The Basis of Objective Morality

[The happy Objectivist]

Then you don't have objective morality. I guess you could call it hypothetical morality. I used to think the same thing, by the way. But I discovered that it requires a hidden premise to work, and that necessary hidden premise is impossible to justify.

What is that hidden premise if you don't mind?

It is true that I must act to continue living, but that is true regardless of what I want. Also, I might act in any manner regardless of what I want. Let's say I'm in a life threatening situation, but I'm frozen by fear of dying. I want to live, but I don't act. So you can't say I "must" act because I want to live.

Do you want to take the no food and drink challenge with Ken? It would be good to have the data from two people instead of one.

Are you sure you didn't mean to say, "If your goal is X you ought to do Y. If you want to live you ought to act."? You were telling me about bridging the gap between "is" and "ought" but you still haven't shown me any "ought" statement at all.

That is a perfectly acceptable change to my statement. If you want to live, you ought to eat.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Can you support that assertion?

Are bacteria conscious Larnievc? How about flatworms? Squirrels? Whales? Dogs? It is generally accepted that these creatures are conscious, i.e., aware of their surroundings, except I'm not sure about bacteria. Is there any evidence that any of these can form concepts? There are numerous studies that support my contention? I'm sure you can look them up. Even if I'm wrong it changes nothing about my post. It is a fact that man has reached the conceptual level of consciousness. It doesn't matter what other animals do, my post is about humans. What all these animals share is a need for values because they all face the alternative of life vs. death. They must all act to gain the values that they need, which values are determined by their nature. If they don't gain these values they die, go out of existence, become a pile of chemicals. After they die, they no longer need values any more than a rock needs values.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

This thread is about the factual basis of an objective moral code, not about moral principles. The facts I listed are what we need to grasp, plus a whole lot more, in order to start forming moral principles and if we are to discuss morality, how can we do that without using concepts? Morality is conceptual in nature.

Morality is based on how we treat people and our environment, its relational.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Morality is based on how we treat people and our environment, its relational.

Well of course it's relational. Morality relates to life. And of course, it relates to the environment. It relates to all the facts relevant to man's life. At least an objective one. But you claim that morality is related to how we treat people. Are you saying that morality has no metaphysical or epistemological base? You also seem to be saying that morality only applies to interpersonal relationships. Is this the case? Does not morality start with the individual? Does an individual need no morality if he is alone on a desert island?
Mine clearly does rest on metaphysical and epistemological facts so that alone disproves your claim. I mean all knowledge is knowledge of existence so all knowledge, including morality, begins with the recognition of the fact that existence exists which is metaphysical.

Edit: I thought I should clarify that when I use the term metaphysics I'm talking about the branch of philosophy that studies existence as a whole, I do not mean by it supernatural, or unknowable.

 

[Larniavc]

Are bacteria conscious Larnievc? How about flatworms? Squirrels? Whales? Dogs? It is generally accepted that these creatures are conscious, i.e., aware of their surroundings, except I'm not sure about bacteria. Is there any evidence that any of these can form concepts? There are numerous studies that support my contention? I'm sure you can look them up. Even if I'm wrong it changes nothing about my post. It is a fact that man has reached the conceptual level of consciousness. It doesn't matter what other animals do, my post is about humans. What all these animals share is a need for values because they all face the alternative of life vs. death. They must all act to gain the values that they need, which values are determined by their nature. If they don't gain these values they die, go out of existence, become a pile of chemicals. After they die, they no longer need values any more than a rock needs values.

So, 'no'?

 

[Larniavc]

Isn't that interesting.

It certainly is interesting that in the 21st century someone would un-ironically Ayn Rand.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

So, 'no'?

I've already said it's irrelevant. But I did a quick search to see and I could find nothing that indicates that dogs or any other animal has reached the conceptual level of consciousness on a scale anywhere comparable to man. Some animals like Dolphins, Dogs, Chimpanzees and some birds, and one Asian Elephant showed signs of being self aware. This does not surprise me. But there is no evidence that I'm aware of that any of these can form complex abstractions. If you are aware of any I'd love to see it. But like I said, it's irrelevant to my post. Man certainly does and can and that is a fact. Even if every other animal in the universe can reach it, it doesn't change a thing about human morality. So if you know of any research that shows that dolphins or Elephants or dogs can do math, write a sonata or understand star formation, please, post a link. I'd be really interested in that.

One piece of strong evidence is that animals repeat the same actions over and over, generation after generation without any change. There's no beaver dam innovations. There's no goose Aquaducts or irrigation ditches. There's no Elephant hospitals or inventions. Some animals have shown that they can use tools such as Chimpanzees and Otters. It seems that the great apes, of which class we belong show self awareness. Again, this does not surprise me.

 

[Ken-1122]

If you say so Ken.

It's not just because I say so, it's by definition. That which is objective is based on facts; that which can be demonstrated as true, Subjective is based on beliefs and perspectives.
Subjective vs Objective - Difference and Comparison | Diffen
If you disagree, provide a moral scenario that can be proven right/wrong based on facts.

 

[Moral Orel]

What is that hidden premise if you don't mind?

I'll show it to you in the last section of this post with your ought statement.

Do you want to take the no food and drink challenge with Ken? It would be good to have the data from two people instead of one.

Why? I acknowledged that I must act to live. That has nothing to do with what I want. If I want to die, I still must act to live.

That is a perfectly acceptable change to my statement. If you want to live, you ought to eat.

Okay, here's the hidden premise: "you ought to do what you want". And that premise must be true all on it's own, no conditional, no qualifiers. If/then statements are just mini arguments. If (the premise) is true, then (the conclusion) is true. But you can't actually get there with just one premise.

p1 You want to live
p2 You ought to do what you want
conclusion You ought to eat (or any other thing that keeps you alive)

You probably don't think it's necessary. But take a look at your mini argument if the opposite is true.

p1 You want to live
p2 You ought not do what you want
conclusion You ought to eat (or any other thing that keeps you alive)

It doesn't work, does it?

So the statement "You ought not do what you want" must be not true.
So the statement "You ought not do what you want" must be not true. Remove the negatives that cancel each other out.

Therefore the statement "You ought to do what you want" must be true. Is "You ought to do what you want" a demonstrable fact like 2+2=4? No, of course not and neither is any other "ought" statement, and that's why you can't get an "ought" from an "is". Every "If you want X you ought to do Y" has this problem. You have to establish that you ought to seek what you want as a fact.

 

[Larniavc]

write a sonata

Can you write a sonata?

 

[Larniavc]

One piece of strong evidence is that animals repeat the same actions over and over, generation after generation without any change.

You’ve never heard of birds in the UK developing the novel behaviour of stealing milk?

What is you level of education within the field of psychology?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Does an individual need no morality if he is alone on a desert island?

This question caught my eye.

Since the relationship between an individual and the environment surrounding them is also moral in nature, the answer would be no.

The way we treat the environment, how our actions affect us and others is core to morality.