Objective morality

Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.

Moderator: Metacrock

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: Objective morality

Post by Metacrock » Tue Aug 21, 2012 8:06 pm

hey James good to see you here. Glad you could make it.

I think ESI is a myth. It's true that at times self interest is in line with the good but it's not true that that is a realizable to determine the good.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

James S Saint
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 3:05 pm

Re: Objective morality

Post by James S Saint » Tue Aug 21, 2012 8:32 pm

Metacrock wrote:hey James good to see you here. Glad you could make it.

I think ESI is a myth. It's true that at times self interest is in line with the good but it's not true that that is a realizable to determine the good.
A "myth"? In what way is it a myth?

If by ESI, you are referring to any over focus upon oneself, I would agree that such is not the path to "the good". But on the other hand, a properly balanced focus between the interests of others as well as your own, is all but the very definition of being "holy".

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: Objective morality

Post by Metacrock » Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:02 am

James S Saint wrote:
Metacrock wrote:hey James good to see you here. Glad you could make it.

I think ESI is a myth. It's true that at times self interest is in line with the good but it's not true that that is a realizable to determine the good.
A "myth"? In what way is it a myth?

If by ESI, you are referring to any over focus upon oneself, I would agree that such is not the path to "the good". But on the other hand, a properly balanced focus between the interests of others as well as your own, is all but the very definition of being "holy".
why would your own interest be part of the Holy? I don't think enlightened self interest is historically just the inclusion of self care, or what is good for one, but is an ideological bromide that represents the sentiments of the early capitalist class. Read the history of the phrase.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

Robin Yergenson
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 6:00 pm

Re: Objective morality

Post by Robin Yergenson » Sun Sep 23, 2012 5:52 pm

Hi James,

I wish I had seen your post sooner. I have had very little free time this past few weeks. Hopefully that will turn around as we move into the cold season.

It’s good to hear that this thread is one of your favorite subjects. It’s one of mine too. Your concern about the term "enlightened self interest" is valid. Reducing it to “a lack of consideration for others” definitely falls short of the intent. Your "Inclusive Self-Harmony" where your intent is "an active harmony of life both within and surrounding oneself" - "Inclusive" sound pretty good. You say,
Objective morality is entirely an issue of always being in the process of affirming self-harmony…So the end result of such effort resolves to merely reducing the suffering as much as is possible while ensuring survival.
If, rather than starting out of the chute by misrepresenting "enlightened self interest" with “a lack of consideration for others,” we correctly associate "enlightened self interest" with a rational being’s grasp of facts that are relevant to that which benefits that rational being, and if we recognize that as rational beings, our success at arriving at an accurate knowledge base for guiding our choices and actions correlates to a great degree with our ability to be rational, in particular, to correctly associate and integrate effects with their causes, then isn’t this rational grasp of reality first and foremost what rational beings ought to do? And isn’t the reason entirely consistent with note 7 of my original post:

7. As a rational being wondering (in a philosophical since) what to do, the benefits motivating that being to act are with respect to him/herself as the actor, not “the good of society.” Society benefits from that being’s moral action because it is first and foremost beneficial to that being. Morality is therefore rooted in rational self interest, not society’s interest. Society is not the one willing and acting, rational beings are.

And if so, isn’t it very important to differentiate between “self interest” as being at bottom and “society’s interest” or “the surrounding environment’s interest” or “the harmony of life” as being at bottom? I’m thinking that it’s really important to know what’s at bottom, what’s the basis for determining benefit and value and the actions required to obtain it, don’t you? If the benefits motivating the actor to act are with respect to him/herself as the actor, doesn’t “self interest”, “self benefit” as defined by reality itself capture what is most essential to defining that actor’s actions? What part of my original post did you want me to provide more definition, more explanation for? And if you understood my intent but just disagreed, what part did you disagree with?

Rob

User avatar
met
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Objective morality

Post by met » Sun Sep 23, 2012 6:12 pm

Robin Yergenson wrote:And if so, isn’t it very important to differentiate between “self interest” as being at bottom and “society’s interest” or “the surrounding environment’s interest” or “the harmony of life” as being at bottom? I’m thinking that it’s really important to know what’s at bottom, what’s the basis for determining benefit and value and the actions required to obtain it, don’t you?
Yes, exactly. That's where the "is-es" and "oughts" inevitably collide....
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: Objective morality

Post by Metacrock » Mon Sep 24, 2012 6:40 am

I don't mean to derail the discussion but I'm going to stick in a thing some guy laid down carm (new thread) about how realists can overcome Hume's fork. look for that.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

Robin Yergenson
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 6:00 pm

Re: Objective morality

Post by Robin Yergenson » Fri Sep 28, 2012 6:55 pm

Hi met,

I had said, “And if so, isn’t it very important to differentiate between “self interest” as being at bottom and “society’s interest” or “the surrounding environment’s interest” or “the harmony of life” as being at bottom? I’m thinking that it’s really important to know what’s at bottom, what’s the basis for determining benefit and value and the actions required to obtain it, don’t you?”

You say,
Yes, exactly. That's where the "is-es" and "oughts" inevitably collide....
Since those things that benefit and harm an organism are factual is-es, and since with few exceptions the preference to live and thrive being in the very nature of a rational organism qua organism is also a fatual is, and since it follows that a rational volitional organism who wants to live and thrive ought to act in ways that obtain benefit and ought not act in ways that obtain harm, then we do see that oughts derive from is-es, so I’m not able to see where these is-es and oughts inevitably collide. Rather, they appear to be in harmony. What may seem like a collision are conflicting values like living long vs. the thrill derived from a game of Russian Roulette. We avoid that collision by doing a good job of prioritizing values so that we don't pursue a lesser value at the expense of a greater value.

Rob

User avatar
met
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Objective morality

Post by met » Sat Sep 29, 2012 1:47 pm

Rob, I think some of us here probly disagree with u that "rational volitional organism" is a very sufficient description of us, what we are, what our potential is. That's why I suggested that there's an inevitable place where the "ises" and the "oughts" collide.

Hmmm. It's interesting, though. Is that - our notion that human beings are essentially spiritual creatures - really a rhetorical claim designed to uphold our opinions of what a person should do or be like, or is it or essentially a true metaphysical one? Raising the next question: What comes first, metaphysics or ethics? Is it what is or what a person really ought to do that primarily concerns (or at least "should" concern) us or what we and the universe really are? Your approach seems to be essentialist, as your spin on morality is based on a theory about what we really ARE. That's why you label it "objective."

Whew! Complicated topic..... :?
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

Robin Yergenson
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 6:00 pm

Re: Objective morality

Post by Robin Yergenson » Sun Sep 30, 2012 10:16 am

Hi met,

You say,
Rob, I think some of us here probably disagree with u that "rational volitional organism" is a very sufficient description of us, what we are, what our potential is. That's why I suggested that there's an inevitable place where the "ises" and the "oughts" collide.
I’m not claiming that we are or are not spiritual beings. I see lots of evidence in the form of my own immediate experiential consciousness which is prior to judgment or categorization and prior to the possibility of error that supports the claim that we are spiritual beings, in which case the “physical” is reduced to a set of constraining conditions on consciousness, on the spiritual. Something is at bottom. I can’t confidently say what our essence is, physical, spiritual, or other. Whatever the stuff that we are of is, we are rational volitional organisms who are of that stuff. While we have to think in order to identify our choices and actions, nonrational organisms do not. Do you disagree? And you say,
Hmmm. It's interesting, though. Is that - our notion that human beings are essentially spiritual creatures - really a rhetorical claim designed to uphold our opinions of what a person should do or be like, or is it or essentially a true metaphysical one? Raising the next question: What comes first, metaphysics or ethics? Is it what is or what a person really ought to do that primarily concerns (or at least "should" concern) us or what we and the universe really are? Your approach seems to be essentialist, as your spin on morality is based on a theory about what we really ARE. That's why you label it "objective."

Whew! Complicated topic.....
I don’t see that identifying spiritual vs. physical essence is all that pivotal to what we ought to do. In either case, self benefit is good, self harm is bad.

Rob

User avatar
runamokmonk
Posts: 339
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 2:34 pm

Re: Objective morality

Post by runamokmonk » Sun Sep 30, 2012 10:52 am

I thought this was interesting and possibly related to topic.


dawn of social networks, evolution of cooperation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It-pHyDrkTM

"....which raises the question, are there some people just looking for a free ride in the community? The freeriders would be expected to garner more resources than the altruists. Eventually their behavior would unravel the social fabric. Do the Hadza have a mechanism to keep this from occuring?

and eventually

"cooperators cluster together, they become friends with other cooperators....."

Post Reply