Ray wrote:When I stated that morality refers to an objective right or wrong, I meant that the definition of morality "is" an objective right or wrong. Thus, I disagree with your first post when you said that morality "is" a goal to maximizing a species' survival for in that case you have redefined morality for your own purposes, contrary to what it really means.
I am not sure how a definition can be an objective (in your context). If I understand you to mean morality is an objective right or wrong, I have never seen an objective morality in the flesh, to me that would mean objective morality = absolute morality. I am not convinced there is such a thing as an objective right or wrong. Do you have some real world examples of such a beast? Also given that I have supplied a dictionary definition of morality "concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct" in what precise way have I "redefined morality for your own purposes, contrary to what it really means"?
Ray wrote:If your definition is correct, then anything that can ever be wrong is that which harms the survival chance of a specie, and anything that can ever be right is that which increases the survival chance of a specie. I disagree with that.
Well let's restrict it to the space program and the increased survival claim so as to put some meat on the bones, if that's OK? Then we need to define what is meant by your use of the word "harm". For example if it turns out that the cosmetic industry defers sufficient resources (it's been said that the global vanity industry's budget vastly exceeds the global space program's budget) such that the global space program does not get the funding it needs for its anti-meteor program in time, and the world is destroyed, then the actions of those that preferred using eye makeup to saving the world would (in my books) be immoral.
Ray wrote:Think about it this way: by your logic, since the space program can potentially increases the survival chance of a specie, then anyone not involved in the sciences are acting immorally.
Yes potentially that may be true, but only in hindsight (if at all) will we be in able to know whether this "anyone" made any real word difference one way or the other. It's all a question of odds and chance, and I consider that it's a higher moral position to have the cards stacked in favor of survival as it relates to the space program. In practical terms you may ask whether I would critique this "anyone" if they were not contributing to the space program and I would counter by asking whether this "anyone" firstly would make a difference if they did, and secondly what other moral benefits might be lost if they were to focus their energies in favor of the space program to the detriment of some other potential beneficial consideration, and also how by their indirect action are they furthering the space program's moral ends (for example does the mentally challenged gas station attendant that pumps gas for NASA employees count as a contributor / does the investment banker who facilities an easy money policy for a startup aerospace company count / Ray, who exactly in your mind is clearly counter to the space program - let's put some meat on them bones). I don't consider my moral sense to be applicable in a vacuum (bad joke) nor in an absolute sense.
Ray wrote:Furthermore, if for some reason the space program happens to deplete financial support on other fields that will save humanity, then supporting the space program would be bad. How do you know you are acting morally or immorally when you do not know the result of your actions?
I am not convinced you can always know result of your actions, see my comments about cards and chance. I suggest that in the real world you often can not know the true moral outcome of your actions until after the fact (perhaps well after the fact) and even then it could easily be impossible to assess, however see my prior text about not considering my moral sense to be applicable in a vacuum nor in an absolute sense. Part of the problem here as I see it is that you want apply a singular black and white absolute idealization of morality. I'm not convinced of the reality of that as discussed.
Ray wrote:I have previously made a thread on the absurdity of normative ethics based on pure consequentalism:
I'll look into it much thanks.
Ray wrote:What is missing from that definition, is the difference between "good" for a certain goal, and "good" by itself. Morality refers to the latter. For example, I could say that studying is a good conduct for achieving a high grade. However, studying is neither right nor wrong morally, that is it is neither good nor bad.
"Morality: concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct" Well I got the definition directly from the dictionary so am I to assume you disagree agree with their interpretation of the word?
