No, as “hot” is subjective. If you have ever worked in a commercial kitchen you will quickly realise that experienced cooks and chefs can touch and hold pans and surfaces much hotter than an entry level beginner can tolerate.
Similarly steelworkers can tolerate and touch much hotter surfaces that a tyro will/can not approach.
However because “hot” is subjective to experience and neurological age it does not translate into an essentially philosophical argument. (physical arguments rarely do)
Yes, morality does depend on social mores around the individual whether “contracted” or not. Morality is subject to the constraints of society not the other way around, which would, indeed necessitate an outside or objective morality.
Your approach is utterly flawed. Find a better one.
Nope, you mean one may act on it, this has been your error from the first. You are citing the emotion as pernicious, but it is the act that may or may not be pernicious.
Indeed, but your error was in the first premise, we don’t just experience emotions, we also can use reason. Even addicts, people more predisposed to addiction than most, can still reason their way out of that addiction.
Using reason, which is entirely my point, emotions need not be pernicious, only our reactions to them.
Walking across the road can lead to negative consequences, so what? Eating causes short term pleasure, I do it at least three times a day, as long as my eating habits take my long term health into account, it need cause no harm, paradoxically not indulging this short term pleasure would kill me pretty quickly.
Not relevant to my point.
We each add purpose subjectively to our lives, but I see no objective evidence that our existence has some overarching purpose. We are one (very recent) species of evolved apes. Why would I think my existence is any more significant than that of a dung beetle?
I am not sure what point you’re making sorry?
Sometimes yes, anger is a complex emotion, but I try to use my reason to control my reaction to it.
You’re moving the goal posts of course, but I am dubious I have no means to satisfy it, and I can reason that one would need do it in a way that harms no one, including myself.
Firstly why is this a problem? Secondly I don’t think the last part is necessarily an a priori assumption, it might be a post ad hoc rationalisation.
What feeling?
I know a cake tastes nice, I also know it is likely loaded with sugar and fat, so eating too much is not a good idea. I see nothing Machiavellian in finding cake tasty, and though most humans have an emotional response to food, we also have our reason.
Why would I want my sexual desire to “cease to exist”? If you want that fine, but I don’t.
[quote=“Amatabhani, post:21, topic:5837”]
I have seen no reason to believe morality is objective, so perhaps you can offer at least one example of something that is objectively moral or immoral? No one has ever done so thus far. No human ideas can ever be infallible, os yes it follows that our morality must be flawed.
Not necessarily, you see morality is not just subjective, it is also relative, in your analogy one could easily imagine a scenario where touching a hot pan achieved a favourable outcome, more favourable than not touching it.
Maybe, I suggest you email Harris, as I am not bound by his ideas in any way.
I already know this, since I understand what an argumentum ad populum fallacy is.
Great, then please present one objectively moral or immoral act? Until you do I don’t believe morality is or can be objective. Though of course once we accept an act (subjectively) is moral or immoral, we can make objective claims about how best to practice what we (subjectively) believe is moral or avoid what we (subjectively) believe is immoral.
I was seeking to understand the limitations of objective morality, and I found your insights very enlightening. I was interested in exploring how emotions influence our actions, and how we can use reason and nonjudgmental mindfulness to control or choose not to act on them. Now I have a better understanding of the boundaries between faith and reason. Thanks.
“When you focus on winning an argument, you miss the opportunity to understand and connect.”
I am not here to win, I am just trying to understand things here.
I acknowledge your point and appreciate your understanding that I am reiterating what was mentioned before. we agree on this.
Have I ever said that it always happens?
“To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”
You questioned the dopamine levels, then discussed topics I didn’t mention. Help me, I fail to see the relevance.
I was trying to find out if there is one. I am fine with subjective morality as well. As a humanist I believe in Peoples ability to act morally.
even though some study suggests early life offenses lead to criminal behaviors 1., recidivism 2, Peak ages of as low as 13-16 3 I believe in their potential for redemption and moral behavior. A serial murderer could become a good person with appropriate guidance (not in all cases just to clarify before you argue on this, people with brain misformations, psychopaths cannot, they don’t have the capacity).
Makes me wonder if our moral behavior is innate, controlled by our genetics at least to a certain extent.
It is often said that culture and upbringing shape our behaviors, and this holds to some extent. For instance, individuals in Sri Lanka tend to be reluctant to kill insects, a sentiment not commonly shared in the US. A friend of mine, after visiting Sri Lanka, began to question whether killing bugs was wrong and consequently ceased doing so. The perspective that animals can be used by humans because they are considered a gift from God, and the acceptance of slavery, are views that some may argue stem from cultural differences. These viewpoints are sometimes utilized by Christian apologists in discussions about Christian ethics, and how they developed over time and emerged as humanism.
The question of whether one’s upbringing in Christian, Islamic, Judaic, Buddhist, or other religious traditions influences their moral values is complex. Similarly, the belief that morality is innate, at least to some extent, is a subject of much debate. What do you think, Do your moral values have cultural aspect and personal aspects? or does it solely depend on your reason?
However, I don’t see any theistic religions providing proper moral guidance, even with their so-called objective moral values. If killing is wrong, how can there be just war? You don’t have to make any arguments here, since you may as well agree on this and how dogmatism leads to evil.
I was drawn to Buddhism due to my upbringing in a Buddhist culture and the rational nature of its moral standards. It promotes personal responsibility and solidarity. Nirvana is described as a personal experience, not mystical or “religious,” nor is it a transcendental state achieved after death. Practices such as mindfulness and meditation can be utilized without any religious beliefs as explained by Batchelor, (1998)
Let me be clear on this. I mentioned this to illustrate that my moral perspective is influenced by Buddhist culture, not to suggest that anyone should adopt Buddhism or any particular belief system.
I believe that I don’t kill animals because of my cultural upbringing.
Does your cultural upbringing have any influence on your moral beliefs? Just give it a thought.
The notion that morality is innate is worth considering. Kantian ethics seem to revolve around this concept. We associate it with our ability for free and spontaneous action, viewing it as our “true self,” and thus, we are bound to acknowledge the authority of its core principle, the moral law. Kant contends in the Critique that the moral law requires no deduction in the technical sense, nor does it permit one, as its authority is already solidly rooted in the common moral consciousness as a “fact of reason.” (Read Critique of Practical Reason).
Kant argues that “the concept of good and evil must not be determined before the moral law… but only… after and by means of it” (p. 63). He contrasts his method with the traditional approach in moral philosophy, which starts with a conception of what is good. Kant believes that his method alone can establish the unconditional authority of moral principles. Traditional theories begin by presenting some end as intrinsically or self-evidently good, such as happiness, perfection, conformity with moral feeling, or divine law (pp. 40-41). From these objects, the theory derives practical principles, and their normative force stems from our presumed interest in these ends. Kant terms such theories as “material principles.”
Do you hold the Kantian perspective of morality?
what is your opinion, our moral values are not defined by cultural values and cultural definitions of good and evil?
So it’s limitations it seems, are that it doesn’t exist. Making moral judgments a subjective opinion.
They don’t have objective moral values? Their moral proclamations are subjective, as is the decision to follow them.
What is an irrational moral standard, can you offer an example?
It likely does, yes.
That is itself a subjective opinion of course, and I don’t believe it to be true, else we’d not need to enact laws, and build prisons, and morality would not vary drastically between cultures and eras.
Again this is a subjective belief, and again I know of no such moral authority, only subjective morality, the best we could hope for is a broad consensus.
I don’t believe “divine law” exists obviously, nor are any of those “self evidently” good, it’s likely that what made Hitler happy, would not make me happy, for example.
I think you must know how unlikely that is, given he was a theist, whom you have just quoted citing morality as stemming from “divine law”. I have already explained I don’t believe objective morality or moral absolutes exist, and I am an atheist.
I can’t speak for others of course, but no, my morality is likely not “defined” in this way. Good and evil are subjective terms, as I explained, and though my moral worldview likely must have been informed in part by cultural influences, I am free to set those aside if I don’t agree with them, and use my own reason, though my notion of what is right or wrong, remains subjective of course.
While I don’t believe that animal lives are as important as human lives, I do believe that animal suffering is relevant, and I am a strict vegetarian . . . and have been for years.
The only time I would eat meat is it was a matter of survival, like if I was stranded on a deserted island. I might also eat meat if I was eating an animal that was an invasive species, and had to be killed off to protect an ecosystem . . . but I still wouldn’t eat such an animal if it was being farmed in some way.
I do think it is utterly awful how humans have driven countless species into extinction because we don’t care, including animals like the Yangtze river dolphin, which may have had an intelligence that was comparable to human intelligence.
And I’m not singling out the Chinese for doing this, as there are only about 35 Vaquita porpoises left in the Baja gulf.
I feel like I owe the world vegetarianism when I consider these things.
Indeed, for example Hitler appealed to a divine authority, so we see that what people assign to divine authority can vary wildly, and ultimately is itself just a subjective religious belief.