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?

[instantc]

What about the instincts to cheat on our wives

There's no such instinct. That would be the instinct to reproduce kicking in. If we didn't have that we wouldn't be here. If the behavior cheating on our wives had become so widespread that it would have become detrimental to our survival it would have been selected out.

The instinct to reproduce with other women than one's wife is clearly immoral when one is happily married. I am not interested in what's beneficial for survival. I am interested in what's morally right thing to do. If you start from the premise that the two are identical, then I don't know what you are talking about.

[Artie]

Begging the question by assuming that surviving is good.

When you instinctively run out of the way of an oncoming car it's not because you assume surviving is good but because you have a survival instinct. No assuming involved just instinct.

(Iff surviving were good, then evolution would be a good means of ascertaining moral truth. In any other case, a non-sequitur) Why ought we survive?

Have you tried to ask a person who's just instinctively run out of the way of an oncoming car whether he thought he ought to survive? Obviously, according to his survival instinct. No "assuming" and no conscious debate whether he "ought" to survive or not took place.

In fact, since evolution doesn't address an individual's survival but the continued permeation of a species (if not a gene as some evolutionary biologists believe), why is an individual's survival important?

A species is a collection of individuals. No individuals, no species.

More to the point, couldn't you say that the evolution of depression and suicidal thought (both ideologically and very literally) make suicide objectively right for some?

Depression and suicidal thought didn't "evolve". A human evolved to be born with useful arms and legs. If a child is born with defective arms and legs he didn't evolve to be born that way. That is why we say he was born with a disability. Same with depression and suicidal thought. We didn't evolve to be depressed and have suicidal thoughts so we say people who have them are objectively ill and try to cure them.

You, not we. I don't think there are many who'd agree with you, at least in the UK.

Are you saying that if people in the UK came across somebody about to commit suicide by throwing themselves off a bridge they wouldn't try to stop them? Then I'll stay away from the UK.

As may those who are suffering terribly because of life, despite their good physical health.

Then psychiatric help would be required.

They know suicide is objectively wrong for the average person

I don't know anyone except you that thinks this. I don't understand how you could think anyone considering assisted suicide would think this.

I don't understand how anybody who saw a person about to kill themselves by jumping off a bridge could just stand passively by and watch them do it instead of trying to stop them.

[Artie]

The instinct to reproduce with other women than one's wife is clearly immoral when one is happily married.

The instinct to reproduce isn't immoral in itself but trying to reproduce with other women than one's wife against one's wife's wishes would be immoral because it would cause strife and dissent and reduce everybody's chances of well being and survival. That is why we say it's immoral.

[Jashwell]

Begging the question by assuming that surviving is good.

When you instinctively run out of the way of an oncoming car it's not because you assume surviving is good but because you have a survival instinct. No assuming involved just instinct.

That neither makes it objectively good nor does it make it instinctive.

(Iff surviving were good, then evolution would be a good means of ascertaining moral truth. In any other case, a non-sequitur) Why ought we survive?

Have you tried to ask a person who's just instinctively run out of the way of an oncoming car whether he thought he ought to survive? Obviously, according to his survival instinct. No "assuming" and no conscious debate whether he "ought" to survive or not took place.

Are you actually suggesting that instinct = objectively right?
Tell me all about the survival instincts of the suicidal.

In fact, since evolution doesn't address an individual's survival but the continued permeation of a species (if not a gene as some evolutionary biologists believe), why is an individual's survival important?

A species is a collection of individuals. No individuals, no species.

That doesn't address the question. One penny isn't important to me but £400 (or 40 thousand pennies) might well be.

If the survival of the species is important, is giving birth to more children objectively more moral?

More to the point, couldn't you say that the evolution of depression and suicidal thought (both ideologically and very literally) make suicide objectively right for some?

Depression and suicidal thought didn't "evolve". A human evolved to be born with useful arms and legs. If a child is born with defective arms and legs he didn't evolve to be born that way. That is why we say he was born with a disability. Same with depression and suicidal thought. We didn't evolve to be depressed and have suicidal thoughts so we say people who have them are objectively ill and try to cure them.

Depression emerged from evolution, suicidal thought from depression, and ideas themselves can be said to evolve.

How do you distinguish between a healthy mind and a defective mind? How do you know that depression is a defect? How do you know that suicide is a defect?

Suicide from depression isn't just a human thing, either.

If I agreed that instincts were objectively moral, I'd have no choice but to think your views on suicide are objectively immoral.

You, not we. I don't think there are many who'd agree with you, at least in the UK.

Are you saying that if people in the UK came across somebody about to commit suicide by throwing themselves off a bridge they wouldn't try to stop them? Then I'll stay away from the UK.

Oh yeah, that part where I categorically said "All suicide is to be unimpeded, no help is to be given", as opposed to me stating that few of us consider attempting suicide to be a symptom of illness.

As may those who are suffering terribly because of life, despite their good physical health.

Then psychiatric help would be required.

Unless you'd have society implement regularly induced amnesia, depression isn't something that can always be cured.

They know suicide is objectively wrong for the average person

I don't know anyone except you that thinks this. I don't understand how you could think anyone considering assisted suicide would think this.

I don't understand how anybody who saw a person about to kill themselves by jumping off a bridge could just stand passively by and watch them do it instead of trying to stop them.

None of us ever said you shouldn't try and make people happy, just that you should respect those that don't think they will be or don't feel like suffering in the vague (likely unjustified) hopes of getting happier.

The moral thing to do in such a scenario is unlikely to be tasering him before he reaches the edge and restraining him so long as he is suicidal or 'useful'.

[instantc]

That is why we say it's immoral.

Who is 'we'? I'm just hearing you.

[Artie]

That neither makes it objectively good nor does it make it instinctive.

I can't see how this sentence makes sense as a reply to the previous ones so I'll pass commenting on it.

Are you actually suggesting that instinct = objectively right?

We call behavior that increases chances of well being and survival morally objectively right and we call behavior that decreases chances of well being and survival immoral and objectively wrong. Behaviors that increased chances of well being and survival were naturally selected for and many have them hard wired into their brains so they perform these behaviors instinctively.

Tell me all about the survival instincts of the suicidal.

Illness or injury or consistent bullying etc sometimes overrides the survival instinct and even though they instinctively want to live they are so ill they don't see how they can. Since we consider suicide objectively wrong we try to fix whatever it is that is the reason they want to kill themselves.

One penny isn't important to me but £400 (or 40 thousand pennies) might well be.

For the survival of the species every individual is of course important. The more individuals the better chances are that the species won't go extinct. Every individual lost reduces the number of individuals.

If the survival of the species is important, is giving birth to more children objectively more moral?

Depends on the circumstances.

Depression emerged from evolution, suicidal thought from depression, and ideas themselves can be said to evolve.

LOL! Evolution and natural selection doesn't select for depression and suicidal thought you see. Those who have these are less likely to survive than those who don't have them. That is why we say something is objectively wrong with them and try to cure them.

How do you distinguish between a healthy mind and a defective mind? How do you know that depression is a defect? How do you know that suicide is a defect?

Sorry but such questions are so irrational that it's ridiculous. Why do you think we have psychiatrists and psychologists and mental hospitals? We evolved a survival instinct. Obviously behaviors and mental states that goes contrary to survival is wrong. So we try to cure them.

Oh yeah, that part where I categorically said "All suicide is to be unimpeded, no help is to be given", as opposed to me stating that few of us consider attempting suicide to be a symptom of illness.

Are there anybody else here who think that people who attempt suicide are mentally healthy and won't try to stop them?

[Artie]

That is why we say it's immoral.

Who is 'we'? I'm just hearing you.

I take that to mean that you couldn't produce any logical and rational comment contradicting me.

That is why logical and rational people say it's immoral. Religious people might say it's immoral because their god says so.

[Jashwell]

That neither makes it objectively good nor does it make it instinctive.

I can't see how this sentence makes sense as a reply to the previous ones so I'll pass commenting on it.

Are you actually suggesting that instinct = objectively right?

We call behavior that increases chances of well being and survival morally objectively right and we call behavior that decreases chances of well being and survival immoral and objectively wrong. Behaviors that increased chances of well being and survival were naturally selected for and many have them hard wired into their brains so they perform these behaviors instinctively.

You call behaviour that "increases chances of well being and survival" morally objectively right.

I don't think the survival of the human race has anything to do with morality.

Tell me all about the survival instincts of the suicidal.

Illness or injury or consistent bullying etc sometimes overrides the survival instinct and even though they instinctively want to live they are so ill they don't see how they can. Since we consider suicide objectively wrong we try to fix whatever it is that is the reason they want to kill themselves.

Assuming suicide is wrong is begging the question. By what means do you establish that it is an illness and not a normal behaviour that benefits the species' survival in small groups?

One penny isn't important to me but £400 (or 40 thousand pennies) might well be.

For the survival of the species every individual is of course important. The more individuals the better chances are that the species won't go extinct. Every individual lost reduces the number of individuals.

That's exactly the kind of thing I would group as not caring about the individual. They're just a means to an end, they alone aren't important.

If the survival of the species is important, is giving birth to more children objectively more moral?

Depends on the circumstances.

In what reasonable circumstances is it more moral?
("Have children or I'll kill these people" is an example of an unreasonable circumstance)

Depression emerged from evolution, suicidal thought from depression, and ideas themselves can be said to evolve.

LOL! Evolution and natural selection doesn't select for depression and suicidal thought you see. Those who have these are less likely to survive than those who don't have them. That is why we say something is objectively wrong with them and try to cure them.

Suicide of individuals can easily plausibly benefit the survival of the species.
All the time, evolution results in conflicting instincts that only circumstantially benefit survival.

How do you distinguish between a healthy mind and a defective mind? How do you know that depression is a defect? How do you know that suicide is a defect?

Sorry but such questions are so irrational that it's ridiculous. Why do you think we have psychiatrists and psychologists and mental hospitals? We evolved a survival instinct. Obviously behaviors and mental states that goes contrary to survival is wrong. So we try to cure them.

Once again you're assuming suicide is wrong.

You do realise that you're effectively suggesting sadness is a mental illness?

Oh yeah, that part where I categorically said "All suicide is to be unimpeded, no help is to be given", as opposed to me stating that few of us consider attempting suicide to be a symptom of illness.

Are there anybody else here who think that people who attempt suicide are mentally healthy and won't try to stop them?

I imagine I'm not the only one that understands that human suffering isn't a triviality to be excused for unverifiable survival gain. There's a reason that kind of thinking is called cold, and it's not because it's considered morally correct.


Instantc's post is right on point - merely claiming "rational people will agree with me" is not a valid argument - you're the only one saying that this is what morality is. At best you're attempting to convince us that we're irrational and that you're therefore right, which won't get anywhere.

[instantc]

That is why we say it's immoral.

Who is 'we'? I'm just hearing you.

I take that to mean that you couldn't produce any logical and rational comment contradicting me.

If all you have is an assertion, then I don't need an argument to dismiss it.

That is why logical and rational people say it's immoral. Religious people might say it's immoral because their god says so.

Again, that's the assertion, where is the justification? I have never met anyone who equates morality with survival instincts. To say that all rational and logical people do so is a bold assertion to say the least.

[Artie]

You call behaviour that "increases chances of well being and survival" morally objectively right.

What would you call that behavior? Wrong? It would be wrong to help others?

I don't think the survival of the human race has anything to do with morality.

So if you got your hands on a bomb that could wipe out all life on this planet you don't think it would be immoral of you to do so?

Assuming suicide is wrong is begging the question.

I don't "assume" suicide is wrong, the survival instinct doesn't "assume" suicide is wrong, nobody "assumes" suicide is wrong. We are programmed by the objective process of evolution and natural selection to value survival so suicide is wrong regardless of any assumptions.

That's exactly the kind of thing I would group as not caring about the individual. They're just a means to an end, they alone aren't important.

That is why many give their lives to save others. The survival of the individual isn't important if losing one individual means the survival of many others.

If the survival of the species is important, is giving birth to more children objectively more moral?

Depends on the circumstances.

In what reasonable circumstances is it more moral?
("Have children or I'll kill these people" is an example of an unreasonable circumstance)

Earlier people had many children because it increased the chances that some children would survive childhood. Now one should have as many children as the circumstances allow until having more would reduce everybody's chances of well being and survival.

Suicide of individuals can easily plausibly benefit the survival of the species.

That wouldn't be suicide, that would be self sacrifice.

Once again you're assuming suicide is wrong.

When will you learn and stop claiming I'm "assuming" anything? The survival instinct doesn't "assume" anything. The survival instinct doesn't "assume" anything. It's just an instinct. The survival instinct makes us want to survive. Not wanting to survive is therefore wrong.

You do realise that you're effectively suggesting sadness is a mental illness?

Sadness is normal if it is a reaction to something bad that has happened. If it turns into depression and threatens the well being and survival of yourself and others we say you are ill and try to treat you.

I imagine I'm not the only one that understands that human suffering isn't a triviality to be excused for unverifiable survival gain. There's a reason that kind of thinking is called cold, and it's not because it's considered morally correct.

A person who tries to save another person from committing suicide is "cold"?

Instantc's post is right on point - merely claiming "rational people will agree with me" is not a valid argument - you're the only one saying that this is what morality is.

Then just go online and read about "the evolution of morality". Maybe you can find something written by irrational people.

At best you're attempting to convince us that we're irrational and that you're therefore right, which won't get anywhere.

I am presenting logical and rational explanations. If you can use logical and rational replies to show there is something wrong with my logic and reasoning please do.