|
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.
Dear sir, what if I come up to you and say that my moral values justify my killing you, what would you say?
Indeed you would struggle to prevent me from having my way, but then doesn't morality totally cease to function as a restraint, and doesn't mankind have nothing but violence to coordinate their society?
I know it is hard to prove that there is a universal set of moral rules, but it is equally hard to prove that there is not one. Yet so many seem convinced by this humanistic notion that there is no higher authority than the individual's will, even though to believe so has the dangerous and fatalistic implication that mankind is lawless and incapable of progress. Not only is that a dangerous notion, it is not totally accurate description of how mankind conducts itself hitherto either.
Yet somehow the strong current of historicism and relativism has brought us to a point that everyone of us has a little relativist within.
|
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.
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.
Something isn't 'good' in an evolutionary perspective = a belief, or value. It's entirely based on the context and it's perfectly possible that only HIV carriers were to survive some catastrophe or something. Now HIV is suddenly something good? That doesn't make an objective amount of sense.
Emotions are universal? People in general dislike things like pain and even seeing others in pain? Yes. So values avoiding pain are objectively good because we are sort of hardwired to dislike it? Why? Just because it's part of nature doesn't make it right or wrong. Then you have already assigned a value to the world around us and saying that 'nature' has a purpose in itself that is 'good', much like a god would. It doesn't make it objective nor partially objective, it just means that it's something that most people don't like.
I think it's a perfectly rational idea that avoiding pain is a good thing, but that's something I believe, not something that is written in the laws of the universe or something.
|
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?
I like the way you are thinking, isn't mathematics also just a concept/language though? all be it with more strict definitions and rules.
|
On May 12 2011 06:01 lectR wrote:
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).
Problem:
Everyone should adhere to = I wish everyone adheres to
If you are using personal dissatisfaction as a criteria for morality, then you are agreeing it is subjective.
|
Northern Ireland2557 Posts
Morality is obviously subjective... the fact that there is even any contention regarding this is proof in itself
|
On May 12 2011 06:10 Quochobao wrote:
Dear sir, what if I come up to you and say that my moral values justify my killing you, what would you say?
There's nothing to be said. Most people are mentally and physically capable of killing, and if their desire and morals are working towards that end, all one can do is attempt to reason / physically defend themselves.
As much as you might think your question proves a point, it doesn't. "Rights," just like morality are still subjective and based on perspective and interpretation.
|
On May 12 2011 06:10 Quochobao wrote:Show nested quote +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. Dear sir, what if I come up to you and say that my moral values justify my killing you, what would you say? Indeed you would struggle to prevent me from having my way, but then doesn't morality totally cease to function as a restraint, and doesn't mankind have nothing but violence to coordinate their society?
I know it is hard to prove that there is a universal set of moral rules, but it is equally hard to prove that there is not one. Yet so many seem convinced by this humanistic notion that there is no higher authority than the individual's will, even though to believe so has the dangerous and fatalistic implication that mankind is lawless and incapable of progress. Not only is that a dangerous notion, it is not totally accurate description of how mankind conducts itself hitherto either. Yet somehow the strong current of historicism and relativism has brought us to a point that everyone of us has a little relativist within.
You bolded it, not me... but that's the part I wish to focus on anyway.
You know Pascal's Wager is a fallacious argument, right?
And also, the existence of objective morality doesn't necessarily implicate the existence of God. In general, objectivity doesn't mean there must be a higher authority involved. There already exist universal laws, logic, and mathematics that are objective and don't indicate that any higher authority exists.
Also, I'm pretty sure it would be hypothetically easy to prove that objective morality *can* exist. Just... give an example.
|
+ Show Spoiler +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.
I think you may have too hastily concluded there can be no objective morality without a divine creator. You claim the concept of morality came from either god or humans, but it doesn't necessarily follow that morality is subjective if the concept was reached by humans alone or equally granted by god. Supposing an omnipotent being embedded objective moral truths into our universe, can the concept of these truths never be realized by man alone? Likewise, the concepts of mathematics and logic would have been acquired by man alone in the absence of an omnipotent being, as all concepts would have. They seem to be objectively true. What of scientific truths, the laws of nature? The acquisition of concepts on the surface seems to say little about whether or not their references objectively exist.
I'm not arguing either way; I'm just posing some questions I feel your argument doesn't address.
|
Morality is subjective, for sure. We make up the rules of right or wrong based on ideals we hold and what is important to us.
Logic, however, is objective; and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality.
|
If you look at small socities, where things like sex with underage is normalized, or cannibalism (not many now but there were some) is accepted. It's very hard to be an objective moralist.
Those small socities established an own moral of what is right and wrong, and that would only be changed by outsiders.
To take an example a little more down to earth though:
If you were raised to believe that beating women/your wife was the right thing to do, you would not feel any moral obligation to not do it. If you say "but that's just objective morally wrong" then you are in a society that do not beat women because of morals.
The only thing scientist have found to be "universal morally wrong" is incest. So no, there is nothing that is morally objective, unless all societies agree upon that norm.
|
11589 Posts
On May 12 2011 06:21 travis wrote:
Morality is subjective, for sure. We make up the rules of right or wrong based on ideals we hold and what is important to us.
Logic, however, is objective; and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality.
Just because we "make it up" doesn't mean it's not objective, does it? We "made up" math, but it's still objective. If the large majority of the world thinks that killing innocent people is wrong (they do, btw), then it's obvious an objective truth. Verifiable.
|
On May 12 2011 06:13 HuHEN wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 05:25 jdseemoreglass wrote: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? I like the way you are thinking, isn't mathematics also just a concept/language though? all be it with more strict definitions and rules.
Yes, it works the same way. We can say 1+1=2 is an objective truth because we have strictly defined what each of the terms mean and can deduce the statement as a logical truism. In other words, it is true, but only by definition.
We understand that mathematics is merely a tool for describing the outside world. We understand that the number 7 doesn't actually exist in the world. You could say 7 "apples" exist, but the number is simply a quantity, in other words a concept of the mind.
Now imagine if someone came to you and said "what is the value of X?" and then everyone proceeded to debate what the value actually was for 50 pages... At some point you have to simply say "X is undefined."
All metaphysical concepts are undefined. Metaphysics is nothing more than the consequence of an imprecise language. When you look at it this way, the history of philosophy becomes almost laughable.
|
On May 12 2011 06:21 travis wrote:
Logic, however, is objective; and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality.
Eh? It's not that logic dictates morality.
For instance, the reason I don't kill someone isn't because I think it's wrong or bad. It's because unless I'm fully confident in not being caught, I won't do it because of the consequence of being placed in jail.
People perform this opportunity cost and probabilities for everything they do.
|
On May 12 2011 06:06 yamato77 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. 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.
So objective morals exists because someone made an argument against it, and because I need to do my homework.
I already touched on the evolution =/ good in a previous post. Also the fact that many people do something or believe something doesn't make it true or objective. Much like the non-flat planet.
Your imagination of the worst possible suffering wouldn't be the same as mine. The rule you state is about what you believe suffering and pain to be.
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.
I'm using a divine being as an argument because a 'belief' basically doesn't require any proof, much like the belief in objective morals.
Your argument for objective morals appear to be that stupid beliefs would be valid, and that others in the thread have said so. It's not really an argument but more of a practical problem of being able to accept other peoples beliefs. I can still think it's wrong because of my beliefs, just not because of someone elses.
edit: made it a bit more civil.
|
On May 12 2011 06:21 travis wrote:
Morality is subjective, for sure. We make up the rules of right or wrong based on ideals we hold and what is important to us.
Logic, however, is objective; and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality.
Wait, is he trolling? I don't understand...
How is logic supposed to determine subjective values?
|
On May 12 2011 06:21 travis wrote:
Morality is subjective, for sure. We make up the rules of right or wrong based on ideals we hold and what is important to us.
Logic, however, is objective; and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality.
If morality was dictated by logic (which is objective), then morality would necessarily be objective as well.
But our idealogies and values aren't necessarily ingrained in formal logic or abstract thinking. They're based on experiences and relationships just as much as rational thought. These situational aspects are what make me think that morality is subjective, rather than objective. Interpretation is involved as heavily as logic is, when deciding moral values.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On May 12 2011 06:35 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 06:21 travis wrote:
Morality is subjective, for sure. We make up the rules of right or wrong based on ideals we hold and what is important to us.
Logic, however, is objective; and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality. Wait, is he trolling? I don't understand... How is logic supposed to determine subjective values?
It's not as inconsistent as it appears on the surface. Basically Travis has proposed a theory which claims values are subjective, but logic is objective. Logic will ultimately guide action with respect to each individual's values. I'm actually pretty sure most subjective theories of morality operate in this way, if not all. The role logic plays is just not mentioned, because it seems obvious.
Well, in either case it would be kind of absurd to have a subjective theory of morality which claims subjects have differing and equally valid faculties of reason.
|
On May 12 2011 06:10 Quochobao wrote:Show nested quote +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. Dear sir, what if I come up to you and say that my moral values justify my killing you, what would you say? Indeed you would struggle to prevent me from having my way, but then doesn't morality totally cease to function as a restraint, and doesn't mankind have nothing but violence to coordinate their society?
I know it is hard to prove that there is a universal set of moral rules, but it is equally hard to prove that there is not one. Yet so many seem convinced by this humanistic notion that there is no higher authority than the individual's will, even though to believe so has the dangerous and fatalistic implication that mankind is lawless and incapable of progress. Not only is that a dangerous notion, it is not totally accurate description of how mankind conducts itself hitherto either. Yet somehow the strong current of historicism and relativism has brought us to a point that everyone of us has a little relativist within.
I'd say, "Really, why?"
Too bad it happens in the real world now and in the past. Just looking at someone or being someone the "wrong" way and they probably will kill you. Look at Osama bin Ladin.
However, you probably already know the consequences that will happen if you do.
Just because you know the consequences and do not act upon your values, does not invalidate them. If I destroyed people's cars because I think they produce too much pollution and wrong. Of course I know the consequences of what might happen to me. However, that still does not invalidate my value that cars produce too much pollution if I don't do it.
|
3 things I would like to bring up.
1. Even in the hypothetical situation that someone wishes to kill me, I could still think they are wrong and that morals are subjective because it is through my subjective concept of morality that I deem it wrong. Believing something is wrong is not mutually exclusive with believing that someone else may think that same something is right.
Subjectivity does not mean that I cannot, individually, hold some values to be objective; it simply means I believe that everyone hold values to be objective and be correct.
2. For people simply believing in moral subjectivity because of some shorthanded argument with little concern for philosophical rigor in their argument, I urge you to read up on Kant's categorical imperative.
3. For people believing in moral objectivity without apply philosophical rigor in their argument, read on Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals
On May 12 2011 06:10 Quochobao wrote:Show nested quote +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. Dear sir, what if I come up to you and say that my moral values justify my killing you, what would you say? Indeed you would struggle to prevent me from having my way, but then doesn't morality totally cease to function as a restraint, and doesn't mankind have nothing but violence to coordinate their society?
I know it is hard to prove that there is a universal set of moral rules, but it is equally hard to prove that there is not one. Yet so many seem convinced by this humanistic notion that there is no higher authority than the individual's will, even though to believe so has the dangerous and fatalistic implication that mankind is lawless and incapable of progress. Not only is that a dangerous notion, it is not totally accurate description of how mankind conducts itself hitherto either. Yet somehow the strong current of historicism and relativism has brought us to a point that everyone of us has a little relativist within.
You're presenting a strawman argument. Moral subjectivity does not entail a lawless society or a society motivated by only violence.
You see, there are these things called social norms, culture, and government. They shape and enforce morals, although the objectivity with which they shape and enforce morals may be unfounded, they do so nonetheless.
|
On May 12 2011 06:27 yamato77 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 06:21 travis wrote:
Morality is subjective, for sure. We make up the rules of right or wrong based on ideals we hold and what is important to us.
Logic, however, is objective; and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality. Just because we "make it up" doesn't mean it's not objective, does it? We "made up" math, but it's still objective.
We didn't "make up" math, we discovered it(and still are discovering it).
If the large majority of the world thinks that killing innocent people is wrong (they do, btw), then it's obvious an objective truth. Verifiable.
I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you trying to state that because the majority of people believe something, that means it's an objective truth?
You really don't see the obvious flaws in this argument?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
