[2012-Mar-02] Objective Morality

[Issoisso]

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2537

Well I don't believe in people who don't believe in objective morality.

[Gangler]

Oh! I read it as "Objective Mortality". Seemed much more sinister. Now I don't get it.

[Dindong]

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2537

Well I don't believe in people who don't believe in objective morality.

I'm right here!

Oh! I read it as "Objective Mortality". Seemed much more sinister. Now I don't get it.

He doesn't believe anything is objectively bad. Which makes the Jehovah's Witnesses think that perhaps this tea contains something a little bit stronger than milk.

[Rilfrolf]

You got it exactly wrong. (Based on argumentation by Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens)

Religious people only pretend to believe in absolute morality. What they do in fact is believe in an absolute totalitarian ruler who is able to change those morals any time. One moment killing is bad, the other it is not because the ruler changed the morality. Suddenly killing ist not only an exception, but it is accepted in the same degree that "not killing" was before. What you feel as human what is right and what is wrong changes, you don't have a trace of doubt in you that killing is wrong. Sounds like brainwashed gibberish and double-talk from 1984? You bet it does.

Science on the other hand gives you a scale and indications of how any object or matter is able to suffer. And suffering is the basis for all morality. You don't have empathy for a stone. You have a little for a bug, but you have much for an ape. Because we think with the complexity of life the details and scale of suffering changes.
Once you accept that you get a scale from 0 to infinite suffering which leads to the conclusion that science, in principle, is able to measure morality and indeed design a moral system which is best for all humans.

[Issoisso]

You got it exactly wrong. (Based on argumentation by Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens)

Religious people only pretend to believe in absolute morality. What they do in fact is believe in an absolute totalitarian ruler who is able to change those morals any time. One moment killing is bad, the other it is not because the ruler changed the morality. Suddenly killing ist not only an exception, but it is accepted in the same degree that "not killing" was before. What you feel as human what is right and what is wrong changes, you don't have a trace of doubt in you that killing is wrong. Sounds like brainwashed gibberish and double-talk from 1984? You bet it does.

Science on the other hand gives you a scale and indications of how any object or matter is able to suffer. And suffering is the basis for all morality. You don't have empathy for a stone. You have a little for a bug, but you have much for an ape. Because we think with the complexity of life the details and scale of suffering changes.
Once you accept that you get a scale from 0 to infinite suffering which leads to the conclusion that science, in principle, is able to measure morality and indeed design a moral system which is best for all humans.

Who got it wrong?

[jpj007]

You got it exactly wrong. (Based on argumentation by Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens)

Religious people only pretend to believe in absolute morality. What they do in fact is believe in an absolute totalitarian ruler who is able to change those morals any time. One moment killing is bad, the other it is not because the ruler changed the morality. Suddenly killing ist not only an exception, but it is accepted in the same degree that "not killing" was before. What you feel as human what is right and what is wrong changes, you don't have a trace of doubt in you that killing is wrong. Sounds like brainwashed gibberish and double-talk from 1984? You bet it does.

Science on the other hand gives you a scale and indications of how any object or matter is able to suffer. And suffering is the basis for all morality. You don't have empathy for a stone. You have a little for a bug, but you have much for an ape. Because we think with the complexity of life the details and scale of suffering changes.
Once you accept that you get a scale from 0 to infinite suffering which leads to the conclusion that science, in principle, is able to measure morality and indeed design a moral system which is best for all humans.

Agreed; the difference between "objective" morality and "absolute" morality is seemingly subtle at first, but it is very important.

[Dindong]

Who got it wrong?

[Kaharz]

Science on the other hand gives you a scale and indications of how any object or matter is able to suffer. And suffering is the basis for all morality. You don't have empathy for a stone. You have a little for a bug, but you have much for an ape. Because we think with the complexity of life the details and scale of suffering changes.

How do you measure the suffering of a bug, or say a tree? Suffering is neither quantifiable or absolute. You can observe how something responds to physical harm, provided it is capable of responding. Suffering is an abstract and variable concept. People have more empathy for an ape than a bug because they anthropomorphize the ape more than they do a bug, as you insinuated with the last sentence.

Suffering is also not the basis for all morality. Morality is a social construct. Suffering does come into play. If an act causes something to suffer that we feel empathy for we are going to feel bad about the act and may label that act immoral. But there have been many things that are considered to be moral behaviors that have absolutely nothing to do with suffering.

[GUTCHUCKER]

http://www.think-differently-about-shee ... 0crabs.htm

[Spinalcold]

Science on the other hand gives you a scale and indications of how any object or matter is able to suffer. And suffering is the basis for all morality. You don't have empathy for a stone. You have a little for a bug, but you have much for an ape. Because we think with the complexity of life the details and scale of suffering changes.

How do you measure the suffering of a bug, or say a tree? Suffering is neither quantifiable or absolute. You can observe how something responds to physical harm, provided it is capable of responding. Suffering is an abstract and variable concept. People have more empathy for an ape than a bug because they anthropomorphize the ape more than they do a bug, as you insinuated with the last sentence.

Suffering is also not the basis for all morality. Morality is a social construct. Suffering does come into play. If an act causes something to suffer that we feel empathy for we are going to feel bad about the act and may label that act immoral. But there have been many things that are considered to be moral behaviors that have absolutely nothing to do with suffering.

Quite right, but Kaharz is close to the meaning behind Sam Harris's ideas. The idea about science being about to provide morality is on the basis that it allows you to ask quantifiable questions, you just have to ask the right questions. So, is killing the bug morally wrong? Well, in what perspective should we ask that question? From the bugs, yes it is wrong, from it's food, no, from our view, it depends. Is it harming out food and causing others to starve? Is it an endangered species or does it provide a keystone for the environment in that area?

Science allows us to ask all these questions and make a proper judgment, religion does not.

[murderbot]

And suffering is the basis for all morality.

This unsupported claim is the achilles heel of your proposal.

[Dindong]

WHO GOT IT WRONG

[theflyingorc]

Ah yes, you have defeated Hume's fork because you said the word science a lot of times, good job.

Also, what the hell does this comic mean.

[Dindong]

If you'll just read from the start of the thread you'll find I explained what it meant.

Ignoring me made me like you more!

[tehpineapple]

Hmm, I also go around saying I don't believe in objective morality. Is that why no one will come to my tea parties?