I can’t know if it is or is not. I can assume that my eyes … for example … have adapted quite well to “whatever” it may be. I can … for example … pick up a bow and arrow and, judging by my senses, shoot a bow with intention and arrive at certain results.
Is it there? Well. I can’t seem to walk through walls. Nor do the rocks I throw at it pass through. In a naive sense of the word “material” it is there, as far as I’m concerned.
In an abstract sense, it seems far fetched that anything is here at all. Where in God’s name did it come from in the first place?
But you only make that assumption based on past evidence and independent verification. When you do not use independent verification and experience you become ‘SCHIZOPHRENIC.’ Anything here sounding familiar? Adaptation occurs while dealing with what is real. You must, after all, ‘adapt’ to something. Even if you are merely adapting to schizophrenic delusions, it is the state of your own brain which you must adapt to. You do that with experience and independent verification. The fact that you even use the word ‘schizophrenic’ demonstrates social awareness and independent verification.
Oh dear oh dear, YOUR CONDITIONS, YOU CONSIDER, etc etc…I realise I’ve made a rod for my own back here, but can someone please help explain to him why those are subjective claims?
Yes.
No, we can all be a judge of that, but judgement is subjective.
In terms of moral judgements we would use both, though again cruelty and compassion are subjective, Hitler’s notion of when to apply compassion or to be “cruel” would differ to mine and yours, but we are all applying it subjectively. Our notions of what actions would be compassionate and what cruel would also differ, and again be subjective.
Of course, was it compassionate to go to war again Nazi Germany? It involved terrible violence that in the normal run of things those people would have found immoral, but morality is relative.
Not in terms of morality, because the aims of our morality are subjective, though we could make objective evaluations on how best to achieve this, it is objectively true that gassing victims in large chambers with purpose built crematoria caused less suffering to the sensibilities of the executioners, it is a subjective opinion this made it the more moral choice. Note how compassion for suffering here is relative and subjective, and not as you have asserted universal.
No, it is subjectively “good”, it cannot be objectively “good”. If it were the latter then we should all should have to agree.
Well of course he thought he was doing what was right, he even invoked a deity many times, in Mein Kampf he repeatedly claimed to be doing god’s work on earth, this was a European Christianity of course, and this religions had peddled centuries of antisemitism. The Jewish religion has been no less cruel to other religions of course, religions deal in absolutes, and religions, ideologies and people that deal in absolutes, are seldom good news for minorities and human rights.
Correct, we can however state that what he is ding is wrong, but only based subjective moral views we maintain are better ways to live.
Nope, the brain gets the stimuli from pain receptors, and “experiences” the pain, and interprets it as from those receptors. The receptors simply transmit stimuli, the brain does all the rest.
All emotions are interpreted by the brain to be either pleasurable or painful, and even these can subjective, masochism remember. Natural selection and survival of the fittest only lets only what is best suited to its environment survive long enough to pass those characteristics through the genes of the organism.
No, we can only evaluate them subjectively.
Well given the misuse of universal I’d ask you to explain exactly what you’re claiming before I respond, but it’s clear they exist as human emotions, so no they don’t exist as totalities unless you can objectively evidence this, and I am extremely dubious.
Yes and yes.
Would extend to, but yes. I am dubious such a sentiment is achievable other than in our imagination as the emotions described would necessarily differ from people we are most emotionally invested in to complete strangers we will never meet.
I am dubious it can be described as universal as the emotion would necessarily change from person to person, but we can imagine it, so it may be possible to experience an emotion and attach this meaning to it subjectively. Remember all emotions have a survival benefit or they would not have evolved intact, but evolution is insentient and is indifferent to suffering. We are not insentient, and so we can care about suffering, but it remains a subjective choice.
Ah but it does, we already established this when you described passionately, what you might do to someone who threatened your family. Emotions exist not because we choose them, they exist because at some point they held a survival benefit during our evolution, we are able to subjectively use them because they have evolved intact.
Excellent point, the brain in a jar, or complex AI computer programme. The Matrix is a popular analogy for this scenario. For any truth to be immutable we would have to know none of these scenarios was the case, and they are unfalsifiable concepts. the only rational position I can reason is to disbelieve all unfalsifiable claims, but to remain agnostic, and agnosticism is incompatible with immutable truths. So if my own existence is not an immutable truth, and even a genius of philosophy like Descartes can’t establish this as immutable, but based on a subjective albeit compelling axiom for the basis of all thought, then how can anything I experience as true be immutable, it cannot obviously. This is not to say we cannot demonstrate sufficient objective evidence to make claims irrefutable facts, but never immutable ones. There must always be room for doubt, even where we have no doubt, because no doubt is justified by the evidence we have.
Here you go AGAIN!!! Always taking about your rod!!! I’m sick of hearing about your rod!!!
And there’s no objective way to punish him for doing what he thinks is wrong (even though I think it’s right). Or … hold on. I’m confused.
So there is no intrinsic evil in the world? And there is no intrinsic punishment for doing evil? What I consider “evil” is good to … Hitler? Nothing wrong with it at all … as far as Nazis are concerned?
Well … maybe. Maybe the thought of Hitler exterminating non-Aryan races and conquering Europe meant a lot of suffering to others. The desire to minimize another’s suffering is the very essence of compassion!
On a serious note. You have no understanding of Hitler’s intentions when sending Jews to their deaths. His imperative was to kill as many as quickly. When the quotas weren’t to his liking, he asked the SS to go faster. They exclaimed that they were going as fast as they could.
Now. Yes. They could have mowed everyone down with machine guns and pushed them into mass graves, like they did in Bosnia not too long ago. Here nor there. The killing of humans entails the problem of getting rid of the bodies. And gassing large amounts of people after you’ve worked them to death in a concentration camp is a little more mysterious than mowing them down with machine guns. I’m sure that was the first thing they tried. Until they realized that bullets were more valuable in the guns of the soldiers on the western and eastern fronts.
On another serious note … I’ve visited both Birkenau and Auschwitz in my wife’s homeland of Poland. There was no feeling there. There was despair and mechanized massacre. Anyway. Let’s get back to topic!
Hmm. That sounds dangerously close to the sympathy that they “had it coming”. Of course, I’m not pointing any fingers. Just be careful what sentences you put next to each other.
Clearly there is no reward for compassion. In fact it seems there are more rewards for hatred, greed, and indifference. More money, women, clothing, power.
I’ll tell you a brief story of a reward I received an hour ago. A reward for kindness reciprocated with kindness.
I come to the same McDonalds around the same time every night for my lunch break. I order a large Earl Grey tea with three creams and I specifically pay 10 cents for a single packet of hot mustard.
Now, for the last three days my order has been taken over the intercom by the same pretty young lady.
Tonight, I decided to splurge and buy three packets of mustard - with complete indifference to who was taking my order.
When I pulled up to pay, it was the same young lady. I seized the opportunity.
“I’m feasting on Mustard tonight!”
Which isn’t true. I pack deli meat and season it with the mustard.
When she didn’t laugh, I explained sheepishly that I don’t just eat mustard. And … then she got the joke and laughed. And we all had a good time and then the party ended and I pulled up to the second window to pay for my tea and mustard.
Now. Ordinarily, the person waits for you to pay before handing you your food. But! This young man behind the window handed me the food and beverage first. I laughed again.
“Are you going to make me pay for this?!!!”
It was a joke. I had every intention of paying for my tea and mustard. Hot flavoured water and tasty sauces don’t grow on tress, you know!
He laughed. And didn’t say anything.
“I’m going to pay for that!”
I said, my mood suddenly growing quite serious.
“It’s okay,” he said.
“You’re the best!” I said. And drove away. That’s the kind of reward you get for being kind to strangers. Free food!!!
But it’s the nasty wolf who eats first and eats the most, isn’t it?
Oh! And you don’t feel it in your heart? How does the brain convince you it’s somewhere other than the brain, Einstein???
Ah! Surely there must be an “evolutionary” reward to values like compassion and love?
Well, then why am I wasting my time with love and compassion? There is no reward!!!??? What a scam! I’m going back to hatred and indifference!!!
Mmm. I get the impression it’s like another “dimension” for you. So, no. I’ll keep it to myself. We can end the subjective meaning of those words in another thread on the meaning of words.
Yeah. I tend to cater more to the ugly people. You know. Those people with crooked teeth and wonky, spread out eyes. They’re the ones I’m usually trying to impress the most (survival of the fittest and all).
Sure. But no. My emotional attachment to my family might induce anger in me at the sign of some stranger threatening them.
My appreciation for “immeasurable” love (let’s call it) - when I invoke it - would, in such a circumstance, lead to a different attitude and behaviour. Much like I don’t respond automatically to everything you and I have been saying over the course of this debate.
My response will depend a lot on how I’m feeling at the time. I take personal responsibility to cultivate good emotions.
Interesting you should say so. I, in fact, make coordinated efforts to be a better person.
I always found it rather convincing. You can’t be tricked into believing you exist (or be tricked by the Matrix/whatever), if you do not exist. Accordingly, if you think you exist, you must exist (although you may be gravely mistaken about the details of your existence, you could be in the Matrix/etc).
Why are you confused, it’s pretty simple, human morality is subjective, it cannot be otherwise. look here:
You consider, your conditions to be morally superior, those are quite demonstrably subjective claims. No demonstration of objective evidence x is good and y bad as it does not exist.
only subjective views about what is evil, and subjective notions about how they should be punished.
You’re missing the point, both your opinions on what is good or bad are subjective, and cannot be otherwise.
Exactly, so you seem to have answered your own questions here:
So to recap, far from being a universal standard for objective morality, love and compassion can motivate us to be violent and cruel, and we set aside what we consider to be immoral, because it is as you yourself stated above relative.
[quote=“rat_spit, post:165, topic:3721”]
On a serious note. You have no understanding of Hitler’s intentions when sending Jews to their deaths.[/quote]
You’re very wrong again.
My statement implied nothing of the kind, and your accusation is unfounded and unjustified,
I think my grasp of language is at least as good as yours, and you are very wrong here. I’d also appreciate it if you refrain from accusing me of antisemitism ever, as it is utterly baseless.
Nope, the brain gets the stimuli from pain receptors, and “experiences” the pain, and interprets it as from those receptors. The receptors simply transmit stimuli, the brain does all the rest. My mind is a product of my brain, they are not autonomous of each other, so the question makes no sense, nor am I clear what you think is “somewhere else”?
Reward is not the right word, if gives a benefit to surviving long enough to reproduce then ispo facto it is more likely to be passed on. Evolution and natural selection is an insentient process it neither rewards nor punishes in the sense we understand those words.
Are you moral only in the anticipation of reward? Are you never indifferent, do you never hate? If so that would remarkable, but I am dubious.
What is “another dimension”? If you keep it to yourself then I can’t comment any farther, not without you accurately defining what you mean.
Their meaning is not entirely subjective, it reflects common usage, though this can be influenced by subjective opinions over time.
So not no then, but yes in fact, your love and compassion can also can motivate violence and cruelty, as it can in all of us.
What does that phrase mean, I know what each word means, but they seem incongruous alongside each other? What type of love are we talking about for a start.
So not based on objective morals at all then, but relative to your mood and demeanour.
Indeed, exactly as I said, I’ve emboldened it for you.
Yes, that’s a better wording, when I said our existence was not an immutable fact, I should have said our existence as we perceive it is not an immutable fact… That “something” exists seems a rational deduction from thought. Though given the finite nature of the temporal universe I’m not sure even the claim that “something exists” can be claimed to be immutable. Do we know whether it is possible for nothing to exist for example, and even then since only science seems likely to provide an answer, that claim could never be immutable.
I disagree, I would say objective morality exists, you simply need a reliable foundation for determining what is and isn’t moral.
As CosmicSkeptic mentions in many of his YouTube videos, Objective morality can be achieved socially, and culturally, by using well being as a foundation.
If your actions have negative consequences to another’s or your own well being, they can decidedly be labelled as objectively immoral.
What IS subjective here, is whether or not an action’s immorality, outweighs the importance of the message, for example, Someone has just lost their loved one, and are dealing with grief, but not in a healthy way, they are hiding their head in the sand and believing they will see them again.
Is it moral or immoral, to start to make them question their beliefs at that moment in time?
It could be argued it is immoral, because it would effect that’s person well being, to have to lose their belief system and a loved one simultaneously. Which could have drastic consequences, or not.
But it could be argued it is moral, because you are attempting to help them with their grief in a more healthy and productive approach.
In my opinion, there are many nuances, but overall you can have an objectively moral compass.
That reliable foundation would be subjective though. I agree that once you have a subjective moral foundation, then you can make objective assertions about how best to achieve it, but the morality would still be subjective.
I don’t see how, since it is a subjective opinion that harming others is immoral, or that promoting general well being is moral. One could argue that they would prefer a world where people cared about the well being of others, and strive to avoid and where possible prevent all unnecessary suffering, I certainly would agree, but that remains my subjective opinion of course.
Agreed, since human morality is limited only by our evolved brains, which seem to have a massive capacity for imagining what ways are best to live.
I am dubious I must say, as all moral choices seem to be subjective to me. The best we can get is a broad consensus that life is made more bearable by avoiding some behaviours, and practising others, but even the notion that life should be more bearable is a subjective one of course.
I would say can be, rather than is. However the innate idea that a deity has given us immutable moral absolutes is in my opinion a dangerous one, especially since those notions of morality are derived from archaic patriarchal Bedouin societies, and would demonstrably not be entirely suitable for 21st century post industrialised democracies.
For those who claim that divine moral diktat exists I usually offer this rationale. If we can recognise that something is objectively moral, then we wouldn’t need divine diktat, and if we can’t then blindly following those rules would not be morality, we’d simply be amoral automatons blindly following a set of rules, and this assumes anyone could objectively evidence a deity, or that it had made moral proclamations. Even “good” Nazis managed to blindly follow a set of rules. I’d far rather we derived our morals from questioning and scepticism, than blind obedience, as I think it will be more likely to reduce suffering overall, and it is my subjective opinion that avoiding and where possible preventing all unnecessary suffering is “better” then the alternative.
And how do you choose that foundation? Is it Buddhist, Islamic, Christian, Catholic, Zorastrian, Voodoo, or Other?
“Well Being” is subjective. Once you choose a subjective foundation, an objective analysis can be made. Assuming you agree only. Two people can play the game of chess. One with the subjective goal of winning and the other with the goal of pissing off the guy who is trying to win. Both play the game, but the subjective goal is different. There is nothing objective in the game unless we agree to follow the rules. The main rule being, the goal of winning the game while following the rules of whatever organization is running the match. Morality Can’t Be Objective, Even If God Exists (Morality p.1) Cosmic Skeptic.
Brilliant, kid’s a genius, and I say that with all humility, and not because he has just espoused precisely my own thoughts in that video. Though of course, that is also a subjective claim, damn it…In all sincerity I wholly agree with everything he said, his views on this are exactly my own.
I used to have a recurring nightmare that started when I was–perhaps–5 years old, and happened with some regularity until I had it the last time when I was about 13 years old.
Small children often have trouble distinguishing between fantasy and reality . . . and at 5 years old, I was no exception.
My parents were taking an afternoon nap, and I was watching some movie on television. I saw a scene which was very, very graphic and intensely disturbing (to a 5 year old, at least) of a couple slowly drowning and dying in quicksand.
Now, I knew that the evening news was real, so I guess I figured that this was real as well. I couldn’t talk to my parents about it because I was “being stupid” . . . and this is when I developed an overpowering phobia of quicksand, which I had to be ashamed of and keep secret.
This (perhaps not surprisingly) became incorporated into a very specific nightmare that involved a precise narrative.
I was flying in a rocket to a planet (just like Earth) where the quicksand is much worse than on Earth . . . and it was called supersand instead of quicksand.
My whole family is in a large house and–during a bad storm–the house is pulled off its foundations (there is a rope–like an anchor–with one end in the supersand bog and one end attached to the foundation of the house) into the supersand . . . and everyone dies. The supersand was–somehow–pulling on the rope, which dragged the house into the bog. This is the usually the point where I wake up screaming.
This dream could also be a serial dream where I wake up in the middle of the narrative . . . and then it resumes the following night exactly where it left off. Another feature of this nightmare is the odd quality of participating as a first-person character while–at the same time–observing from a distant, omniscent vantage point.
When I was a small child, I sometimes tried to avoid fishing trips and camping, even though I love the outdoors . . . because of an obsessive fear of quicksand. Part of this probably came from my autism, as autistic people take things very literally.
As an adult, I’ve tried to track down the movie (using the Internet), so I could rewatch it from an adult viewpoint . . . but I’ve been unsuccessful. I discovered (according to a scholarly paper on the subject) that quicksand appears in about 3% to 4% of all movies made in the 1960s.
And the utterly ironic thing about my particular neurosis is that it is physically impossible for any human to really die in quicksand unless you’re carrying a heavy object like a rifle or a backpack, or maybe drown if you pass out drunk and fall face-first in it. This fact has to do with the specific gravity of quicksand and the density of the human body . . . rather like how it’s impossible to sink while floating in the Dead Sea in Israel.
This nightmare was a significant factor that shaped a large part of my life in my formative years, and I remember the narrative and details as clearly is if I had the dream 5 minutes ago.
Writing about this was very cathartic, so thank you.
Yes and no. It depends. If it happened 7 years ago, and it is still on your mind, “Yes.”
That has nothing to do with the dream. Dreams are expressions of emotional states.
First Question: Did your parents divorce? (Referencing the quicksand dream.)
My assumption: You were aware of the marital conflict but could say nothing about it. Even if the result were not a divorce, this may have been the case. You were a little kid, and it was not your place to comment.
House being sucked into a bog. A very similar theme. The destruction of the family. ‘Hanging on by a thread.’ Being a first person character makes sense as you are a member of the family observing what is happening. (You could have simply had a free floating anxiety about losing your family and nothing was happening. Only you know what was going on in your head at the time. The theme seems fairly clear. IMO At least, this is the question I would initially ask, as I explored.
So, did you relate the movie to the loss of your own parents, and then being autistic, ruminate on that possibility to the degree that it interfered with your future decision-making?
HERE IS A FUN ACTIVITY,
Get a small notebook out and write a question. Why did I have this recurring dream. Then write the first answer that comes into your mind. Below that, no matter what you write, write, 'That’s not it. And then write a different answer. Write anything and everything you think of no matter how silly. Just keep writing. Even when you can’t think of anything to write, make shit up. Just write. Don’t think about coming up with the right answer. Think about coming up with all the possible answers. If the right response shows up, you will know it instantly. Give it a try. It shouldn’t take more than an hour to an hour and a half out of your life, and it just might solve a mystery.
