EPTIs Morality Subjective or Objective? - Page 11
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
ffdestiny
United States773 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17829 Posts
 Evolution has culled out most of the animals who don't adhere to some basic rules. Humans are social animals (just as chimpansees and bonobos, but also cows, dogs and geese). In societies of animals, survival stems from the group and thus certain rules for group survival get encoded to ensure individual survival. For some, instinctive, reason, most humans abhor the idea of cannibalism (and you won't see dogs or chimpansees eating eachother either). Similarly, murder is only "allowed" in extreme cases, namely when it is deemed beneficial for the group to cull some extreme element. While memes such as these do not get inherited genetically, the infrastructure for being susceptible to precisely these memes is. We feel empathy. Non-empathetic people are labeled with some type of nasty disorder (psychopaths or sociopaths), indicating that there is selection pressure in favour of empathy (http://www.emory.edu/LIVING_LINKS/pdf_attachments/de%20Waal%20(2008).pdf). My view of ethics is that they can be modeled as memes. Some memes spread very well and are almost universally accepted, because our genetic predisposition is to accept them (they are a good meme for survival). Others are accepted within a single society: sodomy is forbidden by abrahamic religions and as such shunned in modern western society. However, homosexuality was perfectly accepted in Greek (and Roman) civilization with no obvious detrimental effects. Similarly certain religious rules piggyback on the religion (another strong meme), whereas societies with different religions do not have that moral: women in islamic countries are required to cover their hair to protect them from the aggressions of horny men. In non-Islamic (although quite a few protestant communities agree with this Islamic norm) societies we feel horny men should control their lusts better and women can dress any way they please. Thus morality cannot be seen as subjective, or objective, but rather as a mix: all (healthy) humans are hardcoded to be empathetic and as such more susceptible to certain rules than others. However, there are rules which are not clear-cut "good" or "bad" in this framework, in which case any person (or society) can make his own choice. This can lead to choices another society deems horrendously evil, but there is always some sort of justification within that society for making that choice. Whether it is a predominant religion's divine will or socio-economic motives, we need to remember that these same forces shape our own world view and thus our code of ethics. | ||
|
TrainFX
United States469 Posts
| ||
|
adun12345
United States198 Posts
On May 11 2011 22:46 Umpteen wrote: You can't distinguish objective and subjective morality in this way. The bits I've bolded are exactly equivalent. In your example, the only difference between the moral objectivist and the moral subjectivist is that the objectivist is imagining the existence of some kind of external, 'official' standard to a) make themselves feel good for agreeing with it, and b) to dodge the burden of responsibility-for-consequences they would feel for urging their own morals upon others. For instance, the historical Catholic stance on birth control. Catholic officials generally don't feel responsible for the health and overpopulation problems their evangelism has exacerbated because they believe their stance to reflect an external standard for which they have no responsibility. They're just the messengers. There is a distinction between objective and subjective morality, but the one you describe is not it. And by the way, I agree there is such a thing as objective morality. The only point I sought to make above is that it is internally inconsistent for an individual who believes in pure ethics (or "subjective morality," if you will) to criticize a person who believes in objective morality for being imperious. A person who believes in objective morality judges the actions of another on the basis that he and the other ought to be held to the same objective standard of behavior. Whether or not objective morality exists, in the mind of the proponent of objective morality his behavior is internally-consistent. By comparison, a person who believes in pure ethics, if he opts to judge another at all, can only judge them on the basis of arbitrary standards that he believes that he himself generated. Whether or not objective morality exists, in order for the behavior of an advocate of pure ethics to be internally consistent, that person must either refrain from judging others at all (good luck with that) or accept that it is entirely acceptable to judge others based on arbitrary standards of behavior (in which case it makes no sense to critique proponents of objective morality for their judgments). All I have sought to do here is point out what I take to be a large internal inconsistency in the pure ethics or "subjective morality" argument. This is obviously not in and of itself a proof for the existence of objective morality, but in my mind it is a good reason to question whether pure ethics is really a viable alternative. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17829 Posts
On May 11 2011 22:18 adun12345 wrote: or you have to believe that it was wrong solely on the basis that you personally believe that it was wrong. No. There is a third option without reverting to an "objective" morality: the predominant belief in your society is that it is wrong. In this case "your society" refers to the majority of the world. This is how we have an International Court of Justice and the Geneva Conventions, because the majority of the world population came together and set down a list of rules that should not be broken. However, if the majority view of the world population changes, there is a good chance we will readdress issues in International Law and other such treaties, just as countries update their internal laws as the time goes on (and individuals adjust their behaviour as they go through life: as a teenager I might have thought it acceptable to not pay a metro ticket, whereas now I frown on this behaviour). | ||
|
BlindSC2
United Kingdom435 Posts
As a society, hell, even as a species it is 'generally' considered that killing another human being is wrong, whether the reasoning be because it hinders the advancement and growth of humans, or that it causes suffering to families and loved ones, or whatever But, if that person were to kill 2 other people, thats a completely subjective matter and should be decided on a personal level. To have a general sweeping objective morality to me means that your freedom is hindered somewhat, and Im a freedom kinda guy But, as a freedom kinda guy, I also recognise and support the fact that other people have their freedom. I may compare and contrast my beliefs with someone elses and come to my understanding that one is 'better' than the other, but I genuinly do not understand why that is such a huge deal. By maturely picking holes in one anothers belief systems where logic and reasoning see fit, surely we either see an increase in strength or a falling apart of said belief system, meaning that we can advance as a society | ||
|
adun12345
United States198 Posts
On May 11 2011 23:09 Acrofales wrote: No. There is a third option without reverting to an "objective" morality: the predominant belief in your society is that it is wrong. In this case "your society" refers to the majority of the world. This is how we have an International Court of Justice and the Geneva Conventions, because the majority of the world population came together and set down a list of rules that should not be broken. However, if the majority view of the world population changes, there is a good chance we will readdress issues in International Law and other such treaties, just as countries update their internal laws as the time goes on (and individuals adjust their behaviour as they go through life: as a teenager I might have thought it acceptable to not pay a metro ticket, whereas now I frown on this behaviour). This is admittedly an option, but it fails to explain why I, as a rational individual, ought to behave according to the rules of society. Suppose I and my compatriots want to butcher 800,000 unarmed people with machetes. We're concerned that, as the civil war in our country tips against us, that we need to strike first to ensure our security. In this scenario, I care more about my immediate needs than what the rest of the world thinks about my action. Can pure ethics provide any rationale for why I shouldn't do this? By what authority can the global community judge me? More sympathetically, what if the majority decides for something with which you personally disagree? Suppose the majority of the world decided that slavery was an acceptable institution - would you be wrong for disagreeing with them? Individually-centric pure ethics would say of course not - you generate your own ethics, and damn anyone who says otherwise. However, community-centric ethics would say of course - you are magically beholden to conform your own personal behavior to the whims of the majority. In short, although you are right that there is a third option, I fail to see how this option is more consistent, or more appealing. | ||
|
j2choe
Canada243 Posts
http://lib.ru/LEWISCL/mere_engl.txt For those that suspect this is a Bible-thumping message in disguise; it's not. Lewis grounds his arguments in logic, history and individual experience. There's no mention of the Christian God at all in his arguments, since any discussion of God has relevance only after one admits to the existence of objective morality. It's worth the read. | ||
|
Doppelganger
488 Posts
This might be an important contribution to the discussion. "Does the Taliban have a point of view on physics that is worth considering? No. How is their ignorance any less obvious on the subject of human wellbeing?" Watch it! Think about it! It might change your opinion. | ||
|
Umpteen
United Kingdom1570 Posts
On May 11 2011 22:47 JesusOurSaviour wrote: So Summarising what you've said: 1. I believed in a God which I liked, especially his morality which somehow I've filtered to suit my own That's pretty much spot on. People believe in many different deities. To presume that you have perfect judgement and picked the right one (especially when I suspect you have not compared them all in equal detail) is not tenable. You've picked one with some attractive features, and have since - as you go on to describe - been working on 'understanding' (read: reinterpreting in ways you like) the parts you don't immediately find attractive. 2. that the God of the Old and New Testaments are different Gods. That's wider of the mark. The old and new testament ascribe radically different morality to what is ostensibly the same god, and justify that paradigm shift via what is - on the face of it - a rather pointless charade of effigy-destruction. It's clever in a way, though: I mean, the Old Testament is predicated on people being made to suffer for the sins of others. God's very clear on that point, and god is never wrong. So how best to go about convincing those around you that a different system of morality is better, without ever implying that god was wrong or that they need to believe in a new god? Answer: you have god manifest himself and do all the necessary suffering (which panders to the prevailing Old Testament beliefs) while rewriting the rules. With regards to #1, My understanding of the bible is obviously dependent on how much I have read of the bible and my motivation for reading the bible. Motivation may be to satisfy my own desires, of affirming what I believe to be right, or it may be that I am reading to better understand the God whom I worship. The term Exegesis comes to mind hehe. I am going to honestly tell you that I read the bible to learn about God, to hear him speak to me. His Word is true living water that tastes so beautiful, and it teaches me so much. And God's word is challenging as you have mentioned - there are topics which seem to bamboozle me at first - why a virgin is told to marry her rapist in the case that she was raped in the wild but there was no witness? Slavery? etc etc the list goes on. So then, how have I dealt with these seemingly contradictory issues? By ignoring them? By no means!! I have seeked to understand why God said what he said. Why God acted in the way he acted. God needs no excuses - he's happy for people to read his word and try to judge him to condemn him, although it's kind of futile to judge someone who is perfect, especially since we as humans are corrupt and foolish. Well, sure. You've just said the same as me, only using more words and again trying to spin things around so that it sounds like you agreeing with god and coming to know his mind, instead of you simply reinventing or reinterpreting the bible to suit yourself. Next is #2. Now to the point: Has God changed his moral codes? Short answer: No. Why? Because he's the same God. But what about all this violence and genocide vs Jesus' "Love your neighbour"? But I say, is not God the creator of the universe? Is He not the judge, the one and only God who is able to judge justly? For He is not corrupted by sin as we are (read Genesis if you don't get it. Or similarly you can just check google news for how fallen we are). So then, if God in His Wrath, wished to judge the nations before the End, could He not? If God wishing to show the Israelites the consequences of disobedience, had destroyed sinful nations by using the Israelites, who are you to judge God? I'm not talking about hypocrisy (although that is a huge problem, one that is in no way diminished by your attempt at justification). I'm talking about the different moral codes we are expected to be bound by depending upon whether you read the old or new testament, and upon how you interpret them. | ||
|
Uhh Negative
United States1090 Posts
On May 11 2011 23:00 TrainFX wrote: completely and utterly subjective, how could one even argue that morals are objective? Inherent morality. If it's built into us when we are born. There's no way to know though. Objectivity itself is just an idea we understand. There is nothing completely objective in this world. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17829 Posts
On May 11 2011 23:18 adun12345 wrote: This is admittedly an option, but it fails to explain why I, as a rational individual, ought to behave according to the rules of society. Suppose I and my compatriots want to butcher 800,000 unarmed people with machetes. We're concerned that, as the civil war in our country tips against us, that we need to strike first to ensure our security. In this scenario, I care more about my immediate needs than what the rest of the world thinks about my action. Can pure ethics provide any rationale for why I shouldn't do this? By what authority can the global community judge me? More sympathetically, what if the majority decides for something with which you personally disagree? Suppose the majority of the world decided that slavery was an acceptable institution - would you be wrong for disagreeing with them? Individually-centric pure ethics would say of course not - you generate your own ethics, and damn anyone who says otherwise. However, community-centric ethics would say of course - you are magically beholden to conform your own personal behavior to the whims of the majority. In short, although you are right that there is a third option, I fail to see how this option is more consistent, or more appealing. I think my earlier post makes sense of that. Your personal code of ethics can obviously differ significantly from the majority view (for instance, fundamental moslims in -lets say- china), although human evolution has hardcoded some ways of thinking into us and it would be extreme to break a rule given by this way of thinking. Even so, there is nothing "wrong" with that, unless you break some code of ethics which has been turned into legal code, in which case you will suffer the consequences (if caught). The same for your example: if you decide it is ethically okay to slaughter 800,000 unarmed people with machetes (or jews with a gas chamber, tutsis with machine guns or kurds with mustard gas, to name some real examples) then you are welcome to do so, but don't be surprised when the large majority of people who don't share your code of ethics cry out in rage and subject you to a fitting punishment (try you for crimes against humanity most likely). As for your other example: if the majority population decides to revert back to the idea that slavery is ethical you are welcome to disagree with it (just as Thomas More did, except as a form of punishment for criminals, in the 15th century), just don't expect to achieve anything or even be judged to have the moral highground (except perhaps in the eyes of a future civilization when slavery has been abolished once again). Community-centered ethics are what rules and laws are built around. Person-centered ethics are subsequent rules you personally decide to live your life by. If these conflict significantly with community-centered ethics there is a large chance you will be a social outcast, or tried as a criminal. However there is no ethical system which is inherently right or wrong, which is what an objective morality states. The universe at large does not impose some set of morals which must be adhered to, however the underlying laws of the universe do impose some restrictions on what sets of morals lead to a viable society (if wholesale slaughter is seen as ethical, the society runs a large risk of extinguishing itself). | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
TLDR; Objectivity is a pipe dream. | ||
|
TrainFX
United States469 Posts
On May 11 2011 23:35 Uhh Negative wrote: Inherent morality. If it's built into us when we are born. There's no way to know though. Objectivity itself is just an idea we understand. There is nothing completely objective in this world. but we're not, we're not born with ANY inherent morality, it's all socilization. | ||
|
0mar
United States567 Posts
Morality is simply the biggest person the block enforcing rules that are essentially made up on the fly. | ||
|
Nothingtosay
United States875 Posts
| ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
Options... Strong Objective Morals Morals are Good/Evil, independent of anything else in this physical universe, stuff is Good merely because it is good. It has absolutely no dependence on what people actually are doing. Evolutionarilly "Objective" Morals Morals are the rules that makes a society successful. (in this case morals are Subjective to the Environment a society finds itself in) Biologically/Psychologically "Objective" Morals Morals are the rules that avoid pain/death/suffering some psychological state (in this case morals are subjective to the genetic code of human beings, and possibly their socialization, as well as environment) Socially "Objective" Morals Morals are the ways in which a society actually behaves. (morals are Subjective based on which society you are in) Personally "Objective" Morals Morals are what Individual people actually do. (Morals are subjective to the person, and possibly to particular times in the persons life)... basically what you do is what you do. [basically purely subjective] Questions... 1. What IS good/evil 2. What do societies/people Believe is Good/Evil Now if moralilty is more Subjective, those are the same question... but if morality is Objective then they are different questions. (You can't say that the shape of the Earth is subjective just because different societies have believed different things... You CAN say beliefs about the shape of the Earth are subjective, but that doesn't say anything about the actual shape of the Earth.) I would believe that there are Strongly Objective Morals...although the way in which those morals are acted out Will be subjective to the situations that one is in. (which is sort of like a no duh, but needs to be stated, Most Moral systems say sometimes cutting someone is good, sometimes it is bad.. ie surgery v. murder) | ||
|
adun12345
United States198 Posts
On May 11 2011 23:42 Acrofales wrote: I think my earlier post makes sense of that. Your personal code of ethics can obviously differ significantly from the majority view (for instance, fundamental moslims in -lets say- china), although human evolution has hardcoded some ways of thinking into us and it would be extreme to break a rule given by this way of thinking. Even so, there is nothing "wrong" with that, unless you break some code of ethics which has been turned into legal code, in which case you will suffer the consequences (if caught). The same for your example: if you decide it is ethically okay to slaughter 800,000 unarmed people with machetes (or jews with a gas chamber, tutsis with machine guns or kurds with mustard gas, to name some real examples) then you are welcome to do so, but don't be surprised when the large majority of people who don't share your code of ethics cry out in rage and subject you to a fitting punishment (try you for crimes against humanity most likely). As for your other example: if the majority population decides to revert back to the idea that slavery is ethical you are welcome to disagree with it (just as Thomas More did, except as a form of punishment for criminals, in the 15th century), just don't expect to achieve anything or even be judged to have the moral highground (except perhaps in the eyes of a future civilization when slavery has been abolished once again). Community-centered ethics are what rules and laws are built around. Person-centered ethics are subsequent rules you personally decide to live your life by. If these conflict significantly with community-centered ethics there is a large chance you will be a social outcast, or tried as a criminal. However there is no ethical system which is inherently right or wrong, which is what an objective morality states. The universe at large does not impose some set of morals which must be adhered to, however the underlying laws of the universe do impose some restrictions on what sets of morals lead to a viable society (if wholesale slaughter is seen as ethical, the society runs a large risk of extinguishing itself). I understand the fact that societies form laws that accord with their ethical principles (and, I would hope, also reflect fundamental moral principles) to judge others. I also understand the utilitarian argument that one should do right in order to avoid punishment. Taken by itself, this argument inevitably leads to the position that there is no right or wrong, only what one can and cannot do. All of that is besides my real question, though: by what right does society impose its ethical norms upon the individual? The very difference between a law and an ethical standard is that a law only has a negative aspect - obey or be punished - while an ethical standard also has a positive aspect ("it is good to act ethically"). If one seeks to depend entirely on the negative aspect, then one is no longer actually discussing pure ethics - rather, one has moved over into the realm of "legalism," in which the law is the ultimate and final arbiter of all. The difficulty I still have with pure ethics is from whence the positive aspect of communal ethics emerges (it is good to act ethically). From an objective morality standpoint, I support the statement "it is good to act ethically" in so far as the ethics in question adhere to my understanding of the general objective moral principles, because it is good to act morally (and thus, ethically). From a pure ethics standpoint, I cannot see how one can say "it is good to act ethically." Why is this the case? What positive argument is there to be made for this position (distinct from the negative argument of, "because otherwise you will be punished")? If punishment is the only reason for me to act ethically, then my incentive is not actually to act ethically, but to find ways to do what I want without being punished. Is anyone actually ready to say that murdering 800,000 people would not be wrong as long as I escaped punishment? | ||
|
Maenander
Germany4923 Posts
On May 11 2011 23:44 TrainFX wrote: but we're not, we're not born with ANY inherent morality, it's all socilization. It was Aristoteles who described the human as a ζῷον πολιτικόν, a social being/animal. Most of us are naturally perceptive for guidelines of behaviour. Some of these rules might even be "hardwired" to some extent. | ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On May 12 2011 00:07 adun12345 wrote: I understand the fact that societies form laws that accord with their ethical principles (and, I would hope, also reflect fundamental moral principles) to judge others. I also understand the utilitarian argument that one should do right in order to avoid punishment. Taken by itself, this argument inevitably leads to the position that there is no right or wrong, only what one can and cannot do. All of that is besides my real question, though: by what right does society impose its ethical norms upon the individual? The very difference between a law and an ethical standard is that a law only has a negative aspect - obey or be punished - while an ethical standard also has a positive aspect ("it is good to act ethically"). If one seeks to depend entirely on the negative aspect, then one is no longer actually discussing pure ethics - rather, one has moved over into the realm of "legalism," in which the law is the ultimate and final arbiter of all. The difficulty I still have with pure ethics is from whence the positive aspect of communal ethics emerges (it is good to act ethically). From an objective morality standpoint, I support the statement "it is good to act ethically" in so far as the ethics in question adhere to my understanding of the general objective moral principles, because it is good to act morally (and thus, ethically). From a pure ethics standpoint, I cannot see how one can say "it is good to act ethically." Why is this the case? What positive argument is there to be made for this position (distinct from the negative argument of, "because otherwise you will be punished")? If punishment is the only reason for me to act ethically, then my incentive is not actually to act ethically, but to find ways to do what I want without being punished. Is anyone actually ready to say that murdering 800,000 people would not be wrong as long as I escaped punishment? Here, I can't claim to be able to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, but I will claim that objective morality. (admittedly I am coming from a religious standpoint.... but I would assert that it would still be wrong even if one could somehow escape divine punishment... in the sense that it would violate the purpose you were built for... ie like something that doesn't work is wrong.) | ||
| ||
