What should Morals and Ethics be?

[Belz...]

I'm pretty sure that what you read about were ideas related to inflation. When inflation ends in some particular region the energy of the inflation field becomes particles. You get a big bang in the region where inflation ended. But inflation continues elsewhere. When it ends in those regions, they also get big bangs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation

Nah, that doesn't sound like it. Anyway, we should get back to topic. This should be discussed in detail elsewhere.

 

[epeeist]

Yes, but it's not objective morality. It's your morality. Humans tend to think that their morality is better, simply because we base so much of our lives on it. But that's not the same thing as it being objective.

Hell, even if God were to exist, his judgment would still not be objective, in the sense that it would be his perspective. I really think that there is no way anyone can make a case for an actual, objective morality. And no one ever has.

How do you define "objective morality"? Or "morality" or "objective"? Also, what are the consequences of your belief that there's no objective morality, only subjective? Are you simply a might makes right person, any society willing and able to impose its values on others can and should do so? Or if they shouldn't do so, isn't that a moral judgment on your part that it is wrong? Or if you think majority rules is the principle of morality, that is, itself, a moral principle of utilitarianism and congratulations, you now have an objective moral value...

 

[caveman1917]

a small elite of amoral quasi-Nietzschean ubermenschen to rule arbitrarily over the great mass of humanity.

Why would Nietzschean ubermenschen want to rule over humanity? Nietzsche's concept of the ubermensch isn't a master but, explicitly, beyond both master and slave morality. And not amoral either, but value-creating.

 

[Belz...]

How do you define "objective morality"?

I don't have an idiosyncratic definition, here. Objective is something that is true for all; that cannot NOT be true for all. Opinions are not objective, but the fact that you hold said opinions is.

Also, what are the consequences of your belief that there's no objective morality, only subjective?

None whatsoever. That's my point, really. Morality has always been dependant on the person or group. I'm asking those who claim that there could be an objective morality how it would work: how we could detect it, what it would look like, what consequences it would have, etc. So far zilch.

Are you simply a might makes right person, any society willing and able to impose its values on others can and should do so?

I have no idea how you got from here to there.

Or if you think majority rules is the principle of morality, that is, itself, a moral principle of utilitarianism and congratulations, you now have an objective moral value...

There is no such thing as an objective moral value.

 

[llwyd]

Why would Nietzschean ubermenschen want to rule over humanity? Nietzsche's concept of the ubermensch isn't a master but, explicitly, beyond both master and slave morality. And not amoral either, but value-creating.

"Quasi" - though I think that anti-liberal elitism is pretty much an inbuilt feature of his thought and Nazis did not do that massive violence to him in this regard, though obviously they did barbarize his philosophy.

 

[caveman1917]

"Quasi" - though I think that anti-liberal elitism is pretty much an inbuilt feature of his thought and Nazis did not do that massive violence to him in this regard, though obviously they did barbarize his philosophy.

Anti-liberalism is pretty much an inbuilt feature of the entirety of anarchist, socialist, nihilist, and various related philosophers. I don't think the elitism claim is quite accurate either, at least not in the sense you seem to be using the term. As for the Nazis, they just barbarized everything, their claim to be Nietzschean-nihilists has about as much validity as their claim to be socialists - namely none at all.

 

[caveman1917]

Some people get a kick out of the idea of future generations. Me? Not so much. So moral appeals to my interest in future generations will generally fall flat.

Sometimes I wonder why you're not an anarchist

I have no ancestors. As far as I am concerned, the creation of the world dates from the day I was born; as far as I am concerned, the world must end on the day when my body and the breath which go together to make up my individual existence are returned to the earth. I am the first man and I will be the last man. My history is a summary of the history of humankind; I know nothing else and wish to know nothing else. When I am suffering, what comfort can I derive from someone else’s good fortune? When I am enjoying myself; what does my enjoyment profit those who are suffering? What do I care for what was done before me? How can what will be done after me affect me? I need be neither a burnt offering to dead generations nor an example to posterity.

...and then I remember it's because you only take the reasoning one way ("How can what will be done after me affect me?") but not the other way ("What do I care for what was done before me?") leaving you in conservative land.

 

[theprestige]

Sometimes I wonder why you're not an anarchist



...and then I remember it's because you only take the reasoning one way ("How can what will be done after me affect me?") but not the other way ("What do I care for what was done before me?") leaving you in conservative land.

I think you understand me even more poorly than I understand anarchism.

 

[llwyd]

Anti-liberalism is pretty much an inbuilt feature of the entirety of anarchist, socialist, nihilist, and various related philosophers. I don't think the elitism claim is quite accurate either, at least not in the sense you seem to be using the term. As for the Nazis, they just barbarized everything, their claim to be Nietzschean-nihilists has about as much validity as their claim to be socialists - namely none at all.

Well, I really do think that they were much better Nietzscheans than socialists. For the latter your descripition of none at all is pretty much accurate, but as for mad Friedrich, not at all so...

 

[caveman1917]

Well, I really do think that they were much better Nietzscheans than socialists. For the latter your descripition of none at all is pretty much accurate, but as for mad Friedrich, not at all so...

How so? The Nazis were nationalists, racists, and anti-semites - all things Nietzsche railed against. I don't see how they have anything at all to do with Nietzsche, at least not any more than they have to do with socialism.

 

[caveman1917]

I think you understand me even more poorly than I understand anarchism.

Probably.

 

[Cheetah]

You're the one trying to make a universal truth out of a set of behaviours that are only found in SOME living creatures.

What do you mean?
I'm talking about all animals with brains capable of experiencing living.

That many are very successful, evolutionarily speaking, without these behaviours or organs is the counter to your argument.

Do mean brains?

Why not? Below you admit that you don't know how you'd even define success, so how would you know what qualifies or not?

What do you think I'm doing here? Do you think I have some "Science of Morals" thing all worked out, I'm trying to promote? Some agenda I'm working towards?
I had a vague idea, I started a thread to hear what others had to say and here we are. I'm figuring it out as I'm going along.
I think we might be reasoning past each other a bit as I'm thinking of larger concepts that are broadly applicable and you tend to zoom in on details and specifics.
It's easy to drift off track with you, you question something, I respond with an explanation, you question something in the explanation, I respond with an explanation and three steps down I can't remember what the original point was and neither can you.
My original point about success was not referring to any species in particular, but to broader concepts. There have been multiple revolutions in evolution, similar to technological revolutions. Revolutions that made life more successful and opened up new niches previously unavailable. Multi-cellular life and a nervous system were such revolutions. Since the evolution of brains the revolutions have also continued as new more successful and complex behaviors become possible.
Evolution tries out different behavioral strategies and hones them down to the ones that work best. Science can show which strategies are better and why.

I have to say that I don't appreciate being told I don't understand this topic when you can't even define the fundamental terms of your own arguments.

I have no idea what you know. You don't want to give me anything to go on.
As I said, I'm figuring it out as I'm going along. I would value some discussion and input instead of only argument and flippant answers.
Chemically, really? A serious answer? You are pulling my leg. Just about everything works chemically. It means nothing in the context of the discussion, which is the evolutionary advantages of having brains and why what brains do is an evolutionary advantage. IOW how do brains work in the context of evolution.

I don't have an idiosyncratic definition, here. Objective is something that is true for all; that cannot NOT be true for all. Opinions are not objective, but the fact that you hold said opinions is.

This brings us back to the very first thing you disputed.
How is the goal of life to continue existing not true for all? It might not be a conscious goal for simple life, but it's a universal goal none the less. The whole history of evolution has been a process of life getting better at surviving.

 

[Cheetah]

Isn't it obvious? Bacteria are more numerous by several orders of magnitude and will outlive everything else. How is that not successful? How do you define success?

No it is not.

Even though not part of my original argument this is an interesting question worth discussing.
Defining the success of a species by how many individuals it has is so simplistic as to be meaningless.

Firstly, species are limited in numbers by the niche they have evolved to occupy and secondly tinier species can sustain more individuals on a set of resources than larger ones. Neither have anything to do with success.
In fact all species that have ever existed were, at their time supremely successful, the very best of the best at what they did.
The opposite can also be argued, species with very few individuals usually occupy an extremely narrow specialized niche, and are therefor more successful than generalists. They are more specialized and have evolved beyond competing with most other species.


See what I mean, it's not that simple. Your obvious answers are not so obvious to me. I can't just give you the easy definition you want without some thought.

 

[Belz...]

What do you mean?
I'm talking about all animals with brains capable of experiencing living.

The cut-off's necessarily going to be arbitrary, though. How do you define the above criterion, to begin with? Do ants qualify? Salamanders?

Do mean brains?

I mean precisely what I said. You talk about behaviours you think may be universal, but I'm saying they're A) not universal, B) an arbitrary criterion and C) irrelevant to the question of objective morals. Those go contrary to your hypothesis, is my point.

I had a vague idea, I started a thread to hear what others had to say and here we are. I'm figuring it out as I'm going along.

Well, the good news is, so's everybody else.

It's easy to drift off track with you, you question something, I respond with an explanation, you question something in the explanation, I respond with an explanation and three steps down I can't remember what the original point was and neither can you.

Well that's the nature of debate, sometimes. I asked how you could determine if objective morality exists, and how it works, and what to do about it, and you responded with a loose hypothesis about biology and evolution. So I'm addressing that. Yes, we're branching out, but I think we're still on track, so to speak.

Evolution tries out different behavioral strategies and hones them down to the ones that work best. Science can show which strategies are better and why.

The first sentence is broadly correct, the second is not. Give me an example of which strategy is "better", and why.

Chemically, really? A serious answer? You are pulling my leg.

No.

IOW how do brains work in the context of evolution.

That question doesn't make sense. What do you even mean by it?

How is the goal of life to continue existing not true for all?

I don't believe I've ever questioned that. The defining characteristic of life is duplication.

But what does it have to do with morality?

 

[Belz...]

No it is not.

It is not what? Obvious, or successful?

Defining the success of a species by how many individuals it has is so simplistic as to be meaningless.

Not any more meaningless than your own criteria. Your said brains are more successful. How did you reach that conclusion?

Firstly, species are limited in numbers by the niche they have evolved to occupy and secondly tinier species can sustain more individuals on a set of resources than larger ones.

I was talking about biomass as well. Krill and bacteria outweigh us significantly.

Neither have anything to do with success.

Again: how do you know? You've not explained what you consider to be "success", but you've assured me that X and Y don't qualify.

See what I mean, it's not that simple.

No, I don't see what you mean because you are remaining very, very vague. You are careful in avoiding committing to a particular answer, but for some reason you can still disagree with mine. So could you be more precise, please, and answer my questions?

If you're going to say "I don't know yet" or something to that effect, then you cannot say that the criteria I bring up don't qualify.

 

[Cheetah]

The cut-off's necessarily going to be arbitrary, though. How do you define the above criterion, to begin with? Do ants qualify? Salamanders?

The cut-off will always be blurred, that is the nature of life. You cannot even define an exact cut-off between living and dead. Does not mean things that are indisputably dead or indisputably alive don't exist.
Questions like 'Can this brain experience X?', can be answered by science.

I mean precisely what I said. You talk about behaviours you think may be universal, but I'm saying they're A) not universal, B) an arbitrary criterion and C) irrelevant to the question of objective morals. Those go contrary to your hypothesis, is my point.

I honestly don't know what you mean.
Please explain how, for example the need for food, is not universal and how organisms running low on resources do not universally engage in behaviors to acquire what it needs?

The first sentence is broadly correct, the second is not. Give me an example of which strategy is "better", and why.

The broadest I can think of is cooperation vs conflict. The evolution of cooperation has revolutionized what life is capable of several times over during evolutionary history.

I don't believe I've ever questioned that. The defining characteristic of life is duplication.
But what does it have to do with morality?

Is it not obvious? Life can live without duplicating, it cannot duplicate without living. That is why 'self preservation' is the most basic instinct, it is universal.

 

[Cheetah]

No, I don't see what you mean because you are remaining very, very vague. You are careful in avoiding committing to a particular answer, but for some reason you can still disagree with mine. So could you be more precise, please, and answer my questions?
If you're going to say "I don't know yet" or something to that effect, then you cannot say that the criteria I bring up don't qualify.

The point of this whole thread is to find an objective scientific measure, not to just pick some criteria you happen like, numbers or biomass or whatever.
As I explained, not very clearly, I don't think you can objectively assign a 'success score' to a species, but I'm open to suggestions.


What you might be able to do, is assign an 'importance score' to a species on an ecological basis.

 

[Belz...]

Please explain how, for example the need for food, is not universal and how organisms running low on resources do not universally engage in behaviors to acquire what it needs?

That is not what I'm saying. None of this has anything to do with universal morals. Could we focus on that, please?

The broadest I can think of is cooperation vs conflict. The evolution of cooperation has revolutionized what life is capable of several times over during evolutionary history.

I have no idea what that means. I asked you to name an example of what's better and to explain why is it better.

Is it not obvious? Life can live without duplicating, it cannot duplicate without living. That is why 'self preservation' is the most basic instinct, it is universal.

That doesn't answer my question: what does this have to do with morality?

The point of this whole thread is to find an objective scientific measure, not to just pick some criteria you happen like, numbers or biomass or whatever.

Well you've missed my whole point, which is there is no objective scientific measure. Any criterion or set of criteria you pick will be arbitrary, and none are better than the other.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Conflict and Cooperation are always on a gradient in the interaction between evolutionary agents.

 

[Cheetah]

That is not what I'm saying. None of this has anything to do with universal morals. Could we focus on that, please?

That doesn't answer my question: what does this have to do with morality?

We have been over this before.

Morality has to do with what is considered right and wrong, good and bad. Correct?
I'm looking at life as a whole to highlight things are universally good and bad as a foundation. What is wrong with this approach? It is as objective as it could possibly be.

I have no idea what that means. I asked you to name an example of what's better and to explain why is it better.

Look at how life on the planet changed, proliferated and spread once eukaryotes evolved. The same for multi-cellular life. The same for nervous systems. The same for social behaviour. Symbiosis. Stuff like that. There is a definite trend in evolution towards cooperation, it evolved at multiple levels and life became more successful as a result. In this case I mean 'successful' as in it allowed life to explore more options and exploit more niches previously unavailable, as well as to out-compete species in similar niches but without it (it refers to whatever cooperative strategy evolved).