Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SvetlanaButosky t1_j3n19t2 wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in /r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | January 09, 2023 by BernardJOrtcutt

>You haven't actually resolved the moral question. Why is it right to fulfill those biological needs? What makes that correct? By what standard, and by what authority is that standard applied to everyone? You can ask the same slate of questions of every purported moral system out there, and I, for one, have never seen convincing answers.

  1. We have universal and objective biological needs to be healthy and free from harm, people are just born with these needs. (animals too)
  2. We ought to do things that maintain our biological needs, because they are innate to our existence. (due to evolution).
  3. Therefore we ought to develop morality based on biological needs, which are universal and objective.

Would this be a good premise and conclusion for moral objectivity?

2

[deleted] t1_j3ner63 wrote

>We ought to do things that maintain our biological needs, because they are innate to our existence. (due to evolution).

But, why should that be the standard, and not something else? Why should I be held to what is innate to "our existence," and not just my own pleasure, or what is innate to the existence of squirrels, or iron? Ultimately, all moral systems/claims rely on bare axioms, but there is no reason why one must accept any given axiom; they are essentially arbitrary. Therefore, the moral system which relies on them is, essentially, arbitrary.

Put a different way: while the moral system might rely on objective realities in its formulation, such as basic biological needs, the decision to consider those realities as the basis of right and wrong is ultimately an arbitrary choice. We might, all of us, inherently value something, but that doesn't make it right.

1

SvetlanaButosky t1_j3vzpj2 wrote

Because biological needs are things nobody can reject and they apply to everyone regardless of their personal preference?

Unless you are not sound of mind, I doubt anyone would deliberately self torture for fun, biological needs always take over in the end.

You can say its the objective foundation of our existence, which means we have an objective reference to build our morality.

It is basically mind independent.

1

[deleted] t1_j3yh0cu wrote

>You can say its the objective foundation of our existence, which means we have an objective reference to build our morality.

But why should that be the reference in the first place? We could make any number of things the reference, all of which might be objective to a greater or lesser degree. But why should that be the standard and not something else? We might prefer one option over another, but that doesn't mean that it is necessarily right.

To say that something is morally right or wrong carries the implication of an obligation that commands our obedience in some sense. If we do not adhere to that obligation, then we have errored in some way.

Yet, how can someone be said to have errored if they simply take on a different axiom than you do? Your axiom here seems to be something like 'we ought to fulfill our basic biological needs,' but someone else could as easily say that 'we ought to serve god,' and their axiom has as much proof that it is the correct one as your axiom does.

1

SvetlanaButosky t1_j405aqm wrote

Because you either fulfill your biological needs or you die?

That's a very strong and objective "right".

In fact, its so strong that we cant even stop ourselves from wanting it, its in our genes, the biological need to survive and spread.

Even people who "wanna serve god" must have their biological needs fulfilled, they wont be alive to serve god otherwise, lol.

Isnt this the most objective standard/reference/right thing to do?

Its literally axiom independent.

1

[deleted] t1_j40xniq wrote

You will eventually die regardless, that’s inevitable. The decision to make it later, rather than sooner, is a matter of preference. It might be a very strong preference, but it’s still essentially a preference.

As I said previously, just because we might all inherently want something does not mean that it is morally right. It’s not about what we want to do, or even what we are instinctually driven to do; it’s about what we ought to do. That ‘ought’ needs to exist as a thing in itself, and provably so, for there to be an objective morality. Otherwise, you’re just forwarding one values system among many.

1

SvetlanaButosky t1_j41c1xw wrote

So nothing is morally right then?

1

[deleted] t1_j4359ee wrote

No, nothing at all. There’s no right or wrong, just choices and consequences.

1

SvetlanaButosky t1_j4505pr wrote

So Hitler was an ok guy?

If I follow this line of thought.

1

[deleted] t1_j46tz7p wrote

Two things can be true at once. You can think, as I do, that what Hitler did was abhorrent and cruel, you can hate him, all without saying that his actions were morally wrong. Preference and opinion are utterly divorced from whether or not something is wrong or right. Just because I don’t believe in objective morality does not mean I am automatically best friends with Hitler, or Mao, or Stalin, or any other homicidal dictator; as far as I’m concerned, they were all abhorrent and cruel.

What is even the point of saying it was wrong? Do you think that would have stopped him from doing what he was doing, if only someone had told him it was wrong? I highly doubt it.

2

SvetlanaButosky t1_j472cht wrote

The point is so kids dont grow up confused and following in his footstep.

1

[deleted] t1_j47edsf wrote

Children aren't taught how to behave by moralizing. We teach children how to behave by imposing negative consequences on them for engaging in behavior which we disapprove of. This prepares them for adult society, where the only rules are those which the people with badges and guns enforce. Choices and consequences, "if you chose to do this, these will be the consequences, and it's up to you to decide if it's worth it."

The same sort of approach can be taken with a figure like Hitler, or Mussolini, or any such individual. Forget about right and wrong, is that the sort of life you would want to have? Dictators don't have happy existences; it's a lot of paranoia, constant stress that your cronies, who you have no choice but to rely on, might be planning to kill you and usurp your position, and also constant fear that an opposition faction might be able to gather enough support in the military or the population to overthrow you and kill you in some horrible way. There are plenty of simple, hedonistic reasons why you don't want to try to be like those guys. It sucks!

Ultimately, I don't think there are a lot of people who want to do that sort of thing anyways, but we can ignore that for now. Why moralize, when you can just present clear consequences for the choices made? The latter seems like a much more effective way of influencing human behavior towards desired outcomes than the former.

2

ColoringFrenzy t1_j3n7zkp wrote

You say “due to evolution” as if it’s the only belief people have, which is untrue. We very well could have been put on earth in another way which would tear your theory down

0