Author Topic: Critique of objective morality with special focus on Upb.  (Read 8507 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Hajnal

  • Guest
Re: Critique of objective morality with special focus on Upb.
« Reply #15 on: May 19, 2012, 11:58:43 AM »
0
Quote
Its not a matter of majority, but the fact that a correctly functioning sensory system sees an apple as red, and I think in the same manner a normal functioning human being (rational and empathetic) sees rape as immoral.

Indeed, perhaps we function that way, but does that mean we should? And why?

The answer to "Why" will always be a pragmatic argument.

Quote
Perhaps collective was the wrong word to use. I was trying to explain how humans are biologically defined by reason and empathy

This is an empirical claim, belonging to the realm of science. Humans are not defined by reason and empathy, but by their ability to pass on their genes (natural selection).

Now, it is true that passing on our genes is not our goal as people. As people, we can choose the goals of being empathetic and reasonable, and many other possibilities.

But like other animals, it is the humans of today who pass down their genes to define the humans of tomorrow. Natural selection does not fundamentally "select" people who are reasonable and empathetic -- it only "selects" humans who survive long enough to pass on their genes to the next generation. If reasonable and empathetic people are being selected, that is based upon certain favorable circumstances of having those traits, but the ultimate determinant is survival.

I'm not saying it's our destiny to be psychopathic or anything. But if you are trying to define what "normal" humans are, I think that belongs to science.

noscman

  • FDR Interested
  • *
  • Posts: 39
  • Respect: 0
Re: Critique of objective morality with special focus on Upb.
« Reply #16 on: May 19, 2012, 12:15:56 PM »
0
Quote
This is an empirical claim, belonging to the realm of science. Humans are not defined by reason and empathy, but by their ability to pass on their genes (natural selection).

Now, it is true that passing on our genes is not our goal as people. As people, we can choose the goals of being empathetic and reasonable, and many other possibilities.

But like other animals, it is the humans of today who pass down their genes to define the humans of tomorrow. Natural selection does not fundamentally "select" people who are reasonable and empathetic -- it only "selects" humans who survive long enough to pass on their genes to the next generation. If reasonable and empathetic people are being selected, that is based upon certain favorable circumstances of having those traits, but the ultimate determinant is survival.

I'm not saying it's our destiny to be psychopathic or anything. But if you are trying to define what "normal" humans are, I think that belongs to science.

Well humans evolved to be empathetic and develop mutual aid. Ethics is entirely evoluntary in orgin, as a society in which murder is moral wouldn't last very long, so humans evolved to co-operate to achieve goals which is why we are such a successful species. And human being as an animals perform rationally purposive actions, as in we act for reasons rather than pure instinct. Reason and empathy have originated in evolution because they allow us to survive. So human ethics is always grounded in reason and empathy, if we stopped being rational and empathetic as a species then ethics would cease to exist, or if it did exist it would be in a very different manner, therefore a discussion of ethics should be concerned with humans as they currently are, that is rational and empathetic

Amos Cunningham

  • No Land's Man
  • FDR Aware
  • **
  • Posts: 79
  • Respect: +4
Re: Critique of objective morality with special focus on Upb.
« Reply #17 on: May 20, 2012, 08:49:56 PM »
0
Well humans evolved to be empathetic and develop mutual aid. Ethics is entirely evoluntary in orgin, as a society in which murder is moral wouldn't last very long, so humans evolved to co-operate to achieve goals which is why we are such a successful species. And human being as an animals perform rationally purposive actions, as in we act for reasons rather than pure instinct. Reason and empathy have originated in evolution because they allow us to survive. So human ethics is always grounded in reason and empathy, if we stopped being rational and empathetic as a species then ethics would cease to exist, or if it did exist it would be in a very different manner, therefore a discussion of ethics should be concerned with humans as they currently are, that is rational and empathetic


Reason and empathy are qualitys which most humans possess but I don't see how that means that if someone lacks empathy or if the reward for them acting out of accordance with what empathy they have is higher than acting in accordance with it they should act empathetically. Surely if this were the case then insane people would be being immoral (meaning: acting out of accordance with an unconditional should) by not being reasonable. It does not follow that because humans are generally *quallity x* that an individual human ought to exibit quallity x or quallity y for that matter.
 You seem to be assuming ethics from the get go, by this I mean; because there is this convention called ethics, by which it is proposed that humans should act in a given manner, that therefore, proposing that people should act in a given manner- not in relation to their goals- is valid. This needn't be the case whatsoever.
"In your world we are all pony and we all shit rainbow" Vinciboy545 adressing Stefan Molyneux.

noscman

  • FDR Interested
  • *
  • Posts: 39
  • Respect: 0
Re: Critique of objective morality with special focus on Upb.
« Reply #18 on: May 21, 2012, 02:14:22 AM »
0
Quote
Reason and empathy are qualitys which most humans possess but I don't see how that means that if someone lacks empathy or if the reward for them acting out of accordance with what empathy they have is higher than acting in accordance with it they should act empathetically. Surely if this were the case then insane people would be being immoral (meaning: acting out of accordance with an unconditional should) by not being reasonable. It does not follow that because humans are generally *quallity x* that an individual human ought to exibit quallity x or quallity y for that matter.
 You seem to be assuming ethics from the get go, by this I mean; because there is this convention called ethics, by which it is proposed that humans should act in a given manner, that therefore, proposing that people should act in a given manner- not in relation to their goals- is valid. This needn't be the case whatsoever.

You misunderstand me. Those lacking in reason or empathy are not immoral merely unable to evaluate reasons supporting moral judgements, in the same manner that a colour blind person is unable to see colours correctly and thus unable to fly planes for example. Ethics is grounded in humanity but the reason why a moral judgement is correct or incorrect is the evaluation of reasons rather than what most people happen to consider to be ethical. Only humans can evaluate these reasons due to their reason/empathy and it is because of this that advanced ethics has only been found in humans.

noscman

  • FDR Interested
  • *
  • Posts: 39
  • Respect: 0
Re: Critique of objective morality with special focus on Upb.
« Reply #19 on: May 21, 2012, 02:21:49 AM »
0
Also, I'm not stating that people should be rational or empthatic, only that they are requirements for the evaluation of moral judgements. And its not even that simple, individual with autism, and thus abnormally low degrees of empathy, can understand ethics once they have learnt to recognise other people's emotions and facial expressions for instance.

Amos Cunningham

  • No Land's Man
  • FDR Aware
  • **
  • Posts: 79
  • Respect: +4
Re: Critique of objective morality with special focus on Upb.
« Reply #20 on: May 21, 2012, 02:32:46 AM »
0
Ok, but you still don't have morality in the first place or principles by which it can be judged.
"In your world we are all pony and we all shit rainbow" Vinciboy545 adressing Stefan Molyneux.