5 ms·

> morals cannot be anything more than arbitrarily-made-up rules. One could argue morals should be based on the survival of mankind. Because that's the only pos

by aikah 12y ago

> morals cannot be anything more than arbitrarily-made-up rules. One could argue morals should be based on the survival of mankind. Because that's the only positive goal of it, to survive as long as possible,though, ultimately mankind will come to an end,that's inevitable. On the other hand, as long as there is energy,artificial intelligence could outlast us.It would be mankind's testament and ultimate legacy. I always thought that, if we were to find another alien civilization,it would be through the AI they designed or in form of pure data. And it's probable that it would be available as binary data too.

andrewflnr 12y ago
Survival of humanity is an arbitrary, made-up goal, from a materialist perspective, anyway.
- aikah 12y ago
  Why is it arbitrary? every species on that planet is "programmed" to reproduce and thrive, and we are no different.
  - andrewflnr 12y ago
    Yes, absolutely, people are programmed to survive just like every other life form out there, so why favor humans? Just because we're the smartest? If I destroy humanity to ensure my survival, in what sense is that bad, since after all I'm just following my programming to survive. When we talk about morality, we're looking for something that should happen, deeper than what does happen or what anything wants to happen.
    - eli_gottlieb 12y ago
      >Yes, absolutely, people are programmed to survive just like every other life form out there, so why favor humans? Because we happen to be humans. But there's also lots of other creatures out there to favor: monkeys, dogs, that sort of thing. >When we talk about morality, we're looking for something that should happen, deeper than what does happen or what anything wants to happen. The word "should" becomes utterly meaningless if it has nothing to do with what we want. What do you think "should" would mean if I proved conclusively to you "should" exterminate all life on Earth? It's an ungrounded symbol if it doesn't take your real desires into account. >“Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.” -- Immanuel Kant
      - andrewflnr 12y ago
        My point is that "should" is redundant with "want" in a materialist viewpoint. It only makes sense to talk about "should" separately from desire if they're not necessarily the same. Is this not tautological? You need some other set of axioms describing some goal other than want-satisfaction and an assertion that it's true for everyone before you can meaningfully call it "morality", a system containing "should". Otherwise it is, as you put it, an ungrounded symbol. In other words, a moral system needs to answer the question "why should I give a #$@*?". Why not let the world burn if i feel like it? Why not just that part over there that's only being used by people I don't like and don't depend on? Your Kant quote is a succinct statement of the commands of most moral systems, but doesn't answer the real question. If there's nothing more to the universe then we can see, only matter in odd configurations, I don't see how it can be answered. P.S. I'm not sure what you meant by "real desires", but it bears mentioning that there exist people and other beings whose real desires are purely destructive, to others and themselves; self interest in the usual sense (survival and comfort) is not necessarily relevant. Think about people we class as "mentally ill" (which really just means outlier, since our "healthy" baseline is just the average). If you didn't mean to imply that no one has a "real desire" in some sense to do "evil" things like destroy all life on earth, then you can probably ignore this part, but it had to be said
keane 12y ago
No, AnimalMuppet is correct. We are unable to value the survival of mankind as objectively good, as we have no empirical evidence to do so (more accurately: we cannot infer an Ought from an Is). See this for more on why: http://liamk.org/is-love-real/ http://liamk.org/is-love-real/ Our options are Nihilism/Zen/Absurdity or Theism. And if the former is true, it doesn't matter if we hold the latter. As CS Lewis put it, if the Theists are wrong after all they would have merely paid the universe a compliment it would not have deserved.
- eli_gottlieb 12y ago
  >(more accurately: we cannot infer an Ought from an Is). Oughts cannot mean anything in the first place unless they ultimately reduce to some kind of is-checkable fact.
  - keane 12y ago
    This would give you Nihilism. Theism disagrees.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - eli_gottlieb 12y ago
      >This would give you Nihilism. The Is-Ought Problem and the Open Question Argument are not so conclusive as to justify nihilism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_naturalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_naturalism
      - keane 12y ago
        If the world is material (natural) only, then the maxim of Hitchens and Sagan applies: "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence". You assert humans have value. There is no empirical evidence of this claim. This leaves you with Moral Nonrealism. Only if the world is posited to be something beyond material (supernatural), can we suggest values are Real and hold to Moral Realism. Anytime we suggest that humans have value or that moral statements correspond to real truths, we have abandoned empiricism and have entered the realm of faith.

by aikah 12y ago

andrewflnr 12y ago

Survival of humanity is an arbitrary, made-up goal, from a materialist perspective, anyway.

aikah 12y ago
Why is it arbitrary? every species on that planet is "programmed" to reproduce and thrive, and we are no different.
- andrewflnr 12y ago
  Yes, absolutely, people are programmed to survive just like every other life form out there, so why favor humans? Just because we're the smartest? If I destroy humanity to ensure my survival, in what sense is that bad, since after all I'm just following my programming to survive. When we talk about morality, we're looking for something that should happen, deeper than what does happen or what anything wants to happen.
  - eli_gottlieb 12y ago
    >Yes, absolutely, people are programmed to survive just like every other life form out there, so why favor humans? Because we happen to be humans. But there's also lots of other creatures out there to favor: monkeys, dogs, that sort of thing. >When we talk about morality, we're looking for something that should happen, deeper than what does happen or what anything wants to happen. The word "should" becomes utterly meaningless if it has nothing to do with what we want. What do you think "should" would mean if I proved conclusively to you "should" exterminate all life on Earth? It's an ungrounded symbol if it doesn't take your real desires into account. >“Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.” -- Immanuel Kant
    - andrewflnr 12y ago
      My point is that "should" is redundant with "want" in a materialist viewpoint. It only makes sense to talk about "should" separately from desire if they're not necessarily the same. Is this not tautological? You need some other set of axioms describing some goal other than want-satisfaction and an assertion that it's true for everyone before you can meaningfully call it "morality", a system containing "should". Otherwise it is, as you put it, an ungrounded symbol. In other words, a moral system needs to answer the question "why should I give a #$@*?". Why not let the world burn if i feel like it? Why not just that part over there that's only being used by people I don't like and don't depend on? Your Kant quote is a succinct statement of the commands of most moral systems, but doesn't answer the real question. If there's nothing more to the universe then we can see, only matter in odd configurations, I don't see how it can be answered. P.S. I'm not sure what you meant by "real desires", but it bears mentioning that there exist people and other beings whose real desires are purely destructive, to others and themselves; self interest in the usual sense (survival and comfort) is not necessarily relevant. Think about people we class as "mentally ill" (which really just means outlier, since our "healthy" baseline is just the average). If you didn't mean to imply that no one has a "real desire" in some sense to do "evil" things like destroy all life on earth, then you can probably ignore this part, but it had to be said

keane 12y ago

No, AnimalMuppet is correct. We are unable to value the survival of mankind as objectively good, as we have no empirical evidence to do so (more accurately: we cannot infer an Ought from an Is). See this for more on why: http://liamk.org/is-love-real/ http://liamk.org/is-love-real/ Our options are Nihilism/Zen/Absurdity or Theism. And if the former is true, it doesn't matter if we hold the latter. As CS Lewis put it, if the Theists are wrong after all they would have merely paid the universe a compliment it would not have deserved.

eli_gottlieb 12y ago
>(more accurately: we cannot infer an Ought from an Is). Oughts cannot mean anything in the first place unless they ultimately reduce to some kind of is-checkable fact.
- keane 12y ago
  This would give you Nihilism. Theism disagrees.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - eli_gottlieb 12y ago
    >This would give you Nihilism. The Is-Ought Problem and the Open Question Argument are not so conclusive as to justify nihilism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_naturalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_naturalism
    - keane 12y ago
      If the world is material (natural) only, then the maxim of Hitchens and Sagan applies: "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence". You assert humans have value. There is no empirical evidence of this claim. This leaves you with Moral Nonrealism. Only if the world is posited to be something beyond material (supernatural), can we suggest values are Real and hold to Moral Realism. Anytime we suggest that humans have value or that moral statements correspond to real truths, we have abandoned empiricism and have entered the realm of faith.