Is Morality Subjective or Objective? - Page 16

Euronyme

Sweden3804 Posts

May 11 2011 19:59 GMT

#301

Let's make it simple. Our moral is mirrored in our laws. Let's do a test.
Have our laws changed the past 1000 years? Yes.
Are our laws different in different parts of the world? Yes.
Are our laws followed by everyone? No.

Moral is subjective.

jimmyjingle

United States472 Posts

May 11 2011 19:59 GMT

#302

On May 12 2011 04:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:

Show nested quote +

Did you really call scientists "useless preachers"? I think it's rather absurd that you group them with religious preachers, although I agree with you that philosophy should help you learn and grow (and identify truths regarding the world... which is what this thread is trying to do...).

no, I called useless preachers useless preachers. by all means, read very deeply into what I said. this thread is "feel good philosphy," it's not critical, it's not insightful, it's not useful. I would like it to become those things.

Euronyme

Sweden3804 Posts

May 11 2011 20:04 GMT

#303

On May 12 2011 04:59 jimmyjingle wrote:

Show nested quote +

Is this even considered philosophy? This question has a straight answere based on fact. It's like asking "is 1+1=2? I think it is, but what's your opinion?"
Ofcourse people are going to make it complicated, but it's hardly philosphy.

Navillus

United States1188 Posts

May 11 2011 20:04 GMT

#304

On May 12 2011 04:59 Euronyme wrote:
Let's make it simple. Our moral is mirrored in our laws. Let's do a test.
Have our laws changed the past 1000 years? Yes.
Are our laws different in different parts of the world? Yes.
Are our laws followed by everyone? No.

Moral is subjective.

Morality being objective does not mean that everyone agrees, it means that even if someone disagrees and thinks that it can be moral to murder for example they are wrong.

DarkPlasmaBall

United States45044 Posts

May 11 2011 20:05 GMT

#305

On May 12 2011 04:59 jimmyjingle wrote:

Show nested quote +

I'm sure a lot of us would like the thread to be constructive and insightful. So... are you going to post something that would help it move in that direction? Or are you just going to hate on everyone who's posting their opinions? I'm sure if you contribute something helpful, we could start a good discussion.

It is, after all a public forum... not a philosophy class.

What do you think about the topic?

jimmyjingle

United States472 Posts

May 11 2011 20:09 GMT

#306

On May 12 2011 05:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:

Show nested quote +

I've already contributed my part and I'm done discussing this with you given your post history.

VIB

Brazil3567 Posts

May 11 2011 20:09 GMT

#307

On May 12 2011 05:04 Navillus wrote:

Show nested quote +

Morality being objective does not mean that everyone agrees, it means that even if someone disagrees and thinks that it can be moral to murder for example they are wrong.

Moral being objective means my moral is better than your moral

jdseemoreglass

United States3773 Posts

May 11 2011 20:10 GMT

#308

On May 12 2011 04:59 jimmyjingle wrote:
unless you're actually a better person from the knowledge they BESTOW upon you, shut up. the point of philosophy is to learn and grow, which is obviously not happening in this world.

Except "usefulness" is not a valid criteria for judging the truthfulness of a belief or statement, and neither is "becoming a better person." Better of course is subjective, which is what this whole discussion is about, in case you haven't noticed.

Couldn't it possibly be a characteristic of truth that learning it makes you a "worse person" in the eyes of the ignorant? I do feel the world is learning and growing, though it may not be growing in the direction that particular groups, such as christians, may desire.

Fulgrim

United States560 Posts

May 11 2011 20:11 GMT

#309

I just took an IB exam paper on ethics!

Moral relativism: Morals are relative, whatever you think is right, is right.

Moral Skepticism: Its impossible for us as humans to know what is right and wrong

Moral Nihilism : There is no right or wrong

Kantian morals: Humans are ends in themselves, harm to a human being is an ultimate wrong. The golden rule: treat others as you want to be treated. Use the categorical imperative: find universal laws that humans will obey. (Basically harm to humans is bad)

Utilitarian morals: Utility, you do what is the MOST good and the LEAST bad for the MOST people. This can lead to problems, if torturing someone on tv brings more pleasure then it does harm, then it is morally right to do that. Its also hard to quantify pain and pleasure.

Virtue ethics (aristotle): It is not the acts that a person does, it is the character of the person that decides if that is a good person or bad person. To be a good person you do good things? (Sorry never really understood this)

I personally agree with Kantian ethics. Even if morality is relative, life would be soooo much better if everyone followed kantian ethics. Seriously, why not value human beings and life? If you want to live a happy life you should do it!

Moral relativism doesn't satisfy most philosophers because it refuses to be rationally examined, since it just stops at "everything is relative dude".

adun12345

United States198 Posts

May 11 2011 20:12 GMT

#310

On May 12 2011 04:02 Acrofales wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +

On May 12 2011 02:58 adun12345 wrote:

Show nested quote +

On May 12 2011 01:59 Acrofales wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +

On May 12 2011 01:30 adun12345 wrote:

Show nested quote +

On May 12 2011 00:53 Acrofales wrote:

+ Show Spoiler +

On May 12 2011 00:07 adun12345 wrote:

On May 11 2011 23:42 Acrofales wrote:

Show nested quote +

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[\i] 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.

All of which is perfectly fine, in as far as it goes. However, to simply say "I believe that al Qaeda is wrong, but I recognize that there is no universal objective code that makes me right and them wrong" still does not answer the basic question: do we as a society have a right to force individuals who believe in al Qaeda's ethical code to abide by our ethical code?

I don't want to immediately discount the answer "no," but I would also like to point out that we as a society nonetheless have taken action to enforce our ethical standards on members of al Qaeda, just as we have with many other divergent viewpoints. The question here is, is our attempt to enforce our ethical views on others at all justified? It seems to me that the viewpoint above will forever be limited to only judging one's own personal behavior, or to arbitrarily attempting to enforce one's own viewpoints on others [i]even though one knows that these viewpoints are entirely subjective.

Well, there's the question of tribalism to consider here as well. We as "western" society want to protect our "western" way of life. Whether or not this is morally justifiable is kinda beside the point, even though there will be many people saying that we are not just protecting our lifestyle, but also a higher moral standard or some such bollocks

Whether we are morally justified in attempting to spread our code of ethics to the rest of the planet is thus irrelevant (if not deeply flawed in the very asking): it is a very good tactic for protecting our code of ethics from destruction (by proponents of other codes of ethics, such as al Quaeda's).

+ Show Spoiler +

Show nested quote +

As an aside, the great difficulty I have with Dawkin's work is that he takes the above example (the brain rewards us for altruism) and therefore concludes that there is no God (I just can't fathom the logic of "Chemicals in the brain reward us for altruism, therefore there is no God;" I always feel like there are a couple of steps missing in that logic) - although his science is generally sound, his philosophy is simply abysmal (and his conflating of philosophy and science rather unforgivable, both from a scientific and philosophical standpoint).

Agreed. Despite being an atheist I would've preferred if he hadn't tried to mix and merge. However, the science part says that we are capable of explaining altruism without a higher power, which is the interesting part!

+ Show Spoiler +

However, a full discussion of my opinions on the soundness of Dawkin's work would take us wildly off-topic, so instead let's focus on the specific question of brain chemistry. For the question of morality, it would seem to me that this example provides perhaps more evidence for objective morality than it does for pure ethics. The premise is that all human begins are genetically hard-wired to respond to certain thoughts or actions in certain ways through the common evolutionary experiences of our ancestors. If we accept that judgments of "right" and "wrong" have a certain objective basis in human brain chemistry, then that would seem to support the concept that there are certain objective standards by which human behavior can be judged right or wrong that exist beyond either the the rational, creative effort of the individual consciousness or the quasi-democratic zeitgeist of society.

One might further induce the broader origins of this brain-chemical level reaction by suggesting that it reflects the will of a higher power, but this induction is not really necessary to suggest that there are certain standards of behavior (vague though they might be) shared by all human beings that exist beyond the ethical realm of reason and society.

Well, there are some rules which are biologically programmed into us (and others which are socially programmed into us). However, this is hardly a definition of an objective moral code. Female praying mantises have it biologically hardcoded to eat their mates after sex: is this an objective moral code of praying mantises? If so, then moral code is species dependent. What if we evolve over a couple of thousand years into two species: a ruler human and a slave human (see plenty of distopian scifi books for similar examples, including the seminal brave new world (huxley) and the time machine (wells)): would slavery be morally justified by biology then? If we accept that "right" and "wrong" have a bias in human brain chemistry, then we have not decided it's objective, just species-wide. However, biological programming can also be overcome, just as social programming can. In the end a personal code of ethics is an amalgamy of biological, social and personal influences. That's why many people (and societies) consider it morally wrong to cheat on your husband/wife, despite there being a biological drive to do so. Following your instincts is thus not always considered ethical!

Once again, I'm not entirely convinced by the argument that the only reason we impose our ethical system on al Qaeda is because it is convenient for the survival of our ethical system (although that is, admittedly, an advantage). On these grounds, the only reason my society would ever intervene anywhere is because of a direct threat to my ethical structure - that is, an individual who wanted to force their ethics onto me.

That fails to provide any justification for, say, intervening in Rwanda in 1994 - their society, their rules. And yet, that is not how most people here would react. Instead, I believe most would claim that the genocide in Rwanda was wrong, and that action should have been taken to save innocent lives. And my question is: how does one reconcile the proposition of pure ethics (in that individuals or societies develop their own subjective ethical systems) with the position that international action against the genocide in Rwanda would have been correct? As far as I can tell, either one must admit that there is no good reason to intervene and impose one's ethics on another group, or one must claim that, by some extra-ethical standards, one's own ethics are superior to those of the genocidaires.

Maybe those rules are genetically-dictated by the brain chemistry that emerged from our shared evolutionary experiences. Maybe those rules are the result of a natural law written on our souls at the moment of creation by an all-mighty God. Maybe the only rule is survival (a grim possibility, but a possibility nonetheless). But without some rules, without some standard by which we can evaluate ethical systems against each other, we have absolutely no way of judging the worth of one thought or action against another. Without that basis, without the ability to judge thoughts and actions, either implicitly or explicitly, against objective standards, I fail to see how any society can survive.

Heh, our little slowchat here in the middle of the thread is far more interesting than the thread at large

Your second paragraph sounds a lot like what Zeri is quoting Sam Harris about. I would firstly argue that where morality comes from is essential to the discussion. An objective morality imposed by a higher being would have a right and wrong answer to any ethical question, namely, the answer given by the divine being. Any ambiguous question of morality (such as philosophers are really good at dreaming up) would thus have a correct answer and our task is to find out what it is. We have <insert divine scripture here> to guide us in this quest, but often it's still just guess work and common sense.

However, if with "objective morality" you mean morality as defined by Sam Harris, it is fluid and defined by making the "least bad choice". As such, we should tally up the "human suffering" (however you want to measure that) from each choice and the choice that results in the least suffering is the right choice. This can change over time (for instance, abortion of babies with genetical defects might be good now, but as medical science improves we could cure genetical defects and abortion would be bad) and is thus not really objective: there is no universal morality.

Personally I believe in the third option you give: there is no objective morality, but morality IS genetically encoded to some extent, because it has helped humans, as a species (or maybe just societies of humans and it's group selection rather than gene selection), evolve. That is why an aversion for slaughter, rape, theft and some other things are fairly universal. However, opinions on abortion, euthanasia or capital punishment are so diverse throughout the world: they have had no (evolutionary) effect on the survival of a society. Just as haircolour is so diverse throughout the human species: if there was an advantage in being blonde, a lot more people would be (and not just artificially

I agree entirely - we rock. Also, it's so nice to have a discussion about a potentially-controversial issue with someone without it devolving into an "omgyoursuchastupidqueernazilover," so above all, thanks for the civility!

The issue that remains for me is the same I had at the start: namely, that the only logical conclusion that all morality is totally subjective is that no one thought or action is any better than another. Yet this is clearly not how people act. Contemporary standards of political correctness may dictate that it is impolite to suggest that one's views are superior to those of another, but many of the same people who purport to believe in completely subjective morality will gladly agree that more ought to have been done in 1994 to mitigate the genocide in Rwanda. Despite our excellent discussion of the evolutionary and anthropological origins of ethical behavior, philosophically it makes little sense to me when rational, free-willed individuals claim "Everything is all shades of grey" and then turn around and say "How dare you commit genocide?" (obviously not the entirety of your position, but I think a fair appraisal of many of the supporters of moral subjectivity in this thread). Even the most sophisticated defense of moral subjectivity still falls apart in my eyes because it fails to account for the fact that people clearly structure their belief systems and lives on the basis that certain things are right and certain things are wrong, both for themselves and others. In my eyes, this is not the action of an individual who actually believes in moral subjectivity.

Alternatively, one could posit - as I believe you suggest - that certain things fall under some universal moral rubric (i.e., indiscriminate slaughter is wrong) while certain things do not (i.e., it doesn't matter what your hair color is). I am willing - as I think most proponents of objective morality would be willing - to accept this formulation, though I must point out that it is a formulation that accepts the existence of an objective morality. Having established that, what remains is to determine what, exactly, falls into the category of universal morality, and what does not. That discussion, however, would take us far beyond the premises of this thread.

Thus, I am left to conclude that there are objective moral standards, even though we may not all agree on what they are. Although I have heard many who claim that they believe morality to be subjective, I have yet to meet anyone who actually conducts their life with absolutely no recourse - however implicit - to objective standards of behavior.

ShowNun

United States10 Posts

May 11 2011 20:13 GMT

#311

Morality is subjective, but not personally so. Morality is based off consensus.

Fulgrim

United States560 Posts

May 11 2011 20:14 GMT

#312

Ah, but you see, human beings make laws and human beings are fallible. Many of the laws in the past 1000 years have been made by dicators and tyrants. People who wanted to stay in power, and people who are stupid. You can't really prove too much by saying that because our laws have changed that = changing morals.

I would argue that as time goes on we get closer and closer to realizing that human beings are ends in themselves, if you look at history, that seems to be the trend. What gets fuzzy these days are what it means to be a human being (look at abortion).

jimmyjingle

United States472 Posts

May 11 2011 20:14 GMT

#313

cyu

SilverWolfe

Canada173 Posts

May 11 2011 20:14 GMT

#314

I don't think there even needs to be this concept of morality... I guess you could say I have a subjective sense of morality, I just do whatever seems right to me. And so far as I can tell, the rest of society seems to think I'm just fine

the only thing I do that makes me feel guilty is doing badly in school and pirating music.

VIB

Brazil3567 Posts

May 11 2011 20:17 GMT

#315

On May 12 2011 05:11 Fulgrim wrote:
Kantian morals: Humans are ends in themselves, harm to a human being is an ultimate wrong. The golden rule: treat others as you want to be treated.

So hetero sex is immoral. I don't want her to do to me, what I do to her

Pleiades

United States472 Posts

May 11 2011 20:18 GMT

#316

On May 12 2011 01:24 Nevuk wrote:

Show nested quote +

This isn't nihilism. At all.

Do you really think a person that is extremely devoted to nihilism would be even caring to reply at all? I did not state that I was even a nihilist, I only stated I viewed the world in a nihilistic way or concept.

EscPlan9

United States2777 Posts

May 11 2011 20:19 GMT

#317

Debating the subjectivity or objectivity of morality from people who haven't seriously studied philosophy and ethics is a waste of time. At least with people who have studied it you have some framework to argue based on rather than pure speculation.

For instance, the majority of posters here lack the understanding of what objectivity entails. Because people have different opinions does not have any saying on objectivity. Also, when someone argues "everything is relative" (except that statement?), there is no discussion to be had. Cause "that's just like your opinion... man".

Navillus

United States1188 Posts

May 11 2011 20:19 GMT

#318

On May 12 2011 05:09 VIB wrote:

Show nested quote +

Moral being objective means my moral is better than your moral

nooooooooooo it means that there is a code of morals that says what is right or wrong and that is final, no one has to necessarily know what those morals are.

also

I don't like your argument for Kant, really if everyone decided to follow most major moral codes the world would be much better, that doesn't actually prove that to be the best one. Personally I am all for consequentialism and really think that deontology is a pretty silly general philosophy. Kantian ethics actually state that if a murderer was to come to your door and ask if anyone was inside so that they could kill them, and told you that they would believe you no matter what (they won't kill you no matter what either) then you morally MUST tell the truth, I honestly don't see how anyone can get around a problem like this, and if you follow a more watered down version then you will still have similar problems and not achieve Kant's original goal, basically nullifying the philosophy.

Navillus

United States1188 Posts

May 11 2011 20:20 GMT

#319

On May 12 2011 05:19 EscPlan9 wrote:
Debating the subjectivity or objectivity of morality from people who haven't seriously studied philosophy and ethics is a waste of time. At least with people who have studied it you have some framework to argue based on rather than pure speculation.

Yeah but this is the internet so we all know what we're talking about and everyone deserves a say.

wait...

Tarbosh

United States127 Posts

May 11 2011 20:23 GMT

#320

Definitely subjective. There are plenty of things that I consider moral that others don't, such as eating meat or prostitution. What people consider right and wrong have never been objective, that doesn't even make any sense at all. Some people thinking breaking the law is immoral, that still won't stop them from going over the speed limit, everyone has arbitrarily drawn a line on what they believe is ok or not ok.

Prev 1 14 15 16 17 18 40 Next All

Please or register to reply.

Is Morality Subjective or Objective? - Page 16

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming