Thread: Objective morality: Is it possible and why should/shouldn't we use it?

Originally Posted by DocDoom

We, as the human race, have a problem with setting emotions aside and looking at cold hard facts, sometimes this is a good thing, sometimes a bad one. Everyone does it to some extent, no matter how objective you think you are, or how much you tell yourself you're not like the rest of these "sheep" walking around you, you are. Maybe you're not as bad as them, but everyone does it, myself included.

That was quite a rant. I hope you're feeling better now. ;-)

Anyway, I'm going to focus on the last paragraph of your post. If I'm reading you right, you seem to be saying that objective morality is not possible, which is of course counter to my position (and that of the esteemed Sam Harris). Your reasoning being that humans "have a problem with setting emotions aside". I think it's important to understand that the objective morality I speak of is based on our scientific understanding of the natural world. This foundation, I think we can both agree, is based on a method which is objective by design.



Now while there are some who do not eat a particular type of meat due to religious beliefs, that is NOT the objective morality that I'm talking about. That is a morality based on dogma and religion, not science. And to be clear, there is no scientific process by which we can determine if something is moral or not. But what science does give us under this paradigm, is a common and factual understanding of what the world is and how it works. And from this common point I think it is possible for humanity to realize an objective morality.

You should probably watch the video posted by Insidious9 a few posts before mine. Sam Harris does a pretty good job explaining objective morality.

To understand the whole post I EXTREMELY recommend you follow the advice of s2cuts and find my post in which I linked the aforementioned video.
I think some of the discussions have gone a little bit too far away from what Sam Harris is talking about. I don't mind talking about moral objectivity based on religious beliefs etc but I did post the video for a reason. Talk about what you wish by all means but it would be nice to know people are actually connecting with the video =D

I'm not so much concerned with the adhesion to moral objectivity as much as contemplating the possibility of all humanity following a single moral code.
There's 7 000 000 000 of us.
You need to insert a blank slate somewhere and erase all previous knowledge in order for it to work... but then you're entering a totalitarian, global regime which could have fatal consequences.

Although if you haven't yet, I'd highly suggest reading Fahrenheit 451(Ray Bradbury), Brave New World(Aldous Huxley), and 1984 (George Orwell).

An excellent point PurplePanther. I haven't as of yet read those books but I know a lot about them and wish to get them. Sam Harris's talk could almost seem to foreshadow an oppressive system, after all even with science how do we know when to draw the line? How much would we let that moral code rule over our lives?
By our very flawed nature would such a scientific moral objectivity not continue to see faults in humanity well after it was initiated, if so how much power do we give to this system?

It is written - "Goodness is the positive energy generated from the first movement of Tao. We have this for our essential nature." A Buddhist disciple ask his master - "How is the mind comprehended?" The master replied - "Do not think of good and bad." The current understanding of good and bad, by most, is an indoctrination or emotional response. Real objective morality does not have a doctrine nor does it change. It can not comprehended through the mind nor be established by officials.