On objective morality

[Deathraider]

Many people believe the notion that morality is objective, derivable from religion like god or reason. Typically many would argue there are inherent things that are good and bad, whether that is wellbeing should be maximized or something like a god given divine law.

However, morality cannot be derived fully from something objective for one important reason:

Hume’s Is ought gap:

Before we get into Hume’s is-ought gap, it is good to know a bit about how deductive reasoning works. Deductive reasoning takes axioms to derive conclusions. What does that mean? Well it works with logical implications. It looks at if P was true, then Q is true. That is a logical implication. And it’s a guaranteed truth. Now nothing tells us if P was true or not. I could say P is “Pigs fly”. Of course we know Pigs don’t fly, so that means whatever argument we made using that axiom P, we shouldn’t accept that argument. Now how is this related to morality? People often blame “cold hearted reason” for people doing immoral acts (like people often using A Modest Proposal). What they don’t realize is that reason isn’t actually to blame. If I derived a conclusion that pig bones must not be very dense off the axiom that pigs fly, then is it reason’s fault that led to such a conclusion? No. It’s just a bad axiom to start off with.

So what is this Is-ought gap? The is ought gap notices that you cannot derive an is statement from an ought statement. Suppose I wanted to convince you to donate money to help homeless people. I could cite some statistics that homeless rates are rising, people are starving on the street. I could mention teenage pregnancy. I could mention all of that statistics. But none of that really implies you must donate. There is no implication at all. An axiom required is that you want to help people in poverty. Without that, none of these fact mean anything. That’s why it make sense to say morality is as subjective as liking different vegetables (just that society puts more emphasis on morals). If I said I loved this certain food because it has broccoli and asparagus in it, many would be repulsed. Why? Because the fact that a food has broccoli or asparagus in it doesn’t say anything about whether it is delicious or not. Now if you like broccoli and asparagus, this argument would work.

In generality, an is statement (fact) cannot imply an ought statement (should).

This statement applies even if someone believes a divine god exist. Let’s suppose for a moment that a god existed. Or some source of morality, telling you how you ought to live. Say that it tells you that you have a moral obligation to do x. Well the first critic is “why ought you do x?” A response might be “Because god commands so and he’s all powerful!” or “You would go to hell!” or “Karma exist so act how you want to be acted upon.” etc. In general, one would say “Because reason y.” Now reason y is proposed as a fact. But the thing is that fact doesn’t imply anything you ought to do. Saying it’s god’s will says nothing about if you ought to do it. Or saying it’s what Allah teaches implies nothing about what you ought to do.

So what now?

Morality is subjective. Doesn’t that mean we can descend into pure anarchy then?

Not quite. Think about every time you have made a moral argument. You use a logical implication statement. Or anytime you needed to apply your morals in a situation. You used a logical I:plication statement. There’s something crucial about a logical implication.

The idea is that our morals should be logically consistent. If you held logically contradicting idea, then morals cannot be applicable. It cannot even be argued at all.

So in a world where morals are subjective, there are wrong moral systems. It is ones in which it is logically incoherent. So if you wanted to demonstrate how someone action is immoral, you need to work within their axiomatic system.

To summarize, because of David Hume, our morals cannot derive from facts. We need to form our moral axioms based on subjective emotion, but derive moral conclusions from logical implications.

[IlyaTheImpaler]

I think this is a completely intuitive phenomenon that is broader than moral issues.

"A ought to be" is clearly A + a measurement system. A moral system is a type of measurement system where A is evaluated to values such as good, bad, desirable, undesirable etc. So of course you can't go from (A) to (A + measured value of A) just by observing the world for data about A (such as `A is x`). Just like you can't get something from nothing. You can only go from (A + a measurement system) to (A + measured value of A).

When I was younger I didn't know why philosophers see difficulties and troubles everywhere they look. I know a bit about Hume, and boy he has a lot of problems with life :) and his problems seem to point out the limitations of deductive reasoning (the rational mode of thinking for people of his era, and many people of this era). How do we know that the sun will come up tomorrow based on deductive reasoning? we can't. How do we know what ought to be based on deductive reasoning? we can't.

While Hume just pointed out massive holes in our life that can't be filled with deductive reasoning, you champion deductive reasoning as the way to tell immoral action from moral action lol jk I think it is fine and many people already do it (or try their best to). Hume certainly doesn't have any objection against the deductive logic or rational thinking, he objects the logical validity of using deductive logic on descriptive statements to get moral statements.

However the idea that in order to show an action is immoral, you need to work within their axiomatic system, is simply moral relativism, you will find yourself tolerating action of a different moral system as long as it is logically sound (it usually is :) most dictators and villains are not that incompetent).

I think the real battle lies elsewhere, it's not about whether someone made an error when they measure something in their own system, or if the system has logical contradiction within it. I mean of course we would discard such system, but they are the easy cases. There are logically consistent moral systems that are also in violent conflict against one another (I think any good story should have them). The interesting question is whether there is a way to evaluate the measurement system itself. Hume says there is no way, moral rationalism says there is a way (they call it `a priori moral principles` or something).

In math and physics there are definitely bad axioms and bad postulates that are logically consistent, they are typically easy to tell, but good axioms and good postulates (better ones than what we currently have) are much more difficult to find, usually takes centuries.

This whole thing reminds me of Norm on vector space. Too bad, moral value of action doesn't work like norm value of a vector. Life would be much easier if it does. Imagine a linear structure on the possible actions, then we impose norm like properties on moral measurements :) Due to the interaction between the linear structure and the norm, various measures of moral values are equivalent: an action is immoral/moral in one system, is also immoral/moral in all other systems. Just like all norms are equivalent in finite dimensional vector space, a vector is smaller than another vector in L2 norm, is also smaller in L1, L3, L0 etc. norms. You have to be a true Platonist to see morality like norm of vectors :))

[IlyaTheImpaler]

I see that someone mentioned Ayn Rand with marked enthusiasm
"Most are turned off by the liberal brainwashing so I won’t blame you if you’re not into her"
lol this sounds like someone trying to promote a cult and is not very good at it. "it's super intricate and all worked out in details I can't explain in my own words just go read it kid", reminds me of Chris Langan's CTMU 😂

I'm sure there are people who aren't "brainwashed" who understand that Ayn Rand's objectivism is a meme, for example her fellow libertarian who read and understood her work:
http://www.2think.org/02_2_she.shtml

Ayn Rand acknowledged no superior, in the past, or in the future yet to come. Rand, who began in admiring reason and individuality, ended by ostracizing anyone who dared contradict her :)

Common signs of crackpotism:
- They redefine a lot of terms
- They believe they have solved the deepest problems in a field while refusing to acknowledge established theories
- Extreme hostility towards any criticism.

Here is an essay about her work and its importance in philosophy:
owlcation.com/.../The-Virtue-of-Stupidity-A-Critique-of-Ayn-Rand-and-Objectivism

(posted here because the cultist might delete my comment lol)

[IlyaTheImpaler]

hey man thanks for MHO, where are you on Linear algebra?

[Deathraider]

I’ve just been busy on school lately so with school off, I think I’ll be able to get back on reading.

[PrincessGrail]

I took a philosophy course when I was 12, but I spent most of the class daydreaming about the cute guy next to me. I do remember that Hume was an empiricist.

What about utilitarianism (the greatest good for the greatest number)? Isn’t that an objective standard?

[Deathraider]

Okay, but then that begs the question. So what if you’re saving the most lives? How does the statement “You will save the most live” imply any action like pulling the lever to switch the track for the trolley problem without an axiom stating “You ought to save the most lives.”

[PrincessGrail]

Jeremy Bentham assumed that people naturally want to help others if they can do so without too much cost or inconvenience to themselves.

[Deathraider]

Suppose his is statement is true, how does that imply an ought though.

You start to see the is ought gap. No matter how many facts you list, eventually need to also say something one ought to do.

[PrincessGrail]

If people feel the way Bentham thinks they feel, the ought statement follows naturally.

[Deathraider]

So people naturally want to help people. There are a lot of natural drives humans have. Does the fact that it’s natural imply that’s what you ought to do?

[PrincessGrail]

Yes.

[Deathraider]

Well what I have gave you is the naturalistic fallacy. Because it is natural to have sexual desire, yet you and I could agree if most people acted it out, it would be terrible.

The fact that something is natural, does not logically imply what you ought to do.

[PrincessGrail]

But people should act on sexual desire if they can, either by finding a private spot and masturbating or by having sex with their partner. In the same way, people should act on their impulse to help others if they can.

[Deathraider]

So does that apply to all sexual desires? If no, then there is some other axiom, something else, an implicit ought statement you are making.

[PrincessGrail]

I’m sorry. To paraphrase my Legal Ethics professor, no matter how much philosophy you spin, some things (namely rape and pedophilia) are wrong.

[Deathraider]

Well your tell you legal ethics professor about the is ought gap. Because the two biggest people he should know about ethics (although maybe it’s different for political ethics) is Immanuel Kant and David Hume. They’re basically what formed the foundation of modern western ethics.

I mean you could say that you have an opinion, that people should have consent on what you do with them, then derive that rape and pedophilia is wrong, but if someone doesn’t accept your axiom, they don’t go with your reasoning through.

There’s a big difference between truth and validity. Moral statement can only have validity within an axiomatic system.

[PrincessGrail]

If they don’t accept my axiom, they belong in jail. Or dead. And most judges and juries would agree.

[Deathraider]

Then you get into the entire idea of social contract. You basically agree to some benefits a government provide and you need to follow certain conditions as a result. But you can vote in people to represent you.

And for that matter, is what the state say necessarily what is the right thing to do? Think about that for a moment.

[PrincessGrail]

Questions like this are why even at 12 I preferred cute guys to philosophy. I gotta get to work soon. Have a great day 😊.

[PrincessGrail]

Thank you 😊

[Aguysopinion4799]

Is morality not relevant to the observer?
While there was a number of moments in the post that were too in depth for me, my opinion on Morals as a whole is as follows-

Society seems to believe that morals are all bound in unison and that if someone does something "Immoral" it is societies job to prove this...

But not everyone thinks the same and as such everyone's morals are different so how can society agree on morals you ask? Simple...
A) it doesn't
B) Society uses media to force society into believing there is only one way of thinking

But I could say I find slaughtering a animal for food to be a perfectly fine action so long as it is done humanely and eliminates any suffering, that's fine, but someone else may say that is completely not okay and that is their view. Society cannot pretend to say that there is only one moral for all, that is simply not true.

How about the fact society has tried to tell us that we should believe that murder is morally wrong, I don't plan on killing but hear me out okay? I have been told by the MINORITY, that the idea of killing our own species actually seems like a good idea considering how huge our population is and our only predator is ourselves so I thought about it and now the moral tide has turned :/

Sorry, I want to go further in depth but if I do this will become a miniature book and I already feel like I have gone off topic :/

[Deathraider]

Yeah, I don’t think any amount of fact can prove something you ought to do. You could cite a million homeless statistics and that may not convince a person to help other, not because of stubbornness, but because none of those facts actually imply the person should do something.

[Aguysopinion4799]

Yeah, I guess morality is something not as basic as once believed :/

[aa180]

Interesting take. I think I agree for the most part, but where you said, "In generality, an is statement (fact) cannot imply an ought statement (should).", what if we make the following is statements:

1. Humans are intrinsically equal.

2. Happiness is an inherent human goal.

3. Having a home and shelter is conducive of good health & overall happiness.

Why wouldn't it then be valid to draw an ought statement from these, namely that:

"Homelessness should be minimized and prevented."

Because this 'ought to' deduction would serve in favor of achieving what the 'is statements' stipulate, thus constituting an objective inference?
Because unless you wanna argue that statement #1 is a subjective axiom (even though I think everyone agrees with it), doesn't it give a valid reason why other people's happiness is equally as important as yours, and hence why you ought to care about them (since that would be consistent with the assertion that we're equal)?

Isn't it contradictory to make an objective claim, then act in a way that is inconsistent or which does not uphold that claim? In this case, that would be claiming that everyone's happiness is of equal value, but then only caring about yourself, particularly when you're in a direct position to help others become just as happy as you are. So such behavior seems 'objectively' immoral because it conflicts with its own axiom.

In conclusion, I still think there is an element of objectivity in morality, even if it is simultaneously influenced by a subjective outlook.

[Deathraider]

Again, we need to be extremely critical and there is a need to point out an important point.

A majority of people that hold an opinion does not make something a fact. Like say for example, most people want to do the act that is best for their health. That doesn’t imply that health is objectively what we ought to do. That doesn’t imply good health is THE right thing to do. And I think most people would understand that fact.

I mean it’s also important to point out the difference between human and person according to philosophy. Human is about biological. Personhood is what are all the things we ought to subject our moral treatment to. The thing is that personhood may include things that are not biologically human (say an alien race). Personhood may exclude things that are biologically human (say a human tissue cell).
And they’re equal in what sense? Moral treatment? I have to play devil’s advocate here, if someone doesn’t accept axiom one, then they don’t have to follow your conclusions from axiom one. Just because most people agree, that doesn’t make it objective.
We can treat it as though it is objective. If everyone in a group preferred pizza, we can treat it as a fact that we shouldn’t go to a salad bar.

Say for the sake of argument that axiom 1 was objective. Axiom 2 says that happiness is a human goal. It doesn’t say anything about whether we should strive for happiness. Furthermore, there are many ways of making people happy, some of which would mean devastating results for the environment. Is that moral now?

[aa180]

The axiom itself doesn't say whether we should strive for happiness, but what I was trying to argue was that it should be a logical consequence that if something has value, then it makes sense that we should strive for it (otherwise, what point is there in giving it any value?). So I was attempting to question your notion that an 'ought to' statement can never follow from an 'is' statement, which I'm not completely sure why it cannot.

And for your counterargument that some people's happiness will cost the environment some damage, I never said that human happiness is the only axiom we must follow, I just used it as an example. We could just as easily 'fill in' any missing components by updating our list to include, for instance, an undamaged environment, then act in accordance with all these axioms side by side.

The only thing which I think you're gonna say is that claiming that the environment is valuable is something subjective, but a healthy environment would improve the lives of everything that's alive including humans, so it's directly proportional to our own state of living, and hence our own happiness, which was Axiom 2.

[Deathraider]

Of course, then you would run into the problem of a potential contradiction.

And in particular situation, when you need to decide which axioms are used to justify what, don’t you pick and choose those axioms then. Because it would be unreasonable to let some die because that means one less person leaving a carbon footprint.
In that case, isn’t the way you choose those axioms are subjective?

If something is an inherent human goal, that says nothing about if it’s a good thing or not. You still need to say this goal is one we ought to strive.

All assuming axiom 1 is objective, which I’d argue isn’t.

[aa180]

Well yeah but I suppose you could qualitatively, if not quantitatively, 'measure' the benefits and harm that a person being alive would have on the environment, as well as in the grand scheme of things, and compare and weigh each case to decide which one adheres to the axioms more closely. Obviously in the real world, everything's a trade-off and you can't satisfy all the axioms completely at the same time, so you can think of what I'm saying as drawing a 'line of best-fit', and then letting that be your choice of action. So at least in that sense, it's not completely subjective in which axiom you might favor over the other in particular situations.

It may not say if it's a good thing or not, but we can simply conduct research and find out whether or not it's a good thing, which certainly wouldn't be subjective (e. g if it's good for our health or not). And our research can also help us determine which is the best method to achieve our goals, and we can base all of this on our axioms. Does that make sense?

[Deathraider]

Of course you did make a leap that increasing health is good. That again is an ought statement. A doctor can read every medical textbook, but none of those imply he should help a patient.

Health is a good thing to most people, but that doesn’t make them fact.

[aa180]

But then why value something if you don't think you ought to attain it? Why is it purely subjective to draw an 'ought to' connection? It seems like you're saying that the concept of good and bad is never objective, but I'm not sure that I completely agree.

[Deathraider]

Except not everyone holds the same values. Some people don’t value health. Valuing things itself is subjective.

[BlacklightShade]

I don't believe in an objective morality. I don't believe there is a divine creator judging all our actions. We do not have a 'purpose'. Our genes simply do what they can to survive. sometimes that means forming groups to increase the chances of survival. sometimes that means hunting and killing others. Sometimes that means forming philosophies that convince us to work together, procreate, and congregate every week under the assumption that there is someone watching over us so that we must self-govern in order to please this watcher.

[el_Te_de_la_Rosa]

I agree with "emotion" you mentioned at the end. Some people are not good at controlling themselves even if they know what is right/wrong. Some might have a serious problem in their prefrontal cortex. They can't be logical as human being are supposed to be. Anyways, we all rationalize our actions, thoughts; convincing others to understand us no matter how bad the behavior is. It's another topic though.

[genericname85]

you can arrive at objective morality if you first define good and bad. you can derive that from the obeservation of nature using logic.

it goes somewhat like that: everything that is alive seems to strive for survival not for death. that's an objective observation. with that we define things that support survival as good and things that hinder survival as bad. you can build a objective moral based on that fundamental logical structure.

[Deathraider]

Okay, but then that begs the question, how does those new definition suddenly imply what one ought to do?

[Deathraider]

I mean certain things do promote survival, and other things don’t, but whoever said survival is the standard? You see, that’s the ought statement.

[genericname85]

as i just said this i a logical observation. do you know any species that strives to die? no? me neither. therefore we define survival as the standard, since that's what everything in nature strives for. that's not begging the question. go out the door. look around. every being does it.

[Deathraider]

But they’re only alive because that’s the only ones we see. You haven’t actually derived anything we ought to do from those fact.

So if preservation of our existence is really what is moral, then not only is sacrificing yourself illogical, it’s immoral.

[genericname85]

dude we can observe dead ones, but there's nothing to observe cause they never do something, cause you know... they won't come alive again. from the dead we can only derive that that's the final state everything seems to end in that every being seems to avoid to the best of it's ability.

we have those beings alive and we have those that are dead. the dead do nothing but decompose. there's no observable behavior. no observable sentience. morals don't matter to things without sentience. morals only matter to beings that are alive and sentient. and to those that are alive and sentient, what i said does apply.

it's still logically coherent. sure it's not completely flawless but that's the best objective moral you're gonna get.

[Deathraider]

Suppose all of those are true, how does any of those fact say anything about what we ought to do?

[genericname85]

well obviously this would imply that we should do that which will support and foster life and avoid that which destroys and harms life.

[Deathraider]

Does it imply we SHOULD? How so?

[genericname85]

because if we didn't, that would inhibit what every being strives for and therefore be detrimental to life which i defined as bad in my initial statement. we cause negative interference, therefore it's bad and therefore we shouldn't do it.

[Deathraider]

Except that new definition you assign as “bad” now doesn’t tell us anything about whether we ought to do something or not. That would be an equivocation fallacy.

That objective observation still doesn’t imply that hindering survival is what we ought not do.

Careful with definitions.

[genericname85]

ugh dude. relable good with desirable and bad with undesirable and there you go. don't act as if you're smart when you're asking the question. i gave you the basic tool i'm not gonna derive the entire model for you. cya.

[Deathraider]

But is what we ought to do just about desires? If so, that’s an ought statement. I don’t think our drives is all we ought to do.

[Piteka5]

Morality is not that subjective, literally all cultures from the most advanced to the most tribal have the same base rules, don't betray people inside your group, don't kill any of them, don't take things that are not yours, unless you are stealing from the enemy, etc

[Deathraider]

So does opinions held by everyone make these opinions facts?

And suppose the most successful societies at surviving are ones who don’t do that. What does that imply you ought to do?

[morimeme1]

There are these base rules because they are derived from reason - they are beneficial to the survival of such a pack animal that is human. We do it because it benefits us not because it is an objective universal standard.

[Deathraider]

@morimeme1 So do we ought to do what is best for survival? Why do we ought to do what’s best for survival?

You given facts, but you haven’t shown why we ought to do it.

[morimeme1]

We don't have to do it but we do it because we want to survive, survival is our basic natural instinct. We deduce what is best for that need to be fulfilled and act accordingly. It does not make morality objective still. Really we just call these things "moral" when that is just the logical course of action. So again - morality itself is just a construct which is modelled by every society differently..

[Deathraider]

@morimeme1 Does everyone want to live though? Suicidal people exist.

Even if everyone want to live, is the idea of “Living is a good thing” objective or subjective? I mean if everyone agreed pizza is the most delicious food, it would still most certainly be subjective.

And does something being a natural instinct make it moral? You could say it’s a fact most people don’t want to die, but then you also need to say that the drive to live is a good thing, which again is subjective.

You see, that’s the is ought gap.

Have you read the satire “A Modest Proposal”? In that satire, a man calls to eat babies because it’s the most logical thing to do, listing out reasons why we should do it.

You see, reason is only as good as the axioms used to derive them. There’s a difference between truth and validity.

[morimeme1]

I know all that but that doesn't make morality any more objective. It is proven that suicidal people have chemical imbalance in their brain but well, if everyone wanted to die then maybe there would be no base rules. "Living is a good thing" is certainly subjective. We can list all kinds of reasons both pro and against. I never implied that something being natural inherently meaning it is moral, I pointed to the nature from where the concept itself is derived. Everything you said actually even further shows how most things are subjective including morality. In some culture perhaps they did eat babies and did not view it as anything bad. Yet they probably obstained from cannibalism further as there are certain biological measures that nature took to prevent members of the same specie from eating each other.

[Deathraider]

@morimeme1 I mean you could cite every mental disorder in the DSM-5, but none of those imply I ought to help someone with a mental disorder.

Morality, at its most basic, talked about what you ought and ought not do.

[morimeme1]

Yeah, just like laws but they were artificially created and exist only in out collective imagination, just the same as morality.

[Deathraider]

@morimeme1 So we agree?

[morimeme1]

That morality is subjective?

[Deathraider]

@morimeme1 Yeah.

[morimeme1]

Yep, that was my point all along.

[Kaazsz]

Well, Ayn Rand solved the is ought problem already. She shows that morals are objective and can be rationally defined. And she does exactly that! Might be fun for you to see how she thinks about morals.

[Deathraider]

Any particular passage of her’s you would like to cite?

[Kaazsz]

“It is only an ultimate goal, and end in itself, that makes the existence of values possible. Metaphysically, life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself: a value gained and kept by a constant process of action. Epistemologically, the concept of “value” is genetically dependent upon and derived from the antecedent concept of “life.” To speak of “value” as apart from “life” is worse than a contradiction in terms. “It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible.”

In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between “is” and “ought.”

I’m not sure if it makes sense without knowing about Ayn Rand first. Her quotes are not something you can just read and get an idea of what she’s saying.

But, she’s not hard to understand. The reason why you wouldn’t understand her is perspective. You have to first see her perspective to know what she’s talking about. Otherwise, if you just have your typical liberal or conservative perspective, you will interpret her words in whatever way you can. I am just saying, don’t do that lol. At least learn some about her. She’s not evil like they like to claim. She’s the best good that I have come across in this world lol.

[Deathraider]

Correct me if I am misinterpreting this, but what she is saying is that we all have a drive to preserve our existence, and through that, values are derivable?

That does pose a problem though. Firstly, not everyone prioritize preserving their existence. There are people who exist who want to end their existence. There are people who risk their existence for a cause. Secondly, even if we all have such a drive to do that, does it mean we really should try to strive to preserve our existence?

[Kaazsz]

That’s not what she is saying at all. I don’t know that it can be simplified. She works on axioms and defining every term she uses exactly. Her philosophy is not hard to understand. You just have to know about her a bit.

I don’t know that I can simplify it any further as she has already simplified things through the use of axioms and

[Kaazsz]

Oops hit post button on my phone by accident

[Kaazsz]

Anyways, it’s a huge system with a ton of interconnected concepts and ideas. It’s all woven together, I can’t really say much besides check her out and see if you’re interested. Most are turned off by the liberal brainwashing so I won’t blame you if you’re not into her. I think most of us just choose to sit back and wait for people to catch on because you can’t just convince someone to want to read Ayn Rand. Her way of thinking is directly counter to most of what we believe today and so it’s very hard for people to break that.

[Deathraider]

She holds the philosophy of ethical egoism.
In the first passage of The Objectivist Ethics, didn’t she say:
“An organism’s life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, and that which threatens it is the evil.”

So isn’t that just what I said?

[Anonymous]

If morality is subjective, and I am free, then you have no right to impose your morality upon me.

Therefore, if I deem it morally justified to kill a certain person, you have no right to convict me of murder based on the objective moral mandate that murder is wrong.

[Deathraider]

So then let me ask you, what are your moral axioms? And just because you think something is moral, doesn’t say anything about it’s legality. Morals and the law are two different things.

[Opinion Owner]

The law may not represent an individual's moral code, but it does reflect the general morality of a society.

[Deathraider]

So what?

[Opinion Owner]

So morals and the law aren't two different things. They're connected.

[Deathraider]

So what if the majority thinks a certain way? Is the opinion of the majority really what determines something is right or wrong?

[Opinion Owner]

That's not the real question. The question is whether the majority gets to impose their morality on those who don't see it the same way.

[Coryn-of-the-year]

Aren't you saying in the first part that logic in and of itself is untrustworthy, as premises cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt?
Also, isn't it true that there is a way of living that, undoubtedly, would lead to a more fulfilling and more enjoyable life?
I'm a Eudaimonist, for the most part. And Modus Ponens is a far cry from the only logically compelling arguments one can make.

[Jjpayne]

Interesting ideas. It is a bit over my head to think of in the moment. But you for sure are a great thinker and should take high school/college classes going in this direction and see if there are any clubs.

[Anonymous]

Morality is essentially a religious disease. I don't follow morality. It's certainly subjective and it doesn't mix well with logic. You always end up contradicting yourself if you dig deep enough. If you want what's best for everyone you don't need morals

[Juxtapose]

I just live and let live. I am nice to people because it makes life easier and feels good, but I don't go out of my way to save the maximum number of people possible.

When worst comes to worst, I'm going to act in self-preservation.

[No_Archons]

Morality is objective, it's one of the few things that cannot be argued. If you want the logical road to this, check out the UBP theory

[No_Archons]

Upb i mean, universally preferavle behavior

[Deathraider]

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=75

[No_Archons]

Send me an article where the author understands the theory he is criticizing, or better yet, respond with your own critique

[No_Archons]

It should be noted that I will believe in objective morality regardless of whether or not it can be logically proven (which it can)

[No_Archons]

Im also not an atheist, so if you think nothing exists that is not physical. matter then this conversation is over because it is pointless.

[No_Archons]

Lol just finished reading the whole thing, fuck whoever wrote that, how dare they criticize logic they can't even wrap their head around. I'd love to see him actually debate the man live

[Gedaria]

The Bible tells you all about feelings and consence. Like a moral compass...

[hugzy]

If still interested , look up Mat Dillahunty on the subject, I tend to agree with his point of view on the matter.

[Anonymous]

Morality comes from empathy, not from old religious books with a Stone Age mentality.

[tyepo]

nice, I love learning about this stuff : DD

[Secretgardenblood]

Interesting take