|
Might makes Right. What's the single most powerful integrated force on the planet? The US military? That's my best guess. Regardless, whatever that strongest force is, it's the most moral thing on the planet too!
|
I guess mine would be under suggestive.
I think that most people have a relatively similar set of morals, most murderers would probably think they do bad things, however there are some outliers who see that there is nothing wrong with killing people, and some that think they should kill people and that it is a good thing to do. I think as a whole a lot of people need to die because we can't seem to live a balanced life with the current amount and on a personal level I don't want to be the person to do it, luckily we have a lot of natural disasters happening right now.
|
On May 12 2011 00:18 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote ++ Show Spoiler +On May 12 2011 00:07 adun12345 wrote:On May 11 2011 23:42 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 23:18 adun12345 wrote:On May 11 2011 23:09 Acrofales wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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). 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). 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.)
This is my point entirely - objective morality has no difficulty explaining the positive aspect of ethics. It is good to act ethically (where ethics are the standards society sets) in so far as those ethics accord with broader moral principles because it is good to act morally, and it is good to act morally by definition. This explanation satisfies me, but I realize that it is not accepted by many.
The difficulty is that I can't think of another reason why it is good to act ethically. Certainly, it might be less than optimal to act unethically if acting so causes one to be punished, but that only holds true so long as one is actually punished. Otherwise, it seems, anything goes.
|
On May 11 2011 23:44 TrainFX wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 23:35 Uhh Negative wrote: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. but we're not, we're not born with ANY inherent morality, it's all socilization.
You don't know that.
|
On May 11 2011 21:47 Umpteen wrote:Some posts are like little tins of condensed wrong. Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 18:15 Kickboxer wrote:
These topics are pointless to discuss in a large group environment because everyone's view invariably depends on their religion. Atheism is just another religion where god is replaced by science. This is completely incorrect. Science is a methodology for helping you decide what to believe, not a focus for belief in and of itself. It's perfectly possible for the scientific method to detect the existence of a god or corroborate religious texts - the fact it doesn't is why I'm an atheist.
The scientific method is hard coded around the conceited assumption that everything can be recorded, measured and explained by the human brain and its ingenious little contraptions.
When a dressed up monkey is absolutely convinced that something it cannot register is in fact not there I daresay it's making a rather quantum leap of faith :p
|
"All things are subject to interpretation, whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth."
I think this sums up my thoughts on morality.
But on the topic of "successful societies", people have brought up this concept as a founding principle of objective morality. There is some difficulty in achieving an objective concept of societal success however and I don't think anyone would argue this with me. That said I would like to add some stupid and boring finding of academic philosophy to this discussion if you would allow me.
It pertains to means-ends relations. You can't just assign objective value to the ends. In our case "successful societies" without also considering the means to this end as they will inevitably enter in the total moral outcome.
What if, to create a successful society, we needed to routinely select a few children and deny their human rights for 23 years as we groom them into extremely efficient and loyal leaders of business and government. What if we needed to kill off every person as soon as they were 65 years of age. These are moral concerns and they are not properly accounted for in the theory.
In conclusion, any morality based exclusively on the attainment of a "successful society" is inherently incomplete and unclear.
|
The morality of individual people is subjective,but morality tends towards objectivity as you increase the sample size of people above 1.
When you are talking about the morality of a society it's mostly about the objective fact of what makes evolutionary sense. Morals after all are basically just partly-written, partly-unwritten codes that a society needs people to follow to a certain degree of exactitude in order to function and not break down.
|
On May 12 2011 00:07 adun12345 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 23:42 Acrofales wrote:On May 11 2011 23:18 adun12345 wrote:On May 11 2011 23:09 Acrofales wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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). 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. 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). 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")?
I have just watched the TED talk by Sam Harris posted earlier. I somewhat agree with him, but not so much with his examples. I think a good moral system (more on this later) is more to be grounded in evolution and the sociology of a society, whereas his idea is that it is a system for maximizing human happiness. However, there is a fundamental flaw in this: I have seen a lot of poverty when traveling in Africa, yet these people were extremely friendly, hospitable and above all happy. Brainscans aside, I believe people can find happiness in the most apalling conditions (and similarly, others find misery in the most ideal situations) and thus maximizing individual happiness seems like a bad benchmark for deciding whether a code of ethics is "good" or "bad". As the interviewer after Sam Harris' talk mentioned: women wearing burkas in Afghanistan are often genuinely satisfied by the fact that they have to wear a burka. Now you can refer to their deluded belief system, but who are we to say (as Sam Harris did) that their belief system is deluded?
For that reason I feel that the only "judge" of a code of ethics is:
1. our personal code of ethics (and thus majority rules)
2. time (if a code of ethics of a society is sufficiently bad, that society will dwindle under its weight)
Our personal code of ethics is partially inspired by our biology. We feel empathy, which instills in us a want for others not to experience what we would not to experience ourselves. For most this results in rules such as:
1. do not kill (because we don't want to die)
2. do not steal (because we don't want to be stolen from)
3. do not rape (because we don't want to be raped)
4. do not oppress (because we don't want to be oppressed)
Thus resulting in strong disapproval of people who slaughter 800,000 civilians with machetes, people who condone slavery, etc. Note that I am not speaking about an individual who knows it is wrong to kill his opponents, but, in his thirst to maintain power does so anyway, but people who feel genuinely morally justified in their homicidal tendencies. If a majority of your society has convinced itself that jews are not really people, gas chambers are a possible result. Similarly for black people (or just people who were beaten in war) and slavery. That in modern times we look back on history and judge these as gross aberrations and lack of ethics is simply because you and I do empathize with jews and blacks. However, the same still continues, with Osama bin Laden justifying wholescale slaughter of civilians in the twin towers in a similar manner and equally radical bible thumping protestants declaiming the Islam as a dangerous and inferior religion and thus worthy of eradication. I judge both viewpoints as wrong (or even evil) because I do feel empathy towards americans, respectively moslims, but have to acknowledge that there is no universal code that makes me right and them wrong.
|
How can they be objective? By which standard? There has never been a consensus. Morals are man-made, not given to man.
|
Morality is dependent on human emotion. That alone should prove it is subjective. And by the way... just because everyone agrees on a subjective morality does not make it objective either.
|
On May 12 2011 00:27 adun12345 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 00:18 Krikkitone wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 12 2011 00:07 adun12345 wrote:On May 11 2011 23:42 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 23:18 adun12345 wrote:On May 11 2011 23:09 Acrofales wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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). 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). 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.) This is my point entirely - objective morality has no difficulty explaining the positive aspect of ethics. It is good to act ethically (where ethics are the standards society sets) in so far as those ethics accord with broader moral principles because it is good to act morally, and it is good to act morally by definition. This explanation satisfies me, but I realize that it is not accepted by many. The difficulty is that I can't think of another reason why it is good to act ethically. Certainly, it might be less than optimal to act unethically if acting so causes one to be punished, but that only holds true so long as one is actually punished. Otherwise, it seems, anything goes.
Well with subjective morality ie evolutionarilly success type morality, that isn't a problem.
Because "anything goes" is not the issue. Lets say you
1. did not believe in objective reality
2. found a way you could torture a child to death without getting ANY punishment from society whatsoever.
99+% of the people reading this post would not do it... why
Because Punishment is not the only mechanism society has for controling your behavior.
You have been programmed, genetically and psychologically to not do that.
Now it IS possible to reprogram psychologically (either yourself or others). That happened in the Holocaust to some degree. The system of rewards+punishments wasn't the only thing that shifted, the programming that society provided changed. People that would risk their life for a fellow German Jewish soldier in WWI, became willing to kill them. (now the reprogramming wasn't complete, but if society had maintained that course it might have been.)
So under subjective morality "anything goes" but that doesn't mean anything can happen.
Ie you can't say, "This law/society is evil so I will work against it" you can say "I will work against this law/society because I can do anything I want and I want it changed"
So the abolitionist is 'self-consistent' under either 'objective morality' or 'subjective morality'.
|
On May 12 2011 00:27 adun12345 wrote:
The difficulty is that I can't think of another reason why it is good to act ethically. Certainly, it might be less than optimal to act unethically if acting so causes one to be punished, but that only holds true so long as one is actually punished. Otherwise, it seems, anything goes.
Some part of it is built into us biologically. I can highly recommend Richard Dawkin's work as an illuminating read on where concepts such as altruism can come from, if not from a higher power. One clue is that we feel genuine pleasure from helping somebody in the street who we have no selfish reason to help. Our brain's reward system kicks in to give us a selfish reason for doing a "good deed". This alone should give us an indication that (societies of) humans feeling pleasure from helping other humans somehow had a leg up over (societies of) non-altruistic humans in the battle for survival. A possible reason for this is given in "The Selfish Gene", which, although quite old now, still rings true (although the end on memetics is pure speculation).
|
On May 12 2011 00:53 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 00:07 adun12345 wrote:On May 11 2011 23:42 Acrofales wrote:On May 11 2011 23:18 adun12345 wrote:On May 11 2011 23:09 Acrofales wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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). 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. 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). 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")? I have just watched the TED talk by Sam Harris posted earlier. I somewhat agree with him, but not so much with his examples. I think a good moral system (more on this later) is more to be grounded in evolution and the sociology of a society, whereas his idea is that it is a system for maximizing human happiness. However, there is a fundamental flaw in this: I have seen a lot of poverty when traveling in Africa, yet these people were extremely friendly, hospitable and above all happy. Brainscans aside, I believe people can find happiness in the most apalling conditions (and similarly, others find misery in the most ideal situations) and thus maximizing individual happiness seems like a bad benchmark for deciding whether a code of ethics is "good" or "bad". As the interviewer after Sam Harris' talk mentioned: women wearing burkas in Afghanistan are often genuinely satisfied by the fact that they have to wear a burka. Now you can refer to their deluded belief system, but who are we to say (as Sam Harris did) that their belief system is deluded?
You misinterpret and misrepresent the views of harris here. Harris advocates a system which minimizes suffering and maximizes human well being. Which he argues is the only thing we can possibly value if we are to value anything. I suggest reading the Moral Landscape by Harris before you engage with these ideas in this way.
|
On May 12 2011 01:08 Zeri wrote:
You misinterpret and misrepresent the views of harris here. Harris advocates a system which minimizes suffering and maximizes human well being. Which he argues is the only thing we can possibly value if we are to value anything. I suggest reading the Moral Landscape by Harris before you engage with these ideas in this way.
The problem is you need to define human well being.
And that ends up as a circular type argument... instead of just saying
"I will do this because I believe it is good"
it becomes
"I will do this because it increases what I believe to be human well being which I believe to be good"
Now if you say human well being consists of X, Y, and Z. all you are saying is that you believe X, Y, and Z to be Good.
ie
Subjective morality... maybe one you can get a lot of people to agree with, but that is still completely subjective.
|
I don't really think morality as a whole is quantifiable into objective OR subjective, rather different aspects of overall morality are grouped into each respectively. For example, nobody wants to be killed, therefore it'd be hypocritical to your own survival instinct to kill another.
At the same time, take the PETA movement for example. To them, eating any sort of meat is basically sinful, and they don't respect anyone who allows large corporations to continue to mass produce meat in the way that they do, while others own their own ranch and humanely slaughter their own cattle to either sell or eat themselves.
TL:DR little bit of this, little bit of that
|
If there are no humans there are no morals therefore humans make their own moral code.
|
On May 12 2011 01:11 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 01:08 Zeri wrote:
You misinterpret and misrepresent the views of harris here. Harris advocates a system which minimizes suffering and maximizes human well being. Which he argues is the only thing we can possibly value if we are to value anything. I suggest reading the Moral Landscape by Harris before you engage with these ideas in this way. The problem is you need to define human well being. And that ends up as a circular type argument... instead of just saying "I will do this because I believe it is good" it becomes "I will do this because it increases what I believe to be human well being which I believe to be good" Now if you say human well being consists of X, Y, and Z. all you are saying is that you believe X, Y, and Z to be Good. ie Subjective morality... maybe one you can get a lot of people to agree with, but that is still completely subjective.
Read the book, seriously. Its a great read and I won't have to restate all of Harris's arguments. Harris defines 'bad' objectively as the worst possible misery for everyone. After this distinction, the argument is no longer circular.
|
The major problem is the subjectivity of reality itself.
As Constructivist Epistemology and Social Constructionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_epistemology) state, it is impossible for a human to have an objective view on reality.
However, this also gave born to an interesting view on ethics, by reducing the "ethical imperative" of constructivism to "Act always so as to increase the number of choices".
This actually makes a lot of sense, since it always means that preserving is better than destroying or letting something to be destroyed. Because, for the example of environment/nature, it gives us more options to interact with it when it is intact and not destroyed.
|
On May 11 2011 15:35 Pleiades wrote:
I have a moral nihilistic view of the world, so subjective for me. That does not mean I don't value anything at all. I just have my own set of values, and I try not to value it above others' values.
This isn't nihilism. At all.
|
On May 12 2011 01:17 Zeri wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 01:11 Krikkitone wrote:On May 12 2011 01:08 Zeri wrote:
You misinterpret and misrepresent the views of harris here. Harris advocates a system which minimizes suffering and maximizes human well being. Which he argues is the only thing we can possibly value if we are to value anything. I suggest reading the Moral Landscape by Harris before you engage with these ideas in this way. The problem is you need to define human well being. And that ends up as a circular type argument... instead of just saying "I will do this because I believe it is good" it becomes "I will do this because it increases what I believe to be human well being which I believe to be good" Now if you say human well being consists of X, Y, and Z. all you are saying is that you believe X, Y, and Z to be Good. ie Subjective morality... maybe one you can get a lot of people to agree with, but that is still completely subjective. Read the book, seriously. Its a great read and I won't have to restate all of Harris's arguments. Harris defines 'bad' objectively as the worst possible misery for everyone. After this distinction, the argument is no longer circular.
Misery, in and of itself, is subjective, as happiness (and I would argue that wellbeing and happiness are generally interchangeable and this was definitely so in my argument against his statements). If millions of afghani women are happy wearing a burka, who are we to say that that is due to a misguided belief system and their happiness is thus not genuine happiness! (note that I am not saying millions of afghani women are happy wearing a burka, in fact I would be quite surprised if this were the case after listening to some of the advocates for women's rights in afghanistan)
However, this simple fact brings the whole house down: if misery is not objective, how can you claim to build an objective moral code that minimizes misery (or maximizes well being, whichever you prefer)?
That is, in addition to a second problem: lets say I am a genocidal sociopath and derive pleasure from murdering people. I set about murdering everybody on the planet and, miraculously, succeed. Now social well-being is maximized as I have fulfilled my life goal and am supremely happy. I spend the rest of my life frolicking around and disecting the occasional bunny. Misery has obviously been minimized (and, in case I still feel any misery, will be further minimized when I die), but is a world with 1 genocidal maniac in it truly an optimal state for society?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
