EPTIs Morality Subjective or Objective? - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Barca
United States418 Posts
| ||
|
ILIVEFORAIUR
United States173 Posts
On May 11 2011 15:55 jeeneeus wrote: Here's an interesting thing to think about. If morals are subjective, how is it that certain things that are considered moral or immoral have been universally reached by different groups of people who have never been in contact with each other? At the same time, if morals are objective, what is it that made some things wrong and some things right? Why did the universe decide that something is more moral than another thing? Some people say God decides it so, but there are reasons why that probably isn't true. I won't go into that though, unless someone actually wants to know. You have piqued my interest my friend! I would say that, because we are all humans, we have construed societies similarly. By constructing societies similarly, the humans in those societies figured out what was the best way to survive (working together, not harming one another etc.). I posit that it is not an eternal being which made "some things wrong and some things right". We have determined the morality of actions. So, in theory, if the best course of action for a particular society was to eat it's young, and mate with trees, then in that society, those actions would be considered moral. It is absurd to think that a human society could survive by taking part in those practices, in fact, all human societies would consider those practices immoral. Not because of God, but because they are extremely counter productive to the survival and life-bettering of the humans race. | ||
|
lac29
United States1485 Posts
| ||
|
Pleiades
United States472 Posts
| ||
|
frogurt
Australia907 Posts
Kant had the best idea when it comes to rational morality. I think morality is subjective but there are better ways for people to deal with their dilemmas, subjective morality is a very improvised and imperfect system but it's the easiest. Also this guy has alot of good videos, too bad he has a speech impetiment and awful MS paint skillz  | ||
|
nihlon
Sweden5581 Posts
On May 11 2011 15:55 jeeneeus wrote: Here's an interesting thing to think about. If morals are subjective, how is it that certain things that are considered moral or immoral have been universally reached by different groups of people who have never been in contact with each other? At the same time, if morals are objective, what is it that made some things wrong and some things right? Why did the universe decide that something is more moral than another thing? Some people say God decides it so, but there are reasons why that probably isn't true. I won't go into that though, unless someone actually wants to know. What things? | ||
|
ragingfungus
United States271 Posts
| ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On May 11 2011 16:01 DrainX wrote: Suffering is still very subjective. If I'm suffering of poverty, is it moral to murder in a nice clean insufferable death to someone just to relieve my suffering?If you choose to link morality to suffering and well being then I think you can say that some societies are "better" than others. If we define Evil as a society that maximizes suffering and Good as a society on the other side of the spectrum then I would say that that is an objective way of viewing morality. You can argue that everyone is suffering to some degree. Wealthy people with easy lives often suicide. What is "suffering"? That's just as subjective. | ||
|
TheOvermind77
United States923 Posts
However, once we have sentient beings, they (as a species) can create a set of objective moral laws for their society. It is subjective in that it is societally determined (ie morality might be made with the goal of maximally reducing suffering of sentient beings) and it doesn't exist outside of that society, but it is still a greater mandate than the individual moralities of the members of the society. Naturally, this starts out at the group/tribe level, then city, then nation, then species. Perhaps even a best set of morals exists for an alliance (or even all of) sentient beings. And it is objective from our perspective as conscious beings, but subjective otherwise (ie subjective to the universe, to rocks, to plants, etc). | ||
|
numLoCK
Canada1416 Posts
An objective moral reality is definitely the most defensible position that I have seen. Figuring out what it is/how it works is a whole different problem though. | ||
|
Ajunoo
Germany147 Posts
On May 11 2011 15:55 jeeneeus wrote: Here's an interesting thing to think about. If morals are subjective, how is it that certain things that are considered moral or immoral have been universally reached by different groups of people who have never been in contact with each other? Like what? I mean that a little village isn't going to just kill each other is more like a survival thing for example. But no, morals are absolutely subjective. The fact that no one can name an absolute source for morals (and don't you give me religion now, it's NOT) is proof enough I should think. I always felt that morals are yet another tool to keep the general public in check. I very much doubt that CEOs of big corporations, and just people in positions of power concern themselves with morals. When people can get away with something, and they have some reason to do it, they might just do it. It's not morality that stops us from commiting crimes, but rather fear of punishment. | ||
|
j0k3r
United States577 Posts
On May 11 2011 16:01 DrainX wrote: An interesting somewhat related talk I saw a couple of days ago: If you choose to link morality to suffering and well being then I think you can say that some societies are "better" than others. If we define Evil as a society that maximizes suffering and Good as a society on the other side of the spectrum then I would say that that is an objective way of viewing morality. My largest complaint with saying that morality is completely subjective is that we then fall into the trap of Moral relativism where we would have to agree that any set of moral codes is no worse or better than any other. Who are we then to complain about other societies torturing their children etc? I agree with Harris. This is a shorter and more concise version that people may want to watch. The grey part of his talk is about suffering: how can we really quantify this? He believes advancement in neuroscience and psychology will eventually allow us to see exactly what psychological suffering is, and to steer away from moral systems that cause such things. | ||
|
Sanctimonius
United Kingdom861 Posts
Societies come to certain problems that are common the world over. We all have common ancestry and belong to the same species, so we come up with similar ways of dealing with those problems. The very fact we approach it in similar ways would surely suggest there is some kind of objectivity in morality, at least on the species level? As an example, murder is usually described as being immoral in most societies. Why? Why do most societies arrive at this conclusion? I'm not trying to argue that there are metaphysical reasons for objective morality, merely species and environment create the morality. Humans create a moral system based on their surroundings, based on their society. Because we exist on planet earth and are the newest monkeys around we have a certain way of approaching life and its problems - is that morality? Can it be anything else? Hopefully that makes sense  | ||
|
dakalro
Romania525 Posts
I think the religious books are the best example to see how people's morals changed. Best thing would also be to know something about the times as presented by history. Some of those "wtf!!! how could they do that" moments will make more sense. | ||
|
Saechiis
Netherlands4989 Posts
On May 11 2011 16:01 DrainX wrote: An interesting somewhat related talk I saw a couple of days ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm2Jrr0tRXk If you choose to link morality to suffering and well being then I think you can say that some societies are "better" than others. If we define Evil as a society that maximizes suffering and Good as a society on the other side of the spectrum then I would say that that is an objective way of viewing morality. Only humans decide what "suffering" is though, so it remains subjective. We call things like death and pain "bad" because they give us unwanted consequences, but that doesn't necessarily make them bad things (pain is obviously useful in that it learns you what damages your body and when something's wrong, death is useful in essence that humans keep evolving and adapting to their environment whilst not overcrowding the earth.) Morality is made up by people since there's no such thing as good and wrong in nature. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17664 Posts
And by the way, it's not morality, it's ethics (or "what's good") what you meant I guess. Morality is a normative system, it's subjective by default. Morality usually takes the form of rules like "you shall not kill". | ||
|
_Darwin_
United States2374 Posts
On May 11 2011 16:21 Manit0u wrote: It's not a fun conversation... People have been at it for over 2000 years without any conclusion. And by the way, it's not morality, it's ethics (or "what's good") what you meant I guess. Morality is a normative system, it's subjective by default. Morality usually takes the form of rules like "you shall not kill". That's not true at all. Moral realism is one example of an objective moral system. And a normative system (prescriptive) has no relation to whether it is subjective. | ||
|
jeeneeus
1168 Posts
On May 11 2011 16:10 Ajunoo wrote: Like what? I mean that a little village isn't going to just kill each other is more like a survival thing for example. But no, morals are absolutely subjective. The fact that no one can name an absolute source for morals (and don't you give me religion now, it's NOT) is proof enough I should think. I always felt that morals are yet another tool to keep the general public in check. I very much doubt that CEOs of big corporations, and just people in positions of power concern themselves with morals. When people can get away with something, and they have some reason to do it, they might just do it. It's not morality that stops us from commiting crimes, but rather fear of punishment. I'm too lazy to quote the other guy who basically said the same thing, but how about something like rape? As far as I know there's no society that thinks rape is socially acceptable, but in an evolutionary standpoint, it's creating more babies, and is therefore a good thing. Also, I like how you go on to mention something that I already mentioned. It's nice to know that people don't like to read entire posts, but finds the one thing they disagree with, and then go on to write about it. Also, how about guilt? Some people won't commit a crime even if they don't get caught, because they would feel guilty about it. Although I guess you could say that guilt is something that is taught by society. I think I remember learning in psychology that empathy is naturally developed in children. Also if guilt was taught by society, does that mean sociopaths/psychopaths were just taught poorly? That there is nothing wrong with these people per se, but that they just weren't raised properly? | ||
|
Severedevil
United States4839 Posts
On May 11 2011 15:59 ZessiM wrote: Unless you believe in a God who handed these rules, it's surely impossible to believe in an objective morality? Morality is a product of your upbringing, life experiences, and social norms. Subjective. A set of rules (or behavioral guideline) can't be 'true' or 'false'. Invoking a deity changes nothing; it merely allows you to claim that one particular set of rules is the one 'God' prefers. However, moralities can be compared and judged based on various other criteria, so the question, "Which morality will best produce this particular desired effect?" has an objective answer. 'Minimize suffering' and 'maximize freedom' are popular choices, although of course they have to be specified further. | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On May 11 2011 16:21 Manit0u wrote: Wut? That's like saying people have been arguing which planet circles around which for 2000 years without any conclusion. Of course there's conclusion, some here and there might disagree and keep trying to tell you the earth is the center of the universe today. But there is a conclusion It's not a fun conversation... People have been at it for over 2000 years without any conclusion.  | ||
| ||
