6 ms·

Because the world is complicated :) Thankfully. And by the time we get to understand significantly more then we do (not even close to everything) we won't be hu

Because the world is complicated :) Thankfully. And by the time we get to understand significantly more then we do (not even close to everything) we won't be humans anymore. And this whole point will probably be obsolete.

maxharris 18y ago
Sure, the world is complicated. But how does that make an "absolutist" moral system impossible? I think that with regard to morality (as it applies to humans, on earth), absolute truths and rules are not only possible to know (and make), but necessary. Without this, human actions are no longer guided by reason, and that is a very bad situation.
- jacoblyles 18y ago
  Discuss morality with intelligent people, and study evolutionary psychology, and it will not take you long to realize that every moral system has some edge cases where obeying it will lead to stomach-turning results. Our moral intuitions are lumpy, inconsistent, and contradictory. This is to be expected because we were designed by blind evolution, and not by any sort of logical process. Ethical systems serve as great guidelines, but it is impossible to find one simple set of consistent ideas to capture everything that an average person feels is right. It is even more impossible (for a non-theist) to find some sort of objective measure of value by which to determine morality. >"Without this, human actions are no longer guided by reason, and that is a very bad situation." Human actions are guided by reason, but never solely by reason. We have a lot of innate biases left over from our 3 billion year evolution. I think you would enjoy this blog: http://www.overcomingbias.com/ http://www.overcomingbias.com/
  - maxharris 18y ago
    What about Objectivism leads to "stomach-turning results"? (Remember, I don't think we shouldn't worry about what the "average person feels is right"; we should worry about what is actually right.)
    - jacoblyles 18y ago
      Talk to more people that disagree with you, I'm sure you can find someone that can present you with an objectivist-flavored ethical dilemma. Also, you should examine your axioms. There are many self-consistent moral systems starting with different axioms that produce different results. None of these systems is better than the others. Rather, each of these axioms represent something that humans value. They produce contradictory results, but this is not unexpected for reasons previously stated. For what it's worth, I bought pretty much everything Rand ever wrote and quite a few things by Peikoff. I used to hand out copies of Anthem to friends. It was ideas such as I stated above that lead me away from objectivism. Roughly, I have a different idea of what kind of a beast a human is, and what kind of structure morality is. Also, I think what the average person feels is right is very pertinent to the discussion of ethics. Attempts to find an objective standard of moral value beyond what humans actually value are usually flimsy and involve a lot of purposeful ignoring of flaws.
      - maxharris 18y ago
        "None of these systems is better than the others." Not if your standard of value is your life, lived as well and for as long as possible. I have not yet come across an ethical dilemma that would trouble an Objectivist that really knew and understood the philosophy. I can't count the number of times I've heard questions about whether or not you should try to rescue people drowning in a river during your trip to visit your dying parent(s) in the hospital, should you come across them. If that's the kind of thing that's dissuaded you from Objectivism, you didn't have a very good command of it in the first place. What the average person feels is right is just a grab bag of altruistic junk handed down to them over the millenia. It's not necessarily true, and it's only important to understand because it's an obstacle to the betterment of man.
        gnaritas 18y ago
        > Not if your standard of value is your life, lived as well and for as long as possible. Replace "standard of value" with axiom and re-read what he just said to you, he suggested you examine your "standard of value" and see that others are possible and just as self consistent as yours. Your reply thus makes no sense in response to his statement; you simply restate your axiom and tried to justify it again.

maxharris 18y ago

Sure, the world is complicated. But how does that make an "absolutist" moral system impossible? I think that with regard to morality (as it applies to humans, on earth), absolute truths and rules are not only possible to know (and make), but necessary. Without this, human actions are no longer guided by reason, and that is a very bad situation.

jacoblyles 18y ago
Discuss morality with intelligent people, and study evolutionary psychology, and it will not take you long to realize that every moral system has some edge cases where obeying it will lead to stomach-turning results. Our moral intuitions are lumpy, inconsistent, and contradictory. This is to be expected because we were designed by blind evolution, and not by any sort of logical process. Ethical systems serve as great guidelines, but it is impossible to find one simple set of consistent ideas to capture everything that an average person feels is right. It is even more impossible (for a non-theist) to find some sort of objective measure of value by which to determine morality. >"Without this, human actions are no longer guided by reason, and that is a very bad situation." Human actions are guided by reason, but never solely by reason. We have a lot of innate biases left over from our 3 billion year evolution. I think you would enjoy this blog: http://www.overcomingbias.com/ http://www.overcomingbias.com/
- maxharris 18y ago
  What about Objectivism leads to "stomach-turning results"? (Remember, I don't think we shouldn't worry about what the "average person feels is right"; we should worry about what is actually right.)
  - jacoblyles 18y ago
    Talk to more people that disagree with you, I'm sure you can find someone that can present you with an objectivist-flavored ethical dilemma. Also, you should examine your axioms. There are many self-consistent moral systems starting with different axioms that produce different results. None of these systems is better than the others. Rather, each of these axioms represent something that humans value. They produce contradictory results, but this is not unexpected for reasons previously stated. For what it's worth, I bought pretty much everything Rand ever wrote and quite a few things by Peikoff. I used to hand out copies of Anthem to friends. It was ideas such as I stated above that lead me away from objectivism. Roughly, I have a different idea of what kind of a beast a human is, and what kind of structure morality is. Also, I think what the average person feels is right is very pertinent to the discussion of ethics. Attempts to find an objective standard of moral value beyond what humans actually value are usually flimsy and involve a lot of purposeful ignoring of flaws.
    - maxharris 18y ago
      "None of these systems is better than the others." Not if your standard of value is your life, lived as well and for as long as possible. I have not yet come across an ethical dilemma that would trouble an Objectivist that really knew and understood the philosophy. I can't count the number of times I've heard questions about whether or not you should try to rescue people drowning in a river during your trip to visit your dying parent(s) in the hospital, should you come across them. If that's the kind of thing that's dissuaded you from Objectivism, you didn't have a very good command of it in the first place. What the average person feels is right is just a grab bag of altruistic junk handed down to them over the millenia. It's not necessarily true, and it's only important to understand because it's an obstacle to the betterment of man.
      - gnaritas 18y ago
        > Not if your standard of value is your life, lived as well and for as long as possible. Replace "standard of value" with axiom and re-read what he just said to you, he suggested you examine your "standard of value" and see that others are possible and just as self consistent as yours. Your reply thus makes no sense in response to his statement; you simply restate your axiom and tried to justify it again.