99Percent

Alas, the one who is going round and round is YOU, trying to find meaning of what I am saying.No, unfortunately for your argument it no longer is "subjective". As common human beings we can understand and relate common objects such as "cup", "boat" and yes, "free will" and "violence" and lies and truth which make up our objective moral codeBut totally irrelevant to our argument. We aren't arguing whether the size or shapes of cups are true, but that cups themselves are!Thats irrelevant also. Whats important is a universal undertanding of the concept of cups, not the actual physical representation or possible imaginings of them.I already went through this argument before. See my last post. The mere fact that we as human can deny reality (from our creative powers) is sufficient motive to understand that we are in fact moral beings.

As simple as that.

dshimel

Two places to go with this.

1) How do you judge productivity and stability? The Aztecs and Romans were far more productive than any other societies of the time. They lasted a hell of a lot longer than the U.S. has been around. Why are those the values that are important? How about stability? Standard of living? Advancement of scientific knowledge?

Your subjective decisions on what is important and how well each society did, cannot be used in a claim of objective morality.

2) If history had shown different, that it is possible to create a productive and stable society (such as the Roman Empire) by using slavery, then slavery would be okay using your subjectively discovered objective morality?

I think not. It is so much easier to say, "If you would not like being enslaved, then you should not enslave others."



The major problem I see with the "pro-diversity" movement is that they favor all diversity, except diversity of opinion with them. If you are not lock step in agreement with them over everything, then you are the enemy, to be crushed under the heel of political correctness.

Never one to be afraid of being under heel, here I go. I think it is immoral for the landlord to discriminate based on sexual orientation. The key to morality it to not treat others as you, or they, would not like to be treated. The homosexual couple does not want to be discriminated against, thus doing so is immoral.

I also think it is immoral for the homosexuals to try to force the man to rent to them. He does not want to rent to them so forcing him to is immoral.

BECAUSE of these large number of "worst of two immoral actions" cases, we have laws governing forbidden action. Some immoral actions are forbidden, and some are not. In making these laws, we make subjective value judgments of the worth of possible actions. For most cases, society has made a subjective value judgment that discrimination based on age, race, creed, religion, national origin, and sexual discrimination is forbidden.

Therefore, even though it is immoral for the homosexuals to force the man to rent to them, it is legal for them to (well, in most areas of the country).

dshimel

Incorrect. I am not trying to find meaning of what you are saying. I know what you are saying, and am explaining why you are wrong. You continue to pretend that there are some different definitions of subjective and objective that allow you to fit ideas into the category of objective.

I continue to point out the real definitions. Within and dependant on a mind, subjective. Outside of, and independant of a mind, objective.

There is no other definition of objective. No ideas are objective. No matter is subjective. It is the definitions of the words.

There is no objective morality, because, as you admit, morality is not an object, but ideas.

You can keep trying to change the defnitions, but then they won't be the same words, will they. You can't call a skunk a flower, and have it smell sweet. You can't call an idea objective, and make it anything more than a subjective idea.

Theli

99Percent...

I'm sorry for jumping into your conversation, but how can an understanding of cups be universal?
Are you saying that every instance of the concept "cup" in the mind of every person possessing it is identical?
That my concept of "cup" is identical to yours?

Theli

JerryM...

I was under the impression that the golden rule was not refering to expectations, but to preference. I don't think the landlord would want to be kicked out, even though he might have expected it.

99Percent

Yes.

For example a cup that has a hole in the bottom ceases to be a cup in the universal sense, because it no longer holds liquids. Its more like a tube.

It is from these universal concepts that an ought is derived from an is.

A cup is an item that holds liquids. Therefore a cup ought to hold water. If it doesn't something is wrong with the cup and it is not working as a cup.

curmudgeon

99,

I liked your post very much, but let me critique it a bit.

First, there's no real reason to go thru such a tortured explanation for the basis of the moral realm. Morality is ONLY valid in the context of two or more conscious beings interacting with one another. Period. "Morality" loses its meaning outside that context. Much like discussing a bird's flight on the surface of the moon destroys the very context of the thing being discussed. That's what makes the "animal rights activists" so completely wacky.

Second. "Free choice" is NOT a primary in objectivism. Its an abstract concept, something that puts ANY philosophy on very shaky ground. Its like basing a philosophy on "love", when no one can even describe what "love" is.

Free choice is a RESULT of consciousness, not equal to consciousness. I MUST have free choice in order to exploit my own consciousness for my own survival. Anything less denies me my right to life.

Consciousness is a human's ONLY tool for survival. I don't have the biggest fangs in the jungle, nor can I run faster than anything else. the ONLY thing I've been given as an advantage is the ability to plan and reshape my environment, via my consciousness. According me anything less denies me that which nature gave me to survive.

Crudely put, society{existence+consciousness} = morality. Replace "free will" with "existence" or "life" and you'll find your arguments change little, but you have a much firmer footing to debate your morality. After all, we can argue "free will" till the cows come home, but try to argue that one of us is not actually alive, and you again destroy the very context in which you're attempting to have a discussion. Much hilarity will ensure. I guarantee it.

Lies and physical force are really BOTH violence done against one's consciousness. If I don't have the facts in order to make a proper decision, that's in effect no different than holding a gun to my head and FORCING me to make a choice I would not have otherwise made.

Property is simply an extension of my consciousness. I imagined a spear, I went out and found the raw materials and assembled it. Now I'm better able to survive using my property. Who else can possibly claim any "right" to that which I myself created?

I enjoyed your post very much!

99Percent

Thanks curmudgeon! I appreciate your very interesting response.

Consciousness is a strange beast to talk about. It has to do with realizing reality itself, truth and your own self of being and therefore a bit hard to have any coherent discussion about it. But I think I do understand what you are saying.

In fact I think it might be the key to understanding bd-from-kg's argument here of which I am considering preparing a response.

tk

I'm still not seeing any attempt to distinguish between "reason" and "what seems reasonable".

A cup is an item that holds liquids. By this, do you mean that a cup will forever be holding some liquid, so that there can never be an empty cup? Do you mean that a cup must hold more than one liquid at any one time, judging from the use of the plural form "liquids"? What does it mean to "hold"? Is a dam a cup, since it holds (back) some liquid?

So what does it mean to say that "a cup ought to hold water"? Does it mean that if I empty the contents of a cup, it ceases to be a cup? If I put a cube of sugar into an empty cup, does it cease to be a cup?

The English language is full of ambiguities, and is nowhere near a reliable tool for discovering "objective truth".

99Percent

We are actually discussing right now using the english language. If we cannot find any truth with it then whats the point of discussing anything?

Curiously this is the exact same ultimate conclusion that is arrived when we discuss the existence of God with theists since they deny logic and reason itself so there comes a moment it becomes pointless to continue any meaningful debate.