Are values purely subjective?

Random confluence of sub-atomic particles.

I believe that's what causes all actions.
I believe that's what causes all thoughts.

To me, that should be the current default conclusion,
because it's the theory that requires the fewest suppositions.

Many people admittedly wouldn't WANT to believe it,
but for whatever reason, it doesn't bother me at all
 
Doc Dutch said:
Key point being "human being".

IMO, evolution plays a part in what we perceive to be "beautiful" just like it does in making sex pleasurable. A better question is "why?" Why would evolution favor humans who find sunsets and majestic peaks beautiful? Because it's not directly related to species survival but simply a result of other factors such as finding beauty in a mate?
Click to expand...

I dont see any driving evolutionary reason for why we would take pleasure in a sunset or in a work of art.

I see no evidence that dogs or armadillos genuinely enjoy sunsets or art, and I don't think it's needed for survival.

It's probably a mixture of Genetics and culture, but nobody really knows.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Random confluence of sub-atomic particles.

I believe that's what causes all actions.
I believe that's what causes all thoughts.

To me, that should be the current default conclusion,
because it's the theory that requires the fewest suppositions.

Many people admittedly wouldn't WANT to believe it,
but for whatever reason, it doesn't bother me at all
Click to expand...
A slight disagreement. There is no more randomness in the universe than how a rack of billiard balls breaks. Physics determines where each ball goes depending upon the angle and force exerted by the cue ball. The "break" for the Universe was the Big Bang. At that point, all the forces were put into a predictable motion.

Like the break in a game of pool, the primary factor affecting the physics of the game is life. Life alters what otherwise would be determined by physics. Beavers build dams, tree roots break rock and human beings dig huge fucking holes to extract gold and other natural materials they value. Natural forces are predictable. Life forces not so much.

7yg7x6.jpg
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Random confluence of sub-atomic particles.

I believe that's what causes all actions.
I believe that's what causes all thoughts.

To me, that should be the current default conclusion,
because it's the theory that requires the fewest suppositions.

Many people admittedly wouldn't WANT to believe it,
but for whatever reason, it doesn't bother me at all
Click to expand...

We really don't have a solid scientific theory for how or why a collection of quarks and electrons would acquire sentience and conciousness.
 
Cypress said:
I dont see any driving evolutionary reason for why we would take pleasure in a sunset or in a work of art.

I see no evidence that dogs or armadillos genuinely enjoy sunsets or art, and I don't think it's needed for survival.

It's probably a mixture of Genetics and culture, but nobody really knows.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Agreed to an extent...although dogs playing with a toy may show something similar.

A main difference is that human beings have free will*, dogs do not. Dogs and other animals don't plan for the future or reflect upon the past. They simply react to the present. That said, I agree culture affects our perceptions of beauty, but there seems to be a common human universal ability for appreciating beauty that is outside of cultural influences. Agreed on genetics. IMO, specifically sex drive.


*a physical ability to plan for the future and alter their behavior accordingly. Not to be confused with a soul or other supernatural force separate from their physical nature.
 
Cypress said:
We really don't have a solid scientific theory for how or why a collection of quarks and electrons would acquire sentience and conciousness.
Click to expand...

Very, very true, and it's certainly not my job to propose one!!!

My job used to be winning grievances for my members.
Now it's down to just cooking dinner and taking care of the Avatar
[and to some extant, the Gestapo, I suppose. We must take care of each other].

My best move is to find some possible answer that doesn't upset me much,
Making the effort to convince anybody else of it is WAY above my job description.:)
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Very, very true, and it's certainly not my job to propose one!!!

My job used to be winning grievances for my members.
Now it's down to just cooking dinner and taking care of the Avatar
[and to some extant, the Gestapo, I suppose. We must take care of each other].

My best move is to find some possible answer that doesn't upset me much,
Making the effort to convince anybody else of it is WAY above my job description.:)
Click to expand...

Personally, I think life would be kinda boring if I thought we had the answers to all questions.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Agreed.

Agreed to an extent...although dogs playing with a toy may show something similar.

A main difference is that human beings have free will*, dogs do not. Dogs and other animals don't plan for the future or reflect upon the past. They simply react to the present. That said, I agree culture affects our perceptions of beauty, but there seems to be a common human universal ability for appreciating beauty that is outside of cultural influences. Agreed on genetics. IMO, specifically sex drive.


*a physical ability to plan for the future and alter their behavior accordingly. Not to be confused with a soul or other supernatural force separate from their physical nature.
Click to expand...

Altruism, humility, temperance don't seem to be driven by genes. We can choose when or if we practice those virtues, so genes aren't the driving factor.

There are exceptions. We share with mammals a drive of kin altruism. Most mammals seem driven by evolution to help and protect offspring and siblings.
 
Cypress said:
Encyclopedia Britannica:

Ethical relativism, the doctrine that there are no absolute truths in ethics and that what is morally right or wrong varies from person to person or from society to society.

Beginning in the 1960s and ’70s, ethical relativism was associated with postmodernism, a complex philosophical movement that questioned the idea of objectivity in many areas, including ethics. Many postmodernists regarded the very idea of objectivity as a dubious invention of the modern—i.e., post-Enlightenment—era.

The development in ethical relativism they contend, is due largely to the work of the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) and his followers.

During the last half of the 20th century, the most prominent advocates of this view were Michel Foucault (1926–84) and Jacques Derrida (1930–2004).

https://www.britannica.com/topic/ethical-relativism
Click to expand...

Nietzsche is not 20th C.
 
He played middle linebacker for the Packers in the 20th Century, however.
Perhaps it was less stressful than philosophizing,
even if more physically draining.
 
Cypress said:
Altruism, humility, temperance don't seem to be driven by genes. We can choose when or if we practice those virtues, so genes aren't the driving factor.

There are exceptions. We share with mammals a drive of kin altruism. Most mammals seem driven by evolution to help and protect offspring and siblings.
Click to expand...
Disagreed as proved by twin studies. IMO, it makes sense that mothers protecting their offspring and males defending their tribe favors survival of their group.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8228475/
Genetic and Environmental Structure of Altruism Characterized by Recipients in Relation to Personality
Results: The present study shows that there is a single common factor of altruism: additive genetic effects explain 51% of altruism without a shared environmental contribution. The genetic contribution of this single common factor is explained by the genetic factors of neuroticism (N), extraversion (E), openness to experience (O), and conscientiousness (C), as well as a common genetic factor specific to altruism. Only altruism toward strangers is affected by shared environmental factors. Conclusions: Different types of altruistic personality are constructed by specific combinational profiles of general personality traits such as the Big Five as well as a genetic factor specific to altruism in each specific way.
Click to expand...

https://academic.oup.com/scan/article/6/5/662/1657142
Investigating the genetic basis of altruism: the role of the COMT Val158Met polymorphism
Findings from twin studies yield heritability estimates of 0.50 for prosocial behaviours like empathy, cooperativeness and altruism. First molecular genetic studies underline the influence of polymorphisms located on genes coding for the receptors of the neuropeptides, oxytocin and vasopressin
Click to expand...
 
Cypress said:
Nietzsche was largely ignored and virtually unread in his own lifetime. His work wasn't widely read until the 20th century, and according to Encyclopedia Britannica his work was an influence on 20th century ethical relativists.
Click to expand...

Nazis, white supremacists and atheists like him. The like Wagner too. LOL

https://academic.oup.com/liverpool-scholarship-online/book/17053/chapter-abstract/174373493
Abstract
In the early part of the twentieth century, interpretations of Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, in combination with the new science of eugenics, represented an influential attempt to formulate a new code of morals. In his book on Nietzsche, George Chatterton-Hill argued that Nietzsche's masters and slaves constituted two separate races: the masters representing an aristocracy; and the slaves representing degenerates. Chatterton-Hill typified early Nietzschean interpretations, which concurred with widespread theories of social degeneration that emerged in the Edwardian period in the face of the rise of organised labour, feminism, technologisation, urbanisation, and imperial decline. Aside from Chatterton-Hill, other Nietzscheans include Oscar Levy and Anthony Mario Ludovici. This chapter discusses the connections between interpretations of Nietzsche and the eugenics movement in Britain in the first decades of the twentieth century, examining in particular what the exponents of the two movements actually said.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top