vixstile

Hypothetically, what if we scientifically proved the existence of an objective morality ,
clearly defined its parameters, and compiled these parameters into two books;volume one"Big Book of All That is Moral" and volume two "Big Book of All That is Immoral".

Now lets say an individual procures a copy of "volume two" of objective morality. As this individual reads through this book, he/she begins to think about how much pleasure they would derive from committing many of these various immoral acts (murder, rape, torture).

Now lets say this individual is in a situation where they know they can easily get away with committing many of these immoral acts without suffering any negative consequences
(jail, persecution,guilt).

Now my question is:
What rational reason would this person have to, not commit these immoral acts?

Why should an individual not commit an act, purely on the basis that the act has been defined as objectively immoral?

Why should an individual adhere to a particular behavior, purely on the basis that it has been defined as objectively moral?

Without a god or society to enforce an objective moral law, what objective value does that law have?

[ April 13, 2002: Message edited by: vixstile ]</p>

jlowder

We just hashed through this issue on this board. Click <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000106&p=1" target="_blank">here</a>.

bd-from-kg

vixstile:
That's a very good question. In fact, it's basically the reason why theists tend to believe that a meaningful morality is impossible without a belief in God. One can define one's own personal "morality", but it would seem to be impossible to offer any reason (in the sense of motivation) for anyone else to pay any attention to it. It seems to me that such a "morality" would be more accurately described as a set of "personal preferences".

It does seem to me that any meaningful theory of morality has to be able to offer such a motivation. In other words, if a proposed theory of morality is to be taken seriously, it must be such that any fully rational person who knows that an act that he could perform is "wrong", and understands what it means to say that it is wrong, will choose not to do it. Not "should", but "will".

vixstile

The point i'm trying to get at is that;whether or not there is an objective morality, human morality is ultimately subjective. We ultimately base our morality on what we want,what our goals are, and how various acts affect us in positive/negative ways

A secular objective morality would be worthless. All it would do is define what is moral and immoral, but not give any incentive to behave morally.

99Percent

For the sake of discussion what are your personal goals? What are you incentives to behave morally?

vixstile

Im sure they aren't all that different from yours, or anyone else's. HAPPINESS

As for incentive to behave morally:

If I behave in a way that is socially unacceptable, i may be punished .

If I behave in a way that is socially acceptable, I may be praised

I mite derive pleasure from acting morally.

Acting immoral mite cause emotional negatives

I may simply choose to act morally because that is what i want .

DarkDruid

Meanwhile, back in reality...

Personally, I find these sorts of hypotheticals useless. We live in a world where murders get cought and locked up 30 years after their crimes. Since you said that this person somehow "knew" they were able to avoid any consequences, I would guess that there is no way to stop them from doing it. The rest of us, nomatter how vile, have no such luxory.

bd-from-kg

This statement makes no sense. If there is an objective morality, human morality is ultimately objective. That's kinda what it means to say that there's an objective morality.

But if there's an objective morality, it is meaningful to ask whether this "morality" that we base on our goals and desires is true, or how well it agrees with the correct, objective morality.

I'm not sure that you get it. If morality is objective, it doesn't make sense to talk about "a" secular objective morality. This implies that there's more than one. The whole point of objective moral theories is that there's only one.

As for your final comment, how can you know whether the true objective morality (as postulated in your OP) gives an "incentive" to behave morally unless you have some idea of what the (postulated) objectively true moral theory looks like?

More to the point, why even bother to ask such questions about a hypothetical objective morality if you're convinced that such a thing is impossible in principle? It would seem more productive to explain why you think it's impossible in principle.

vixstile

Ok, i shouldn't have used the term
"human morality",but what i meant is that what a human will ultimately decide what is good or bad for themselves.

If we proved the existence of an "objective morality",what we think is morally good would have to match up exactly with the "objective moral good" for our beliefs to be true. But that says nothing about how we will ultimately behave.

when i said "secular objective morality",i was trying to imply a objective morality that was not created by a god. If a god created an objective morality, this being could enforce this morality, giving incentive to abide by the law. My argument was to secular people that hold that there is an "objective morality".

"As for your final comment,"That was the exact opposite of what is was trying to imply. Im trying to imply that the existence of an objective morality would give us NO incentive to act morally.

"why even bother" Because I wanted to. Im not really concerned with what you think is or isn't more productive.And i never said that it was impossible in principle, nore is that the point of my post.

vixstile

"Personally, I find these sorts of hypothetical useless. "

I don't. I think hypothetical situations are very useful in discussing abstract philosophical questions that are hard to relate to anything we perceive in the "real world"

"I would guess that there is no way to stop them from doing it"
Stopping someone from doing something, has nothing to do with my post.