man’s need for metaphysics,” which is a “strong and ineradicable” instinct to seek
explanations for existence that arises from “the knowledge of death, and therewith the
consideration of the suffering and misery of life” (WWR I 161). Every system of metaphysics is a response to this realization of one’s finitude, and the function of those systems is to respond to that realization by letting individuals know their place in the universe, the purpose of their existence, and how they ought to act. All other philosophical principles (most importantly, ethics) follow from one’s metaphysical system.
Morality is objective because all suffering persons depend on one another to keep the implicit (eusocial) promise both to not harm each other and to help reduce each other's suffering whenever possible (Spinoza). — 180 Proof
1. Human morality is partly objective because humans share biological traits that underlie their sense of moral necessity. It is not objective in the sense of being independent of humans, but is in the sense of being common to all humans (barring edge cases) and humanity being objectively distinguishable from non-humanity. — Kenosha Kid
Say if you're arguing with a sociopath who doesn't feel that necessity, being one of the edge cases, what argument is going to convince them that they should? A utilitarian one? — Marchesk
What argument is going to counter the antinatilist? — Marchesk
The concern here is that the objectivity of a biological underpinning for morality won't settle certain moral questions, because there's no moral evolutionary reason for human morality — Marchesk
"The apple is likely to drop to the ground when unrestricted as it has always dropped to the ground when unrestricted before". You are justified in predicting based upon a pattern you have observed.
This is objectively true, and I don't believe you need further reasoning for the belief.
Whereas
The only ultimate explanation for why "suffering is bad" is that we feel it is. — Down The Rabbit Hole
And the only ultimate explanation for why "observation is reality" is because it looks like it is. In both cases we're appealing to our experiences: experiences of things seeming true or false, or experiences of things seeming good or bad. The only differences is that you accept sense-experience as a valid reason to believe something or not, but you don't accept appetitive experience as a valid reason to intend something or not. What reason do you have to accept one over the other? If someone just refuses to accept that observation has any bearing on reality, what then? NB that I think there is a sound response to that kind of skepticism, but then that response also defeats moral skepticism in the same blow. — Pfhorrest
This reductio is absurd and moronic – the vast majority of us are not "wired" for suicide; almost all aspects of culture function as prophylactics against death and extinction (E. Becker). Besides, eliminating the problem does not solve the problem. Okay for individuals (I'm a conscientious antinatalist) but misses the forest for the trees as a policy. Yeah, no doubt, throughout history there have been groups who've sought to "save the village by destroying the village" but the species imperative, like that for all living things, is homeostatic: as much as possible, reduce suffering of the living without eliminating the living.But then the question here is why not antinatalism, ... — Marchesk
Same reason, I suppose, why we all don't "embrace" peace or nonviolence or altruism ...: not enough of us are "wired" for it.... or why don't we all embrace a suicide pact so as to end the suffering?
My views are already wacky enough, don't tempt me towards nihilism :lol: — Down The Rabbit Hole
I don't see what the objective morality is here, other than most humans wish to continue to live. But that's just a biological imperative. We wish to continue living because evolution wired us that way, because otherwise our ancestors wouldn't have survived. Which is the problem when we tie morality to biology. What makes any evolutionary strategy moral? — Marchesk
My moral system starts with two things: an empirical observation, and a thesis about the meaning of words. So yes, there is.Is there a moral system that doesn't start with a supposition - whether it be religious or secular? — Tom Storm
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.