Gurdur

Oh dear, let's just repeat everything again, shall we ?

1) Gravity can never rationally be morally good or bad ---- it simply is.

2) Natural science has shown there is no such thing as "objective morality" with an ultimate legitimization.

Science does not say what is moral --- but it does say there is no such thing as an objective morality with an utimate legitimization.

3) I'm way, way, way ahead of you, since this is the very point you refuse to tackle time and time again.
You keep on reiterating the fact that science does not provide legitimization for moral judgments ---- and you ignore the fact that the reason for that is that there is no objective morality.

As for your claims of deriving it all from reason,well, you know, you've been disproven time and time aain ---- when will you take into account all the criticisms and disproofs you've been given ?
Simply repeating baseless assertions won't cut the mustard.

Gurdur

And last:

Where you always go wrong the most, 99Percent, is in claiming that your morality is the only morality.

If you recognized the fact that other people have different moralities, then you could make rhetorical and utilitarian arguments as to why you think your morality is better.

However, this is exactly what you do not do; you pretend yours is the only one out there, and you only make rhetorical and utilitarian arguments for it, without ever proving your claim.

IOW, you are attempting to make political arguments in support of a claim of fact/truth.
That doesn't work.

The only arguments that work in support of a claim of fact/truth are empirical observation and deduction.

Alonzo Fyfe

Though I believe that 99Percent makes mistakes, this is not one of them.

At best one can say that people have different BELIEFS about morality, but it makes no more sense to say that different BELIEFS about morality implies different moralities than it does to say that different BELIEFS about my car means that I have several cars.

JERDOG

I think what 99% is saying, is that people have what they claim are morals. (eg) Someone may say it is moraly correct to give 10% of your earnings to the church. Now this means that if you do not give 10% of your earnings to a church, you are less moral than someone who does. Objectivism says that this is in fact immoral. So the claim that giving, in this instance, is not really moral, but immoral. Because it REQUIRES sacrifice in order to be moral.

The Objectivist view of morality is based on the axiom. Existence exist.
Then we can deduce that man exist. Which is a fact based on the axiom just given.
And since man exist with emotions, and happiness is one of them, then anything or anyone that stops a man from seeking that happiness is immoral. Anything or anyone that stops a man from having his right to life is immoral. Anything or anyone that stops a man from is right to keep the property he earns is immoral.

This does not mean a man can seek happiness by chopping peoples heads off. A mans moral rights are equal to every other mans. Simply because all men exist equally.
So if a man says he is seeking happiness by chopping peoples heads off, he is in fact violating the right to life of the other people who exist EQUALLY with him.

And of coarse that is an exaggerated example. But you can use that structure of reasoning in any violation of a mans rights. Which is of coarse, objectively immoral.

I think what 99% is saying, is that morality is based on reality( see the existence exist axiom). Any other form of morality(which really is not morality) (like theism) is not based on reality. But on mysticism.

In other words. Any morality that is based on anything besides reality, is not morality at all, but immorality.
Which would explain 99%'s stance that the only true morality is objective morality based on reality perceived through the senses.

Example. Jehovah Witnesses believe that donating blood is immoral.
Now other people(other Christians) may believe that donating blood is a moral good thing to do because you may be saving a life.

Now one action(donating blood) cannot be both moral and immoral at the same time. This is a contradiction. Their can be no contradictions in reality.

Now the J/W will tell you that they are being moral by NOT donating blood. While others will say they are being moral by the exact same action.

So who says who is right or wrong? If you ask the J/W the question, "why", enough times. They will tell you, "because god says so'.
If you ask another Christian the question "why" enough times. They will say that it is right in the eyes of god to save a life.

These two views of morality are based on mysticism not reality.

Objectivism would say that the only way donating blood was immoral, was if someone forced someone to donate blood. And donating blood itself would still not be the immoral action . The immoral action would be the force that was used on the person donating.

tk

99Percent just came up with another generic excuse: "That was a strawman!" When you say such a thing, you'd better make sure that he shows the exact places where the `strawman' argument differs from the points you made before.

You have consistently failed to give a dictionary definition of "reason" or "rationality". You only keep saying what "reason" is not. But what is reason?

OK, I'll define the word for you:

reason (n.)
1. An unidentified concept that is not the same as logic.
2. The faculty residing in one's butt from which one can pull out `objective truths' like a magician pulls out rabbits from a hat.

I suggest you look up the dictionary in your home in order to understand the difference (between the common definition of "reason" and your `definition').

I can almost hear you saying yet again, "Strawman!" Re-read the first paragraph of this post.

You contradict yourself. If what you say is true, then consider this: I, as an individual, decide that murdering idiots is good. I, as an individual, decide that other people's wishes don't matter. Since good can only be determined by the individual and nothing else, it follows that I ought to murder people.

Besides, your point directly contradicts the Randist position that a "general good" exists: namely, selfishness or non-altruism.

To allow you to save your face, I'll assume here that you decide to abandon this position of yours, and agree that a "general good" does exist independent of the individual. But I ask again: aren't the people who care for retards being altruistic, and thus irrational, in their desires?

Here. Before you say "Strawman!" once more, think twice.

"Altruism is bad" is an official Objectivist position. It's right there inside Rand's official doctrine, in the essay "Introducing Objectivism". It's not her personal opinion. You're not Ayn Rand, but you're a full-fledged Objectivist, no?

Ah... looks like I just struck your raw nerve. You can't reconcile your Randist belief that "altruism is bad" with the fact that without altruism, you won't exist. The only responses you know of are, "Reason is not logic!" "Philosophy is not science!" "Strawman!" "I'm not Rand!"

I have a suggestion: start entertaining the idea that Objectivism may be bogus.

Gurdur

*sigh*

Back to basics:

People live by different moralities. Got that ?

It has nothing to do with beliefs about moralities; you can go outside and make empirical observaions recognising that people live by different moralities.

Therefore different moralities exist.
Care to debate that one further ?

Moreover, 99Percent keeps on repeating that his stance is the only morality --- that all others simply do not exist. Not just that they are less worth, but they supposedly don't exist.
Something you can prove empirically wrong dreadfully easily.

And like I said, this is 85 % of the argument here.

JERDOG

NO NO NO. People have differant views of what morality IS. Morality can only be true for all men that ever existed and that ever will exist across the board.(eg )The right to life. Not for some men some of the time. If thats the case, it is not moralty these people claim to have.

Alonzo Fyfe

Your tone of condescention is inappropriate, I believe.

Anyway, the fact is the phenomenology you discuss can be adequately explained in terms of beliefs about morality. Occam's Razor says that entites should not be increased beyond the minimum necessary to explain a phenomena.

Since beliefs about morality are sufficient to explain the phenomena, there is no justification for going beyond this to say that several different moralities exist (unless one uses the word "morality" as a shorthand for "moral beliefs").

Now, as for "getting back to basics," I have 12 years of college specifically in the field of moral philosophy. So, I am fairly confident in my ability to handle the basics.

Dr. Retard

This has all the signs of a depressing verbal dispute. Does "morality" mean "the set of customs that actually govern real-world societies" or "the set of customs that ought to be followed"? I don't care. Get out some subscripts. Call one of them "schmorality". Use attributive adjectives like "positive" and "normative". I don't care.

Gurdur

What I believe is that people should be willing to follow discussions ---- this specific discussion is not limited to this thread, and it's now over 1½ years old. I dislike having to repeat things.
Then you've just contradicted yourself.
You've now not only got a nebulous entity named "morality", you've now created an extra entity named "beliefs about morality", and you've simply added a level and a meta-level ---- unnecessarily in the course of this actual discussion, and furthermore you cannot simply brush off the empirical observation I cited using that,
That might be your opinion; I find it both wrong and begging the question.
Care to address the points I made in my post as to what he argument is about?
Plus your above argument is missing a fair few vital steps from your premise to your conclusion.

Then address them, please.
Since I also have academic qualifications, I'm none too impressed with an empty brush-off, and your meta-level viewpoint is hardly unchallangeable.