|
On May 12 2011 05:11 Fulgrim wrote:
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".
Where is the option to believe:
Conceptualizations and generalizations of the mind do not experience an actual existence, and their meaning is dependent upon the definition we choose to ascribe to them?
I guess that makes me a nihilist...
The way I see it, all metaphysical arguments such as this boil down to the fact that we are ascribing a human invention: Words and Ideas, an actual existence in the world. We forget that words are simply tools for communication.
In order for a word to have any actual meaning, it must be connected to actual physical stimuli and empirical observations. The word "dog" has a meaning because you can physically see a dog's hair, hear a bark, smell it... What about words like "justice" or "truth" or "morality"? These words rely on subjective criteria such as human emotion, and therefore they will never have objective criteria as a foundation to actually define what they mean. So long as people do not have psychological experiences in common the way they can observe a dog in common, then these psychological inventions will have no real meaning.
So you have people debating for decades a word that we simply made up and never actually strictly defined. Words are just words, concepts are just concepts, they don't have a reality that you can deduce with logic or reasoning or anything else...
Am I the only one who thinks this way?
|
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.
I agree! We need Tyler to come drop some knowledge bombs! =P
|
A more interesting question would be: is morality necessary?
|
On May 12 2011 05:27 Haato wrote:
A more interesting question would be: is morality necessary?
And how is that interesting? Nothing is "necessary." Not even existence. It's a matter of "what do some of us want?"
|
+ Show Spoiler +On May 12 2011 05:25 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Where is the option to believe:
Conceptualizations and generalizations of the mind do not experience an actual existence, and their meaning is dependent upon the definition we choose to ascribe to them?
I guess that makes me a nihilist...
The way I see it, all metaphysical arguments such as this boil down to the fact that we are ascribing a human invention: Words and Ideas, an actual existence in the world. We forget that words are simply tools for communication.
In order for a word to have any actual meaning, it must be connected to actual physical stimuli and empirical observations. The word "dog" has a meaning because you can physically see a dog's hair, hear a bark, smell it... What about words like "justice" or "truth" or "morality"? These words rely on subjective criteria such as human emotion, and therefore they will never have objective criteria as a foundation to actually define what they mean. So long as people do not have psychological experiences in common the way they can observe a dog in common, then these psychological inventions will have no real meaning.
So you have people debating for decades a word that we simply made up and never actually strictly defined. Words are just words, concepts are just concepts, they don't have a reality that you can deduce with logic or reasoning or anything else...
Am I the only one who thinks this way?
I believe your describing a form of error theory. I am not entirely sure, because your terminology is very much your own. Also, you may want to look into semiotics.
To answer your question.
|
On May 12 2011 05:33 valedictory wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 12 2011 05:25 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Where is the option to believe:
Conceptualizations and generalizations of the mind do not experience an actual existence, and their meaning is dependent upon the definition we choose to ascribe to them?
I guess that makes me a nihilist...
The way I see it, all metaphysical arguments such as this boil down to the fact that we are ascribing a human invention: Words and Ideas, an actual existence in the world. We forget that words are simply tools for communication.
In order for a word to have any actual meaning, it must be connected to actual physical stimuli and empirical observations. The word "dog" has a meaning because you can physically see a dog's hair, hear a bark, smell it... What about words like "justice" or "truth" or "morality"? These words rely on subjective criteria such as human emotion, and therefore they will never have objective criteria as a foundation to actually define what they mean. So long as people do not have psychological experiences in common the way they can observe a dog in common, then these psychological inventions will have no real meaning.
So you have people debating for decades a word that we simply made up and never actually strictly defined. Words are just words, concepts are just concepts, they don't have a reality that you can deduce with logic or reasoning or anything else...
Am I the only one who thinks this way? I believe your describing a form of error theory. I am not entirely sure, because your terminology is very much your own. Also, you may want to look into semiotics. To answer your question.
Thanks, I will look it up.
All I know is that I was profoundly influenced by "The Ego and It's Own" by Max Stirner. He talked about how we are schizophrenic in the sense that we invent our ideas and then procede to believe in their objective existence. We have "spooks" or ghosts in the mind in the form of these invented concepts that rule over our thinking and behavior. We believe that "morality" and "duty" and other social inventions are real instead of just tools for manipulating us, and that true liberation for the individual stems from eliminating these false ideals in favor subjective or "egoist" criteria.
|
Morals are subjective in the same way that everything is, but as a human I find it futile to try to fight your fundamental instincts, in my mind the idea of inflicting unwanted, unnecessary pain in another is inescapably wrong, including animals. My morals are felt as powerfully and seem near as fundamental as any of my senses, when I see something I very rarely even consider that it might be different or not truly there, similarly if I see something as moral/immoral I find the idea of me being wrong rarely enters my mind and if it does the alternative is irreconcilable with who I am. I cannot look at torture and say that it is right, I cannot look at a table and say that it is not there.
|
Theres 2 things in the bible and other religions that stand out to me as moral constants in the universe.
Love the others as you love yourself, which means, do not to the other what you wouldnt want done in yourself (basically, dont get other people in shit, give em shit, hurt em, blind fanatics trying to opress people with religious views wouldnt exacly qualify in my view, as being correct as much as they disagree)
Thats a powerfull message right there, bigger and broader than any religion, but people fail to see it for what it is
|
Objective certainly. Due to the fact that I have no time on my hands I will offer my 2 cents later.
|
Saying there are objective morals in the absence of a divine being is just silly. Where did the concept of right and wrong come from if not from a god or from humans? I find it strange that people even try to argue that "the worst possible misery for everyone" etc would be some kind of objective state when it's not even the same for every person.
So while it's not really comforting that values are totally subjective it's the only realistic and rational approach. After this realization you can apply whatever coping strategy you want to rationalize this problem, so that you can live from your own set of rules that are pragmatic or utilitarian or whatever.
|
On May 12 2011 05:25 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 05:11 Fulgrim wrote:
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". Where is the option to believe: Conceptualizations and generalizations of the mind do not experience an actual existence, and their meaning is dependent upon the definition we choose to ascribe to them? I guess that makes me a nihilist... The way I see it, all metaphysical arguments such as this boil down to the fact that we are ascribing a human invention: Words and Ideas, an actual existence in the world. We forget that words are simply tools for communication. In order for a word to have any actual meaning, it must be connected to actual physical stimuli and empirical observations. The word "dog" has a meaning because you can physically see a dog's hair, hear a bark, smell it... What about words like "justice" or "truth" or "morality"? These words rely on subjective criteria such as human emotion, and therefore they will never have objective criteria as a foundation to actually define what they mean. So long as people do not have psychological experiences in common the way they can observe a dog in common, then these psychological inventions will have no real meaning. So you have people debating for decades a word that we simply made up and never actually strictly defined. Words are just words, concepts are just concepts, they don't have a reality that you can deduce with logic or reasoning or anything else... Am I the only one who thinks this way?
. The word "dog" has a meaning because you can physically see a dog's hair, hear a bark, smell it... What about words like "justice" or "truth" or "morality"?
These words also have meaning but they 'describe' aspects of "reality" that are far more abstract than i.e dog - thus, it is a lot harder to find a consensus. Nonetheless, there is some kind of consensus, at least on a general level - because, although we are not able to see a concrete physical object that could be described by such words - we are able to observe results, influence that the things described by these words have on our existence.
+ Show Spoiler +For example, statement that emotions subjective - if it implies that they are only subjective - is not true because they are partially objective. Certain human emotions have certain influence our behaviors and actions that are similar for the vast majority of people. Nearly everyone is able to tell the difference between anger and happiness. Of course, the results of these emotions can be faked - but it works only if the faking capabilities of the one who fakeing surpass the perception and interpretation capabilities of those observing it.
Also, these emotions are triggered in a similar way for most people.
The general consensus and belief systems regarding ethics, morality and justice do have a very real and significant influence on how the domains we call reality look like.
|
Why is there no poll? Would have been interesting to see what the general opinion was.
My answer would take too long for me to write but basically you have to study the history of as many different cultures as possible and draw your conclusions from what you find. In essence - what is commonly referred to as "absolute" morality is simply a consequence of cultural trial and error. Incest for example seems like a really good idea. So you try it. A couple of generations later, things aren't so great and the culture suffers from it. Society either finds the root of its problems and adapts or is destroyed/marginalized.
In my opinion, the term "objective morality" should be reserved for the scientifically sound concepts that we have discovered and realized are foundations of a functioning society. Core stuff, like incest = bad, cannibalism = bad, breeding at too late an age = bad. Lately we have some new ones as well, like unprotected sex with strangers = bad (spread of STDs, mainly HIV) is a good example.
Finally, to touch on a classic one "the weak shall be protected by the strong". This is a huge scam in my opinion and never serves its intended purpose. Instead it serves mainly to keep the strong in power and suppress the weak. Human rights were the first step in the right direction but those still need to be enforced by the strong in order to be functional.
|
Good, bad, right and wrong are simply classifications of actions based on perspective. Morality is a societal construct; it's subjective.
|
Is there really someone here that hasn't said, "that isn't fair" or "that isn't right?"
If you have ever said either of the two phrases (in similar wording), you've implied that there is a standard that either everyone should adhere to or that everyone already does adhere to (except maybe the person you're saying it to...heh).
|
On May 12 2011 05:54 Sablar wrote:
Saying there are objective morals in the absence of a divine being is just silly. Where did the concept of right and wrong come from if not from a god or from humans? I find it strange that people even try to argue that "the worst possible misery for everyone" etc would be some kind of objective state when it's not even the same for every person.
So while it's not really comforting that values are totally subjective it's the only realistic and rational approach. After this realization you can apply whatever coping strategy you want to rationalize this problem, so that you can live from your own set of rules that are pragmatic or utilitarian or whatever.
Saying there are objective morals that come from a divine being is profoundly circular. Morality can be discussed objectively through the view of science perfectly fine. Pure moral subjectivity is not realistic and terribly irrational (my answer to the meaning of life is 'lamp' and you have to accept that it is equally valid as every other possible answer) It's been addressed in this thread plenty of times but our understanding of health is equally man made and objective as morality.
|
On May 12 2011 06:02 Zeri wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 05:54 Sablar wrote:
Saying there are objective morals in the absence of a divine being is just silly. Where did the concept of right and wrong come from if not from a god or from humans? I find it strange that people even try to argue that "the worst possible misery for everyone" etc would be some kind of objective state when it's not even the same for every person.
So while it's not really comforting that values are totally subjective it's the only realistic and rational approach. After this realization you can apply whatever coping strategy you want to rationalize this problem, so that you can live from your own set of rules that are pragmatic or utilitarian or whatever. Saying there are objective morals that come from a divine being is profoundly circular. Morality can be discussed objectively through the view of science perfectly fine. Pure moral subjectivity is not realistic and terribly irrational (my answer to the meaning of life is 'lamp' and you have to accept that it is equally valid as every other possible answer) It's been addressed in this thread plenty of times but our understanding of health is equally man made and objective as morality.
Isn't "Morality can be discussed objectively through the view of science perfectly fine" a subjective claim?
|
On May 12 2011 05:50 D10 wrote:
Theres 2 things in the bible and other religions that stand out to me as moral constants in the universe.
Love the others as you love yourself, which means, do not to the other what you wouldnt want done in yourself (basically, dont get other people in shit, give em shit, hurt em, blind fanatics trying to opress people with religious views wouldnt exacly qualify in my view, as being correct as much as they disagree)
Thats a powerfull message right there, bigger and broader than any religion, but people fail to see it for what it is
I think "do onto others as you would have done to yourself" is a good mantra, but it cant be applied inflexibly to everything, I mean, is it good to hurt a masochist? Probably yes, but I wouldn't want to be spanked. lol.
|
11589 Posts
On May 12 2011 05:54 Sablar wrote:
Saying there are objective morals in the absence of a divine being is just silly. Where did the concept of right and wrong come from if not from a god or from humans? I find it strange that people even try to argue that "the worst possible misery for everyone" etc would be some kind of objective state when it's not even the same for every person.
So while it's not really comforting that values are totally subjective it's the only realistic and rational approach. After this realization you can apply whatever coping strategy you want to rationalize this problem, so that you can live from your own set of rules that are pragmatic or utilitarian or whatever.
Is the "worst possible misery" really different for everyone? I don't think so. I don't think anyone WANTS to live in a state of constant physical, emotional, and/or psychological suffering. No one wants to live in a world where people's selfishness leads them to kill, steal from, and rape everyone else that they can. No one wants to see genocide of their people occur. There are definitely things that no one wants to happen, and an objective moral rule would be; don't cause those things to happen.
It's not realistic to think that morals are subjective. There are things that are bad, universally. Look at the different systems in religions or governments across the world. I bet you find some common themes. Obviously, people tend to think alike on matters like this. There will always be outliers, but they do not imply some sort of logical disconnect between survival/advancement of the human race (some hard-coded into us genetically) and the moral systems that we develop.
Objective morals can come from humans. You can think we're all different and that makes everything subjective, but you're wrong. There are even good arguments AGAINST objective morals that come from god, one of the most famous as the Euthyphro by Plato. If you're going to talk about ethics/morals, at least do your homework first.
|
On May 12 2011 05:57 Thrill wrote:
Why is there no poll? Would have been interesting to see what the general opinion was.
My answer would take too long for me to write but basically you have to study the history of as many different cultures as possible and draw your conclusions from what you find. In essence - what is commonly referred to as "absolute" morality is simply a consequence of cultural trial and error. Incest for example seems like a really good idea. So you try it. A couple of generations later, things aren't so great and the culture suffers from it. Society either finds the root of its problems and adapts or is destroyed/marginalized.
In my opinion, the term "objective morality" should be reserved for the scientifically sound concepts that we have discovered and realized are foundations of a functioning society. Core stuff, like incest = bad, cannibalism = bad, breeding at too late an age = bad. Lately we have some new ones as well, like unprotected sex with strangers = bad (spread of STDs, mainly HIV) is a good example.
Finally, to touch on a classic one "the weak shall be protected by the strong". This is a huge scam in my opinion and never serves its intended purpose. Instead it serves mainly to keep the strong in power and suppress the weak. Human rights were the first step in the right direction but those still need to be enforced by the strong in order to be functional.
The problem is that you are simply redefining morality to mean pragmatism, when they have traditionally meant very different things, even though in practice they went hand in hand because morality controls behavior.
EDIT: Yes, I would have loved to see a poll. Just to see how many people honestly think "objective." Even if you believe morality comes from God, then it is still HIS subjective morality.
|
For the most part I believe morals are subjective. Even across the US tons of differing opinions on morality are present, and I would even say that within a family differences would be vast. Morality cannot be defined by anyone other than yourself, because they are based on your values and who you are fundamentally as an individual. Morals cannot be objective or differing opinions and values would be ignored. Whether they are emotionally disturbed or not people can believe in morality in the absolute polar opposite manner in which you do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
