35 replies to this topic

[EmbraceUnity]

I concur that my existence has no value and no meaning. However, the breaking-point of your "counter-argument" is that neither is there a point in my non-existence.

True, except that you have chosen to continue existing and thus derive some value from it, somehow. Unless you can honestly tell me you flipped a coin on the matter.

You did not claim morals are universal per se, however, you entertained the thought that "99% of humans who have ever lived [might] have been immoral" if Progressive's premise were correct. I countered that morals are not only relative but also transient. In any case we can't judge the people of yesterday by the moral codes of today.

If 99% of humans are immoral according to a moral code, that fact alone doesn't impact the validity of the code. 99% of people are not immortalists, but that doesn't mean we're wrong. This is the fallacy of "argumentum ad populum." Clearly 99% of people at certain times thought the earth was flat, slavery was good, and that Zeus condemned souls to Hades. That is all irrelevant.

Furthermore, assuming people were immoral*, does it matter?

If value exists, it matters.

Furthermore having some form of empathy towards humans does not dictate any empathy towards a different species which cannot even communicate, understand or respect the "rights" we want to give them.

Anyone who can accept the most basic premises of science must accept the notion that it is not the arbitrary distinction of "human being" which is valuable, but rather, as you alluded to earlier, it is the neurochemical patterns which create subjectivity. That is assumed in the idea of information theoretic death, which you mentioned. We must respect any pattern which is similar enough to produce states which could be deemed "happy" or "suffering."

The similarity between all vertebrates is striking. While we don't know enough about consciousness to say precisely what is occurring, we can place very high probabilities upon the likelihood of their suffering given all the behavioral and structural similiarities. To be quite honest, it is only the behavioral and structural similarities that inform us of the value of other human beings, so to ignore these same indicators for animals is so insensitive as to be deemed cruel. We must also take into consideration the fact that we are talking about billions upon billions of creatures which have been and are continuing to be brutalized via factory farming.

You seemed to ascribe way too much importance to "morals" in this sentence, even though you apparently concur that they're just "a tool", which I simply wanted to put into perspective.
*and yes, people in the past were pretty damn immoral going by today's standards, not only when it comes to how they obtained their food. As Dawkins eloquently put it, Hitler's genocide wouldn't have really stood out in the times of the Roman Empire.

No matter how horrible the atrocities of the past have been, they do not diminish the moral significance of anything presently occurring. Furthermore, if value exists, then we are responsible for suffering even if we are not the cause of it. David Pearce takes this concept to the logical conclusion and posits that we should restructure the ecosystem using advanced technologies in order to eliminate suffering in all sentient life.

http://www.hedweb.org

Edited by progressive, 09 June 2009 - 06:52 PM.

[JLL]

That's the reason why people should always define what they mean with the words they use... I suppose we agree that absolute morals do not exist. I can merely agree that morals exist in a "descriptive sense" as Wikipedia defines them, making them just a set of pragmatical rules to achieve certain goals, but the word moral is way to laden, which is why I try to avoid it. E.g. implying they're something that we all can or should be able to agree on...

You did not claim morals are universal per se, however, you entertained the thought that "99% of humans who have ever lived [might] have been immoral" if Progressive's premise were correct. I countered that morals are not only relative but also transient. In any case we can't judge the people of yesterday by the moral codes of today.
Furthermore, assuming people were immoral*, does it matter? You seemed to ascribe way too much importance to "morals" in this sentence, even though you apparently concur that they're just "a tool", which I simply wanted to put into perspective.
*and yes, people in the past were pretty damn immoral going by today's standards, not only when it comes to how they obtained their food. As Dawkins eloquently put it, Hitler's genocide wouldn't have really stood out in the times of the Roman Empire.

It's important to note that while I do not claim there are absolute morals (in the sense that there is some kind of concept of morality echoing through the eternities), I do claim that morals are not subjective but objective. This stems from the fact that morals are, as you very aptly put it, "a set of pragmatical rules to achieve certain goals".

To say that morals are subjective doesn't really mean anything. It'd be like saying "yes, gravity exists, but when I jump from a building it's subjective whether I fall down or not".

[EmbraceUnity]

To say that morals are subjective doesn't really mean anything. It'd be like saying "yes, gravity exists, but when I jump from a building it's subjective whether I fall down or not".

Subjects create value, by definition. We are the only things capable of deeming this universe of ours to be complex, beautiful, etc. If there were no subjects to do so, it would all be a bunch of worthless floating rocks.

The only morally significant effects of jumping from a building are the subjective effects. Who cares what happens objectively? Unless it is directly relevant to a subjective experience.

Edited by progressive, 10 June 2009 - 04:36 PM.

[CobaltThoriumG]

To be clear, personally, I support humane treatment of animals and other people. But are you saying that suffering is objectively bad? Without suffering does the absence of suffering have any meaning or value? If it does not or if it has less, then suffering could not be said to be entirely bad and could be said to be at least partially necessary. Whatever bad is anyway.

[EmbraceUnity]

To be clear, personally, I support humane treatment of animals and other people. But are you saying that suffering is objectively bad? Without suffering does the absence of suffering have any meaning or value? If it does not or if it has less, then suffering could not be said to be entirely bad and could be said to be at least partially necessary. Whatever bad is anyway.

Suffering is any form of involuntary pain. It can only be good if it helps to eliminate future suffering or promote future happiness. However, considering both happiness and suffering are neurochemical states, we can learn to create happiness at will. Now, some people enjoy emotional contrast and rollercoasters of emotions. I think that is reasonable, but we could simply raise the rollercoaster's altitude higher. This should be as obvious as the question of whether people should be allowed to live indefinitely.

Edited by progressive, 10 June 2009 - 10:25 PM.

[JLL]

To say that morals are subjective doesn't really mean anything. It'd be like saying "yes, gravity exists, but when I jump from a building it's subjective whether I fall down or not".

Subjects create value, by definition. We are the only things capable of deeming this universe of ours to be complex, beautiful, etc. If there were no subjects to do so, it would all be a bunch of worthless floating rocks.

So what? If you still agree that floating rocks exist without us, then they objectively exist. Anyway, the whole "nothing is objective" argument (which I hope you're not promoting) is getting older than Methuselah, so let's not go there.

What I'm saying is that morals are not like, say, whether chocolate tastes good or not. The taste of chocolate (or, the goodness of the taste, to be precise) is purely subjective, while the link between a moral rule and the goal of morals (if one accepts the goal) is measurable and objective. Of course I can say that "chocolate tastes objectively good", but that's nonsense in the same way that "killing everyone is moral" is nonsense.