dk

So only people governed by your personal critique have a any voice at all, and people without a voice can be dismissed ex post facto.

Alonzo Fyfe

Yep. That's what I am saying. Sure thing. Okey dokey.

Alonzo Fyfe

Yes, by Occam's Razor, if we can fully explain every observable phenomena without reference to an objective value, then we have no reason to speak about an objective value.

However, the distinction between absolute and objective values remains relevant. Many subjectivists post a number of objections to absolute values and, from this, assert that they have thereby refuted the idea of objective values. The latter does not, in fact, follow from the former.

I do not believe in any type of absolute or intrinsic values. I do believe in what can be called "objective relativism."

Alonzo Fyfe

You will find my objections to such a view in Part II of my Ethics Without God series that I linked to earlier. I would be interested in your comments.

dk

Morals govern human conduct whether they are subjective or objective, internal or external, inductive or deductive. It appears to me you’ve been objectively arguing for subjective morality, therefore hypocritical. It’s futility to objectively argue morality is subjective because the argument violates the moral precept being contested. Morality governs human conduct, therefore if subjective morality rules then a subjectivist must argue subjectively, and a objectivist must argue objectively. An argument based on the objective principle of Ockham’s Razor can only succeed by proving objective morality exists. An argument based on the subjectivity of principle X succeeds by showing moral law is a degregation.

Majestyk

dk, I would like you to expand on your statement: "Morals govern human conduct". This seems to be a rather arbitrary conclusion. Define morals? In what way do they govern human conduct?

DRFseven

Yes, we have those feelings; that is an objective fact, but look at what causes those feelings about an action to be perceived negatively or positively. It is our personal circumstances that enable us to feel some way about them. Value judgements are inherently subject to that which forms them.



What is common to all humans is the innate capacity to take on the emotional attitudes of its caretakers, which includes feelings of "rightness" and "wrongness". We feel on a gut level that things are right or wrong, because that is how we are introduced to concepts of right and wrong - literally on a gut level. The limbic system works as a part of cognition to form memories which comprise attitudes; putting the kitty in the toilet becomes irrevocably attached to "wrong" through connected neural associations that make us feel bad.


However, what we actually see is that all over the world, children take on the morals most like their own societies' morals, and, closest of all, to those of their parents. Children whose parents don't find the torturing of kitties wrong don't find it wrong, either. There isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that morality is a force directed toward humans, by which we are weakly or strongly compelled to think and act.

DRFseven

Like what? You seem to be asserting on the basis of your opinion that it takes other than an opinion to establish right and wrong.

Yet you still feel disgusted, right? Your knowledge that oysters seeming to taste good or bad is entirely subjective does not preclude your feeling of disgust. Why should moral opinions be any different?

Lobstrosity

I haven't finished reading your entire position, but I would like to say that this notion put forth by your friend is almost the crux of my philosophy:

"He answered that, no matter what one wanted, one needed life in order to pursue it. A corpse could not get a hamburger, or go fishing with his son, or anything. All value depended on life. Therefore, life had intrinsic value."

I would modify this to read "therefore, a man's life has intrinsic value to him."

You make objections to this claim that rely on the fact that someone may wish to commit suicide or sacrifice their life to save others, but I don't find these arguments persuasive, at least with regard to my modified version. In both instances the individual is simply excercising his right to life. Specifically, his life is his own and hence he may choose when and where to relinquish it. It has value to him, but it is his possession and as such what he wants most is to personally dictate its fate. If he no longer wishes to be alive, you are correct, the value of his life evaporates and he then has no compunctions about acting to end that life. If he places more value on something else than he does on his own life, then he can act in such a way as to sacrifice that life for what he values more--the key here is that it's all about what he values, and we must note that one cannot value anything if he's not alive first.

You make the distinction that it is not life but rather what we do with that life that has value. I don't think this is a distinction worth making. It is being alive that facilitates our actions. Without being alive it is impossible to perform the very actions you assign value. The two are intrinsically linked. I can say nothing about which actions will bring value to a man's life because that is wholly subjective. All I can say is that he must be alive and free to perform those actions. To the objective outside observer, we simply view him as placing all of his value in his life and freedom. This is isomorphic with our view of money. We cannot objectively assess the personal value of someone's possessions because the value we place in our possession is subjective. All we can do is assess their monetary value, for it is money that lets us purchase anything we want. As such, from the objective standpoint, money has all the value even though for each of us the true subjective value arises when we spend that money. Thus, if you want to make a stranger happy, you give them money and let them spend it on what they value most. Similarly, morality serves to protect human life such that each of us can have the opportunity spend that life currency on what he values most.

I think a successful objective moral philosophy can be based upon the intrinsic value of human life to the owner and the very notion that without such life nothing else can follow--no desires can be fulfilled if you are not alive to fulfill them. If you wish to give up your life, that's fine, but what we all dread the most is having our life taken from us. I am of the opinion that one objective universal code of ethics should serve to minimize with respect to the individual the chances that his life be taken from him. My view is that the altruistic nature of socieity can greatly reduce this chance, and thus such altruistic behavior fits under a code of morality.

I'd like to point out that I am not a Libertarian, however. It is a fatal flaw of the individual to ignore how much he truly depends on others. Our altruistic behavior may have evolved selfishly as a trait that aided in our own survival or the survival of close relatives, but this does not mean that we can consciously perceive any immediate selfish reward for a given act of altruism. Libertarians would eschew such behavior without being able to see what's in it for them, but this is far too narrow-minded a position to take and it ignores the detrimental effect that could result if everyone followed such selfish principles.

Valmorian

This depends if you exclude those who lack altruism from the set of 'Humankind'. If you do, then of course it's innate, but it's also a tautology.