|
On May 12 2011 07:02 Dystisis wrote:
To claim that morality is "objective" or "subjective" does not even make sense. Under no circumstance can morals be "true" or "false", they can only be useful or not, because morality is not a claim. Only claims can be true or false.
It is like the rules of a game, they are not "true" or "false", but they can be followed or not.
Objectivity doesn't necessarily claim things to be true, but rather that, in your terms, the rules of "the game" should be followed without question, and always.
|
On May 12 2011 07:01 Klogbert wrote:
Morals are just another word invented to control people's actions. I believe in laws to keep people from killing me and taking my money, food and land. Laws may or may not be moral, and I don't really care, as long as it makes my life easier.
Well in that case, I believe in laws to kill you, take your money, food, and land, and turn it over to me. My laws may or may not be moral, and I don't really care, as long as it makes my life easier.
|
Why isn't the question: Is morality cultural or universal.
That would be a better perspective to approach the question of morality.
|
On May 12 2011 07:07 Torte de Lini wrote:
Why isn't the question: Is morality cultural or universal.
That would be a better perspective to approach the question of morality.
Well that's similar, although "subjective" is broader than "cultural". It's better fitting in philosophy too, I'd think.
|
Cultural relativity can be seen as an extension of subjectivity in moral theory. Typically, Cultural relativists want to avoid being reduced to subjectivism. Personally, I think the debate is best treated as a three way between subjectivists, relativists and objectivists.
|
On May 12 2011 07:07 Torte de Lini wrote:
Why isn't the question: Is morality cultural or universal.
That would be a better perspective to approach the question of morality.
Because then the answer would be "neither." Within the same culture, individuals will still differ on their moral attitudes, making the question, "Is morality subjective or objective."
In other words, is there a criteria for determining what morality is outside of individual desires and preferences? And the answer is no.
|
On May 12 2011 06:57 Thrill wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 06:12 Sablar wrote: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.
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. I disagree with your interpretation. The good lies in embracing logically and ultimately scientifically determined facts. Once said catastrophe happens and it becomes apparent that HIV is a necessity for survival it does make objective sense to adapt to these new findings for the same reason the behavior in question was shunned earlier - it should now be embraced. "But - unprotected sex with strangers would have saved more people, ergo HIV was objectively good all along" Well, let's take the malaria example. The legs of hospital beds in the tropics were placed in water (buckets, cups) in order to restrict crawling insects from reaching patients. A sound practice given the current knowledge of tropical disease. The consequence, however, was the spawning of mosquitoes in these pools of water that from birth had easy access to both infected and healthy blood - hospitals themselves became a breeding zone for malaria. I guess what i'm saying is - objective morality is doing what we "know" to be best for the prolonged success of society. We're not always right (most of the time we're not) but trying - i dare call that grounds for the word 'objective'.
I think we are thinking along the same lines but when I say objective morals I mean it in the sense of good and bad objectively existíng outside our conciousness, as something that is part of the universe and not influenced or created by humans.
Regarding the ethics of the situation you describe I agree that it is good to do what we 'know' is best, or like people have discussed, what logically appears to be the best course of action to reach whatever goal we have. But we have to define what is "good" before we can do what we "know" is best, and that definition wouldn't be universal. If good = people not getting malaria, then it's good, but it's good from a goal that was defined and not because it fulfilled some sort of higher moral purpose.
|
Morality is by definition an abstract societal construct. Since morality is only(at the present) created by and used by human beings and since human beings are subjective in nature morality is therefore subjective and only constructed by a subjective mind.
|
On May 12 2011 07:12 THE_DOMINATOR wrote:
Morality is by definition an abstract societal construct. Since morality is only(at the present) created by and used by human beings and since human beings are subjective in nature morality is therefore subjective and only constructed by a subjective mind.
No, morality is, by definition, a concept of right and wrong. Whether it is a societal construct or something much greater than that is the subject of debate.
|
On May 12 2011 07:12 Sablar wrote:
I think we are thinking along the same lines but when I say objective morals I mean it in the sense of good and bad objectively existíng outside our conciousness, as something that is part of the universe and not influenced or created by humans.
Well, that's a very particular definition of objectivity. If the human mind is governed by certain universal laws (reason) then those laws (if they exist) can lead to certain logical outcomes. You can't just say "Oh, it's not objectivity if it's not realism" you can believe in Objectivity without being a realist Immanuel Kant was a great example.
|
On May 12 2011 07:12 THE_DOMINATOR wrote:
Morality is by definition an abstract societal construct. Since morality is only(at the present) created by and used by human beings and since human beings are subjective in nature morality is therefore subjective and only constructed by a subjective mind.
Morality is by definition an abstract societal construct.
Not so sure about that.
Since morality is only(at the present) created by and used by human beings
Irrelevant?
human beings are subjective in nature
Since when? I think your computer would have great difficulty processing information if that were true.
since human beings are subjective in nature morality is therefore subjective and only constructed by a subjective mind.
I guess the inference is valid somewhat but your premises are beyond ridiculous. Untenable conclusion.
|
True morality doesn't exist for a number of reasons one of which is that there is no free will. If we want to define morality like Sam Harris does as sort of a Utilitarian getting happiness for everyone than it is objective but there are many ways to attain it.
|
On May 12 2011 06:54 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 06:49 travis wrote:On May 12 2011 06:35 jdseemoreglass wrote: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? We use logic to determine subjective values all the time. Logic is the science of reasoning. Reasoning is used to determine what music we like, what food we like, who we would like to date, etc etc etc etc. Now sure, emotion plays a large part in this as well. But emotion isn't rational and that's exactly why I say "and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality." Logic and reasoning have nothing to do with determining a person's taste in music, food, dating, etc. These are determined by personal preferences, whether learned or biological, etc.
Admittedly, taste in music and food are pretty terrible examples, I didn't give it much thought. Dating is a good example though. What about picking a favorite sports team or player? Personal preferences definitely play a role in this but reasoning can be the primary means by which these choices are made(or in the case of MoltkeWarding, 100% of the means).
There is no way that logic or reasoning could be used to determine a normative judgement of the "good" or "bad" preferences in an individual.
What do you mean by this?
Even if they use logic to deduce a belief, they are still operating on the premise of their subjective preferences.
What does personal preference have to do with belief in god or lack thereof? What does personal preference have to do with being a nihilist? Do you think I am a Theravada Buddhist because of personal preference? No, it's from hours upon hours of pondering the nature of things. I was raised a Christian, or such was attempted at least.
|
I'm having a lot of trouble reconciling the fact that 95% of us think morality is subjective and yet people post with such moral superiority and self-righteousness on these forums. Reading this thread and the Osama thread and the Uganda thread at the same time is really hurting my brain...
|
On May 12 2011 07:03 Fyodor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 06:49 travis wrote:On May 12 2011 06:35 jdseemoreglass wrote: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? We use logic to determine subjective values all the time. Logic is the science of reasoning. Reasoning is used to determine what music we like, what food we like, who we would like to date, etc etc etc etc. Now sure, emotion plays a large part in this as well. But emotion isn't rational and that's exactly why I say "and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality." Hold on there. You can't just equate logic and reasoning. Logic is systematic study of proper inferences and such. By itself, logic has no actual content. Logic is a machine, it can't tell you anything about morals or art or science. The best you can do is give logic some statements and arguments and logic will tell you if they are consistent or valid. Logic can't help you with the truth of the premises and such.
I didn't equate them.
You say
The best you can do is give logic some statements and arguments and logic will tell you if they are consistent or valid.
and then you say
Logic can't help you with the truth of the premises and such.
How can you say this? Clearly if you are pursuing the truth then knowing whether or not a line of thought is valid is of utmost importance.
|
On May 12 2011 07:07 Blyadischa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 07:02 Dystisis wrote:
To claim that morality is "objective" or "subjective" does not even make sense. Under no circumstance can morals be "true" or "false", they can only be useful or not, because morality is not a claim. Only claims can be true or false.
It is like the rules of a game, they are not "true" or "false", but they can be followed or not. Objectivity doesn't necessarily claim things to be true, but rather that, in your terms, the rules of "the game" should be followed without question, and always.
Whether or not they *should* be followed does not seem to answer the question of whether morals are objective or not. When a person says that morals are objective, they are not making a normative claim. Perhaps what they mean is that everyone, or every culture, has the same morals. That every culture follows the same rules of the game, so to speak.
But this is demonstrably not the case. So if that is all that they mean when they say "morality is objective" or (the inversion) "morality is subjective" this discussion is over and the topic should be closed. In future discussions the phrasing should rather be "our morality is shared in all cultures", or "is universal".
However, when a person claims that "morality is objective" it is more likely because they confuse morality with declarative sentences, while morality actually are rules or conventions of conduct. Morality has nothing to do with describing the world, or being "correct" or "incorrect". Yet we confuse ourselves over this all the time, by saying an action is "right" or "wrong". So it is easy to start thinking that moral actions in some way corresponds to correct declarative statements. And thus, to get confused about whether morality is "subjective" or "objective", that they are 'rational' and correspond to something in the world.
|
On May 12 2011 07:20 KillerPenguin wrote:
True morality doesn't exist for a number of reasons one of which is that there is no free will. If we want to define morality like Sam Harris does as sort of a Utilitarian getting happiness for everyone than it is objective but there are many ways to attain it.
Dude, in a serious topic if you're going to make a claim that 'free will doesn't exist' you should really provide at least a single sentence trying to back up the claim. Sam Harris is an idiot who isn't even an academic author, he writes trendy little pop novels.
If you want to argue about morality and free will read Kant, read Wittgenstein, read Nietzsche.
|
On May 12 2011 07:03 kataa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 06:49 travis wrote:
We use logic to determine subjective values all the time. Logic is the science of reasoning. Reasoning is used to determine what music we like, what food we like, who we would like to date, etc etc etc etc.
Now sure, emotion plays a large part in this as well. But emotion isn't rational and that's exactly why I say "and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality." Not really, logic isn't a 'science' of any thing. Logic in the academic sense is parasitic on common language. All logic is is an attempt to make clearer the rules that govern the central features of human discourse, so we can better understand it. The thing which frustrates me the most about these debates, and that people can't seem to get through there head is that logic 'says' nothingLogical Identity p p T T F F Tells you nothing about the world, all it tells you is how we conceptualize it. It's very useful, but it itself can't dictate the nature of how we should live it, that has to come from some place else. You do not use logic to determine which music you like, that's simply not possible - it's not how logic works to think so just shows a clear misunderstanding of logic and reasoning. All logic and reasoning due is enlighten you as to certain common rules. Logic cannot dictate morality, anymore than a pen can dictate a book.
You cannot properly reason without logic. If someone is pursuing truth then logic is a requirement, right? So if someone was to try to reason out a moral system, logic would be the basis of how this reasoning was formed, right? If the system wasn't logical then the reasoning would be flawed?
And if logic isn't the science of reasoning then why is the very first definition on dictionary.com
the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
.
The science of reasoning is exactly what logic is.
|
On May 12 2011 07:23 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I'm having a lot of trouble reconciling the fact that 95% of us think morality is subjective and yet people post with such moral superiority and self-righteousness on these forums. Reading this thread and the Osama thread and the Uganda thread at the same time is really hurting my brain...
While some people post interpretive statements as if they were factual, you can surely post a subjective opinion that's well-defended  I understand your surprise though lol.
|
On May 12 2011 06:45 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 06:40 valedictory wrote:+ 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. He didn't say logic should guide our actions or be used to fulfill our subjective morality, he said logic should DICTATE what morality is.
I don't see the difference bro, it's just loose usage of the word dictate
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
