Where We Get Our Morals From

[Hughnon]

Well, you have to appreciate the source.

Nobody has taken plumjam seriously since he claimed that fans of the Beatles are morally superior to fans of Japanese kabuki. In case you missed it, his argument went something like this:

1) There is a univeral moral truth when it comes to certain decisions (which decisions appear to be completely arbitrary since plumjam refuses to give any explanation other than "it just is.")

2) Music is one such decision (as is humor, he now seems to be saying).

3) The universal moral truth for music states that the music of the Beatles is "better" than the music of Japanese Kabuki (where "better" is another undefined plumjam term).

4) Fans of the Beatles recognize their music as being "better" because their 'spirit' is more 'attuned' to this universal truth I.E. they can 'perceive' it better using the 'Xth' sense (where the Xth sense is, again, an undefined plumjam construct).

5) Because the spirits of Beatles fans are better at this perception, they make choices according to the universal moral truth of music more often, and hence are morally superior in this respect.

Well, I'm new, and had thus thoroughly missed it.

However, it's good to know that my first impressions were fairly accurate.

 

[rocketdodger]

What evidence do you have that humour is non-subjective? As looking around, people seem to be entertained by a vast variety of comedy.

His evidence is clearly that he can simply 'feel' when something is funny, and anyone that disagrees is obviously not attuned to the universal truth of humor.

So, if you find something funny, but it is not in accordance with this universal truth of humor, then ... err ... you find it funny, but you really don't.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Heh, rocketdodger, you're funny.

But I guess Plumjam will not find your recent posts all that funny, so I'll have to surrender myself to his absolute humour.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Morals evolved. It's pretty straightforward. It's only the theists who make the bizarre claims that morals come from some magical soul humans are supposed to have.

Ho hum....

Morals distinguish humans from 'animals' ... No, they don't. Look at non-human primates and you can easily find the roots of our moral behaviors.

Morals come from religion ... No, they don't. The vast majority of the human population do not refrain from murder and mayhem because they fear gods or even because they fear arrest and prosecution. They refrain from such behaviors because we evolved as a gregarious species and our 'morality' is the result of naturally selected behaviors. There are still murderers among us. It hasn't been 100% selected against. And there are people with haywired brains. But morality evolved and exists in children who have had all sorts of parenting that did not teach the morality inherent in the children.

 

[Herzblut]

Morals: Certain types of broad Morals are universal, the specifics are cultural with the specific's within that set being subjective.

C.S. Lewis attempted to identify the broader Morals here.

This anthropologist is attempting to show the same thing.

This is tricky.
They make it look so easy, don't they?

Mississippi Burning - Barber shop
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1JX07MCCL4

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Humor is based on context and relativity, since humor is that which we recognize as absurd. Since ideas of normalcy vary from person to person, place to place, different people will find different things funny. For example, when I made fun of Plumjam for his strawman about "exclusive materialist atheists" he certainly didn't find it very funny, but several other people did. I found the Mohammed cartoons / caricatures funny, but Sunni Man advocated killing people over them. I think it's funny to poke fun at religion, God, the bible, and fundamentalists, but in the thread on whether or not God is evil, it looks like someone has already gotten his panties in a bunch over it.

His evidence is clearly that he can simply 'feel' when something is funny, and anyone that disagrees is obviously not attuned to the universal truth of humor.

So, if you find something funny, but it is not in accordance with this universal truth of humor, then ... err ... you find it funny, but you really don't.

Well obviously humor and morality come from the Akashic Records. Didn't you know that?

 

[pgwenthold]

The moral argument seems like a sneaky way to try to prove God.

"If there are absolute morals, where did those come from, huh?"

Bill and Ted, of course.

"Be excellent to each other."

That is the basis for my morality, and it is absolute.

Admittedly, my choice of Bill and Ted as the source of my morality is more or less arbitrary, but is no less subjective than chosing God/the Bible as your morality guide.

 

[Wowbagger]

I remind y'all, once again, that there is no such thing as absolute morals. Morality does evolve, no matter where it "comes from". This is true even of people who think they are following some source of absolute morality.

But, morality does not have to be completely relative, either. Yes, we must punish criminals. But, what counts as a "criminal" changes over time, according to human needs and interests.

 

[westprog]

The moral argument seems like a sneaky way to try to prove God.

"If there are absolute morals, where did those come from, huh?"

Prove God, first. Provide evidence.

It's not a way to prove God. It's simply that people who believe in an absolute moral code - or indeed, any kind of moral code that dictates what people should do - are involved in the God area, not the science area.

There are, as we see on this thread, people who regard morals as just something that human beings evolved as it makes them more competitive as a species. That's fine, but there's no should or ought in that definition. There's no more morality in saving a child from drowning than in having an appendix. It's just another symptom of our evolutionary roots.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

It's not a way to prove God. It's simply that people who believe in an absolute moral code - or indeed, any kind of moral code that dictates what people should do - are involved in the God area, not the science area.

There are, as we see on this thread, people who regard morals as just something that human beings evolved as it makes them more competitive as a species. That's fine, but there's no should or ought in that definition. There's no more morality in saving a child from drowning than in having an appendix. It's just another symptom of our evolutionary roots.

Don't confuse the evolutionary "gift" of moral sentiments/tendencies/feelings with morality itself, which is more complicated. The should or ought derive from what we do with those sentiments. Without those sentiments handed to us from evolution (or from a creator if you are so inclined) morality would not be possible, even with a set of rules. Morality does not consist in rule-following. Rule-following is rule-following. Morality concerns a deeper sense of what actions one should take, and this only comes from valuation.

I wouldn't be so quick to accuse everyone here of committing the naturalistic fallacy.

 

[plumjam]

Well, you have to appreciate the source.

Nobody has taken plumjam seriously since he claimed that fans of the Beatles are morally superior to fans of Japanese kabuki. In case you missed it, his argument went something like this:

1) There is a univeral moral truth when it comes to certain decisions (which decisions appear to be completely arbitrary since plumjam refuses to give any explanation other than "it just is.")

2) Music is one such decision (as is humor, he now seems to be saying).

3) The universal moral truth for music states that the music of the Beatles is "better" than the music of Japanese Kabuki (where "better" is another undefined plumjam term).

4) Fans of the Beatles recognize their music as being "better" because their 'spirit' is more 'attuned' to this universal truth I.E. they can 'perceive' it better using the 'Xth' sense (where the Xth sense is, again, an undefined plumjam construct).

5) Because the spirits of Beatles fans are better at this perception, they make choices according to the universal moral truth of music more often, and hence are morally superior in this respect.

Dodger, even by your own impressive standards this is some seriously hysterical b.s.

I said none of the above.
I have never ever referred to "universal moral truth for music".. which is a good job, because it would be nonsense.
Try looking up the word "aesthetics".

 

[Hughnon]

Try looking up the word "aesthetics".

Meaning de gustibus non est disputandum?

 

[plumjam]

Tell that to the millions of children who have just bought a game in which you can run over prostitutes and slaughter pedestrians in their droves.

That is a ludicrous argument.
Are you somehow not aware that those prostitutes and pedestrians in those computer games are not real conscious beings capable of suffering?

 

[plumjam]

3. The action of the driver was wrong because, as a human, I do not want other humans to suffer or be killed.

So morality is just a question of what you want, is it?
How about the cases of other people, for whom what they want is to rape and kill people?

You'd have no way to criticise them for it.

 

[Hughnon]

So morality is just a question of what you want, is it?
How about the cases of other people, for whom what they want is to rape and kill people?

You'd have no way to criticise them for it.

Of course you would. You'd disagree with them. You don't have to prove that it's written in stone tablets somewhere else to take issue with another's actions; at worst, your opinion as to the wrongness of their deeds as as well-founded as their opinion as to their validity. I hold my own moral code because I think it's right, not because I believe that it exists elsewhere as an absolute standard for all people. It's right to me, and I'm free to use it as a basis to condemn others.

Besides...what good is an absolute standard that no-one can see? Some people do what they do because they would act that way regardless. Others do it because, while they disagree with the rules, society as a whole will punish them if they act according to their volition.

Might makes right? Not necessarily. But it certainly enforces convention.

Not as catchy, I know. Maybe we could work a rhyme in there.

 

[plumjam]

It doesn't matter how I would react.

How you, and by extension, everyone, reacts to moral situations is the entire crux of the problem.
You know your reaction would be 1, rather than 2; and that that destroys your position. You just don't want to admit it.

What's important is that this state of affairs could quite easily have arisen through self-interest rather than from a more conventional moral standpoint, which rather negates the point that it is necessarily the result of the latter.

If this were true you are left with the massive problem of people routinely performing selfless moral acts in situations which could never conceivably occur to themselves. Non-orphans donate to orphanages. Bill Gates gives money for famine relief. Men donate money to cervical cancer charities. Human beings create and run charities for animals...etc etc..
The enlightened self-interest theory is just self-evidently bogus.

Someone can simultaneously be viewed as both 'funny' and 'not funny' by two different people watching the same act.

Just as two people can view the same person as more or less moral. That doesn't affect how moral the person actually is.

To whom do we appeal as the Great Arbiter of who is correct in their assessment, or the Cosmic Clerk who compares the quality of the act with the value of absolute humour and sends back a report?

Why would you ever need to?

 

[Hughnon]

How you, and by extension, everyone, reacts to moral situations is the entire crux of the problem.
You know your reaction would be 1, rather than 2; and that that destroys your position. You just don't want to admit it.

It would destroy my position if it were inconceivable that anyone else would ever act otherwise.

It isn't, so it doesn't.

However, I like the, "How you, and by extension, everyone" part. "Let's say I do X. OK? Now, let's go ahead and assume that the other 6bn people on the planet will do exactly the same..."

I don't particularly like beetroot. By your logic, I'm now wondering how the yellow, rubbery **** anyone ever sells any beetroot.

If this were true you are left with the massive problem of people routinely performing selfless moral acts in situations which could never conceivably occur to themselves. Non-orphans donate to orphanages. Bill Gates gives money for famine relief. Men donate money to cervical cancer charities. Human beings create and run charities for animals...etc etc..
The enlightened self-interest theory is just self-evidently bogus.

Hmmm. We seem to have gone rather ahead of you, or at least left you somewhere behind.

We are not assuming that all laws are made with self-interest firmly at their heart. Nor are we assuming that all human actions are made with the self as the root cause (although the psychological egoism begets act altruism argument is interesting to those who like Game Theory). What we are in fact doing is positing that these events are possible.

Not universal. Possible. And, as they are possible, it rather negates the idea that all such decisions are made as a result of conscience or a system of absolute moral truths. They don't have to be.

Just as two people can view the same person as more or less moral. That doesn't affect how moral the person actually is.

Why would you ever need to?

We'll take these two together.

You'd need to so you could see how moral the person actually was. Otherwise, you'd just be putting your opinion forward with little or nothing to back it up. It's clear that you see nothing wrong with this, however, so perhaps the key to the misunderstanding lies here.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

That is a ludicrous argument.
Are you somehow not aware that those prostitutes and pedestrians in those computer games are not real conscious beings capable of suffering?

Exactly. Nature would sense the wrongness only at that stage, wheras a lawgiver would make us aware of the 'wrongness' even at the CGI stage.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

A more interesting argument is that young, single men tend to be more sexually attracted to promiscuous women.

From an evolutionary standpoint, this is exactly what you would expect if we have evolved to ensure the survival of our genes.

From a moral programmer standpoint, it makes no sense that men would be designed to treat a woman with so little respect simply because of her promiscuous lifestyle.

If this were true you are left with the massive problem of people routinely performing selfless moral acts in situations which could never conceivably occur to themselves. Non-orphans donate to orphanages. Bill Gates gives money for famine relief. Men donate money to cervical cancer charities. Human beings create and run charities for animals...etc etc

And the adult cuckoo frequently takes care of young, non-cuckoo birds.

 

[rocketdodger]

Dodger, even by your own impressive standards this is some seriously hysterical b.s.

I said none of the above.
I have never ever referred to "universal moral truth for music".. which is a good job, because it would be nonsense.
Try looking up the word "aesthetics".

It seems like the original post by you has been removed, but I found this in a response someone made to that post:

To have perfect knowledge of something like objective beauty (or anything else), what is needed is a perfect merging of the subjective and the objective. This only exists in God. If you were to become God-realised, Joobz, I dare say you'd have a clear view of where the beatles stood in relation to kabuki, vis-a-vis musical beauty.

So are you retracting that statement now? I don't see why you would, since you clearly stated something similar just now regarding the universal moral truths of humor.

Do I need to realize god, plumjam, to be able to make the correct choice between chocolate and vanilla?

EDIT: Do you ever wish you could take back some of the things have said, so that people like me could no longer use them to show others what kind of a person you really are?