tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10856048.post7146249759227409426..comments2024-03-12T12:23:10.033-04:00Comments on Secular Perspectives: Of Morality, Objective and SubjectiveUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10856048.post-45377967454949292462011-03-09T11:24:34.608-05:002011-03-09T11:24:34.608-05:00Thank you Explicit Atheist. An objective moralit...Thank you Explicit Atheist. An objective morality must of necessity become a quasi-economics where values of different forms can be compared. The problem is that we have no way to quantize that economics at this time. That means that we would have to look at the obvious moral inequalities (ie to vaccinate or not) and abstract principles that can be used to compare less obvious moral choices.<br /><br />I don't see much of problem in placing non-human life forms into a moral context. The fact is that human survival is contingent on a rich complex ecosystem and our lifestyle as it stands will result in the substantial collapse of the wider ecosystem. We are currently losing species at a rate that may be greater than in prior mass extinctions. <br /><br />A shared agreement concerning moral propositions of necessity is contingent on having the intellect to articulate and agree on those moral principles. There is an evolutionary agreement between pollinating insects (such as honey bees) and the plant life forms that require that pollination. This is vaguely similar to the reciprocal win/win relationship that is typical of good moral reasoning. However, it is not an explicitly articulated and agreed upon moral proposition. The value we place on the wider ecosystem comes organically from our need for the survival of that system and the services we get from that ecosystem.<br /><br />The religious perspectives basically preclude any analysis of the objective facts. Of necessity, the purported “divine revelation” will be misinformed and an obstacle to objective reasoning.Don Whartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11874733311091724239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10856048.post-78789006440638044232011-03-08T19:58:20.129-05:002011-03-08T19:58:20.129-05:00I agree with you Don.
I have not read the Moral...I agree with you Don. <br /><br />I have not read the Moral Landscape, but I have read various arguments for and against the thesis of the book. In my view, the critics of that book appear to be insisting on unecessary, impractical and excessive demands for defining morality as some sort of mathematical formula and then on that basis claiming that the Moral Landscape's thesis fails. If we applied some of those same impractical standards to every thesis then almost every non-mathematically expressed thesis would be evaluated to be failure. In all meaningful theories, even those that are expressed with mathematical equations, there must be axioms which are just accepted, as part of the definition of what we are trying to achieve or understand, and defining morality cannot be an exception here.<br /><br />"Human flourishing" is a good place to start, but it is an incomplete standard for measuring morality. There is no escaping that intrinsic to morality is the recognization of a hierarchy of concerns, with human welfare trumping non-human welfare, with non-human welfare being a significant, though lesser, component of morality, with various factors such as pain, self-awareness, autonomy, being considered to rank the concern between species and within species. Here religions tend to fail us insofar as religions tend to declare humans as sacred and apart from all other life on the grounds that humans alone are made in the image of an imaginary god, instead of part of a continuem of living creatures, so that human life is declared inviolate regardless of the pain, self-awareness and autonomy factors, and/or the moral concern rank is evaluated by faith and belief contrary to reason applied to evidence.Explicit Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05501109533475045969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10856048.post-11778567938722839192011-03-06T22:44:36.165-05:002011-03-06T22:44:36.165-05:00The Deepak Chopra aspect of Sam Harris (the "...The Deepak Chopra aspect of Sam Harris (the "spiritual" aspect) is not at issue here. Even with the flaws that he brings to his arguments he has, with his book The Moral Landscape, by far the largest current audience for the premise that science can answer questions of morality.Don Whartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11874733311091724239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10856048.post-21099478915028416202011-03-06T22:09:41.168-05:002011-03-06T22:09:41.168-05:00Please don't spend so much time arguing about ...Please don't spend so much time arguing about Sam Harris. He is the Deepak Chopra of atheism.lucettehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00030477404014229609noreply@blogger.com