Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    Senior Newbie
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    156
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Objective morality does not exist

    How can objective morality even exist without consciousness? It strikes me as an impossibility because there would be no way to determine right from wrong without a conscious being. Furthermore, this consciousness would be dependent on experience in order to determine what is wrong and what it isn't, which means that their very understanding of morality is dependent on experience and observation, which seems to suggest that their sense of morality would be completely subjective; making objective morality an impossibility.

    It's a paradoxical hypothesis that is routinely used in the support of god.



  2. #2

    Default

    To me that's like saying that there's no such thing as mathematics, because they require a universe in which the maxims and principles have to exist, and these maxims must be derived from natural activity. True, but well... silly. And unlikely as it is, we live in that kinda universe.

    https://en.*********.org/wiki/Ethical_calculus

    https://en.*********.org/wiki/Ethical_naturalism

    Also, I have antisocial personality disorder, so I've always held that morality is empirically and logically derived and doesn't just arise from subjective sentiments, but instead the collective subjective sentiments of sentient beings, and that there is a science or philosophical subdiscipline of ethics, which is intended to maximise or optimise the wellbeing of sentient subjects, which attempts to ground itself in the most naturally derived, universal principles it can. I don't have empty, subjective values: they could hypothetically be arrived at even prior to, after and without the existence of consciousness, like any natural law. And if I get the tone of your OP correctly, you think there's no point in an academic discipline of ethics because relativism makes sense.

    What are you trying to arrive at? A debunking of the categorical imperative? You're two centuries late. Of course ethics requires the existence of human beings and their conduct/behaviour as a basis for calculation, but since we already exist as sentient subjects those calculations are binding and in some degree absolute.

    Otherwise: yeah, so what? Should Singer retire finally? Does the spuriousness of pure ethics invalidate the disciplines of meta-ethics and applied ethics? xD

    Would you say that objective history and objective psychoanalysis don't exist, either?
    Last edited by jeneregretterien; 05-25-2017 at 09:26 AM.

  3. #3
    Senior Newbie
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    156
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default




  4. #4
    Speechless
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    smoll cute little bunnies with baby noses and floppy ears
    Posts
    16
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beeeee View Post

    how are you contributing in any way to the debate forum

    why even click on this thread if you're just gonna post a pic


    smh

  5. #5
    Intermediate Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Kekistan
    Posts
    355

    Default

    Successfully dividing by zero anyone?
    How much nuffin did a dindu do if a dindu dindu nuffin?

  6. #6
    Adult Chat Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    not here that's for sure
    Posts
    2,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beeeee View Post
    Didn't read cos didn't understand more like.
    ​*Genuine

  7. #7
    Intermediate Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Kekistan
    Posts
    355

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beeeee View Post
    Teal deer it because of no pictures?

    I think answer is yes.
    How much nuffin did a dindu do if a dindu dindu nuffin?

  8. #8
    Not even a newbie yet...
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    In the country near Battambang
    Posts
    43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dindu Nuffin View Post
    Successfully dividing by zero anyone?
    I've wondered about that. There is no answer to the square root of a negative number, so mathematicians came up (discovered? invented?) imaginary numbers, and I am told they are useful.

    Why not do the same with numbers divided by zero? Call them "z-numbers" so 3/0 = 3z and so on. Seems to me any mathematical expression has to have a meaning, and an entire arithmetic or Cartesian graphing system could be based on it. Please, no lecture about the consequences of saying the answer is infinity -- it is not infinity -- infinity is not a number.

  9. #9
    Not even a newbie yet...
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    In the country near Battambang
    Posts
    43

    Default

    That seems uncivil and maybe even rude. Sometimes complicated things take time to state. If you aren't interested, go on to the next one -- no harm. This might be harmful.

  10. #10
    Not even a newbie yet...
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    In the country near Battambang
    Posts
    43

    Default

    [QUOTE=jeneregretterien;5023884]To me that's like saying that there's no such thing as mathematics, because they require a universe in which the maxims and principles have to exist, and these maxims must be derived from natural activity. True, but well... silly. And unlikely as it is, we live in that kinda universe.

    https://en.*********.org/wiki/Ethical_calculusThere are four things that I've thought of (no doubt others that I miss) that I just take for granted -- you can't demonstrate they are true or they are false and so a cynical type can use to deny basics. These are that mathematics exists on its own without us, the right and wrong (ethics) exists on its own without us, that things (physics) exists without us, and that at least sometimes we have the ability to exercise something we call "free will" (although not always -- there are limits, such as dividing by zero. I take them as true because doing the opposite achieves nothing except make one seem in one's own eyes sophisticated and because if they don't exist as such we may as well hang it up.

    I just got a message that my message is too short, so here are some more words.

  11. #11

    Default

    I totally agree that makke objective morality an impossibility.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beeeee View Post
    How can objective morality even exist without consciousness? It strikes me as an impossibility because there would be no way to determine right from wrong without a conscious being. Furthermore, this consciousness would be dependent on experience in order to determine what is wrong and what it isn't, which means that their very understanding of morality is dependent on experience and observation, which seems to suggest that their sense of morality would be completely subjective; making objective morality an impossibility.

    It's a paradoxical hypothesis that is routinely used in the support of god.
    I know you were really really high when you made this post. Most people won't take it for what it is but I will.

    Your subconscious can't hate itself but it hates the conscious side of you. You hate yourself in other words. You need to make peace with what ever it is that zapped you pretty quick because you are the only thing that's going to keep you alive in the end.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
© 1999-2017 - #1 Chat Avenue - Free chat rooms for adults, gays, kids, singles, teens and more.
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:19 PM.