Another post on morality

[Alueshen]

So morality is the yardstick (if you will) that we use to determine if an action is "good" or "bad". The misunderstanding is, IMO, that morality is itself standard of good or bad.

Kind of like the length of a ruler doesn't determine what a foot is, it is the measurement that determines what the length of the ruler will be. We chose the measurement and while one might argue that choosing the dashed lines that go on a ruler night be entirely arbitrary, I'd argue that the length of any form of measurement is indeed very specific based on what you are trying to accomplish, that is, no one would would measure the distance from the earth to the sun using a ruler any more than they would use light years to measure their height.

Morality does not make a statement about the good and bad until a set of values is established. The idea that there is such a thing as "objective morality" is a non-nonsensical notion as there are no such thing as values independent of subjects.

To say that life is valuable is to assume that there is a thing called life and there are those that value it, once you have established this subjective notion you can make objective statements about how life is best valued.

To say that god is the source of morality is really just saying that god is the source of all values, but he is still the subject of the subject object relationship....That is unless you're willing to argue that values are independent of god in which case he's just the messenger and seemingly unnecessary.

Thoughts?

[Artie]

Have to go for now. Spent too much time already... see you later.

[instantc]

You do realize that you are engaging in a text book example of the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof, don't you? If I cannot name a moral act that decreases survival, then it's safe to assume that none of them do?

A moral act is one that increases well being and survival. That is why you can't come up with any that don't.

Is repeating the claim supposed to convince us that you've got it right? I am actually genuinely interested how you came to the conclusion that a moral equals any act that increases survival. Would you mind explaining it to me?

[dianaiad]

Have to go for now. Spent too much time already... see you later.

Moderator Comment

Be careful with one line comments such as the above. They don't add to the conversation and can be confusing when you don't reference the post to which you are replying.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Jashwell]

It is my instinct that suicide is perfectly moral. This instinct was programmed into me by evolution, and therefore you are objectively wrong and if you don't understand I have nothing else to say.

If evolution and natural selection had programmed into organisms that suicide was right and survival wrong your ancestors would have committed suicide and you wouldn't have been here to say it!

"Perfectly moral" as in not immoral, morally permissible; neutral; etc.
I didn't say survival was immoral.

Either A)Suicide is objectively moral or B) your logic doesn't work. (inclusive or)
(Incidentally, if I wasn't here to say it, that wouldn't address it's morality)

So, someone who could have 5 children without reducing everyone's well being or survival chances, but decides to have no children as they don't want any, is acting immorally?

Having a child they don't want would reduce everybody's chances of well being and survival so they would be acting morally by not having one.

No, I quite specifically said "without reducing everyone's well being or survival chances".

They don't want any. That would automatically reduce survival chances. You can't have it both ways.

You can easily have someone who doesn't care, for instance.

You could plausibly have unlikely scenarios where unwanted children actually benefit or increase survival chances.

Etc.

Do you think if two fertile humans are left alive, man and woman, that they ought to reproduce or something?

Well, do they have an instinct to reproduce but shouldn't follow it for some reason?

They might not want to reproduce.
Why, would you advocate rape?

That would reduce the child's survival chances so having one wouldn't accomplish anything.

That's the reason it's wrong?
And I seriously doubt the logic there.
Why would being born from rape reduce the last child's survival chance?
Why would it matter, when otherwise there wouldn't be a child?

It seems blindingly obvious that people can self sacrifice for things other than the survival of the human species. For instance, the survival of people they care about specifically,

They are a part of the human race.

They don't do it for the human race.

or an ideology they care about.

And why do they care about it? Because it is beneficial for survival?

For many, many, many reasons.
Not everything is done for the sake of survival of the human species.

What if a reaction to something bad that has happened leads to suicidal thoughts?

Then we try to cure you.

I thought you said being sad wasn't an illness.

Sad isn't the same as having suicidal thoughts.

Suicidal thoughts come from a lot of sadness, and possibly from a reasonable decision as to whether the expected joy from life (and potential wait) are worth the current suffering.

What if the survival of yourself threatens your well-being, or vice-versa?

What?

You've identified well being and survival as two different things. Presumably well being involves choice and happiness and stuff. They can conflict. How do you evaluate?

Example?

What if raping someone slightly benefited the survival of the human species?
What if torturing someone slightly benefited the survival of the human species?
Etc.

At what point do decide that the individual's happiness, joy, etc matters?

Have you been reading my posts? Nobody doubts the existence of a survival instinct, I don't doubt the evolution of a survival instinct. I doubt it's an objective moral system.

LOL. Who said "the survival instinct" is "an objective moral system"? Our moral system has "the survival instinct" as the objective basis.

Your 'moral' system. It is not objective in any sense other than it exists. "LOL? Who said it's an "objective moral system" ... [ it's the objective basis of our moral system ]" At this point, you're just pulling at straws.

[Artie]

Is repeating the claim supposed to convince us that you've got it right? I am actually genuinely interested how you came to the conclusion that a moral equals any act that increases survival. Would you mind explaining it to me?

"Since the product of life is survival, normal (expected, natural, moral, ethical) behavior within the human species is that which provides the optimum opportunity for the species survival. Individual or group behavior which supplies less than optimum opportunity for species survival, is perverted (not natural, not normal, not expected, unethical, immoral)."
http://www.onelife.com/ethics/sex.html

If you don't agree with the reasoning just list ten moral acts that ultimately doesn't end in increased chances of survival.

[instantc]

Is repeating the claim supposed to convince us that you've got it right? I am actually genuinely interested how you came to the conclusion that a moral equals any act that increases survival. Would you mind explaining it to me?

"Since the product of life is survival, normal (expected, natural, moral, ethical) behavior within the human species is that which provides the optimum opportunity for the species survival. Individual or group behavior which supplies less than optimum opportunity for species survival, is perverted (not natural, not normal, not expected, unethical, immoral)."
http://www.onelife.com/ethics/sex.html

"Since the product of life is survival, moral behavior is that which advances survival"

This seems to be just redefining the term 'moral' to mean that which promotes survival.

If you don't agree with the reasoning just list ten moral acts that ultimately doesn't end in increased chances of survival.

I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I'm expecting you to prove yourself right.

The problem with proving you wrong here is that I could, for example, point out that taking care of those who are terminally ill does not directly contribute to the survival of the species, and you could then come up with an ad hoc explanation to point out some potential indirect survival benefits. However, until someone conducts a thorough research on the issue, all we are doing is speculating about what might or might not be the case.

Luckily for me, the onus is on you to justify your own very odd thesis and not on me to prove you wrong.

[Artie]

The problem with proving you wrong here is that I could, for example, point out that taking care of those who are terminally ill does not directly contribute to the survival of the species, and you could then come up with an ad hoc explanation to point out some potential indirect survival benefits. However, until someone conducts a thorough research on the issue, all we are doing is speculating about what might or might not be the case.

Luckily for me, the onus is on you to justify your own very odd thesis and not on me to prove you wrong.

I am flattered that you think that this is my "very odd thesis" but credit where credit is due. The first I'm aware of coming up with this "very odd thesis" is Charles Darwin. "morality is a crucial instinct for survival in social animals." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_morality

But I don't think we can get any further until you provide some examples of moral acts that don't directly or indirectly benefit survival so I consider this particular exchange ended.

[instantc]

But I don't think we can get any further until you provide some examples of moral acts that don't directly or indirectly benefit survival so I consider this particular exchange ended.

Do you or do you not understand what a burden of proof is?

Let me quiz you. If you claim that a moral act equals any act that promotes survival, do I have the burden of proof to show that it's not true, or do you have the burden of proof to show that it is true? Go ahead, take all the time you need and feel free to consult outside sources. Let me know when you come to a conclusion.

[Artie]

If you claim that a moral act equals any act that promotes survival

I don't claim that a moral act equals any act that promotes survival.

I claim that we call an act moral because it ultimately promotes survival.
I claim that we call an act moral because it ultimately promotes survival.
I claim that we call an act moral because it ultimately promotes survival.

"While we do not know what the destination of human evolution is, it appears to express itself as “the survival of the human species." This becomes an underlying principle of human action that shows itself in the smallest details of life. Individual survival, family survival, and national survival are all subcategories of the principle of human survival.

2 Within that context rule systems such as legal codes, moral codes, traditions, and customs all are directed towards human survival."
http://www.evolutionaryethics.com/science.htm

I am done trying so from now on I'm not responding to your posts.

[instantc]

If you claim that a moral act equals any act that promotes survival

I don't claim that a moral act equals any act that promotes survival.

That's funny, because I could swear that that's exactly what you claimed in your previous post. Let me bring up the quote. In post 73, after being asked about your position, you had this to say (brackets added):

[moral, ethical] behavior within the human species is that which provides the optimum opportunity for the species survival.

Now, do you agree that you have the burden of proof to substantiate this, or do you claim that I have the burden of proof to prove you wrong? Take all the time you need. Let me know when you have reached a conclusion.