|
you two are living within social constructs too much. you seem to think theres not an obvious morality in going to starbucks means everything is subjective .
back when we were cavemen, how did we know what to do, before we could talk to each other. our morals are a form of learned behaviour passed on through evolution, built into the operating system of our brain that doesnt require any outside input. the evolutionary need to pass on our dna drives us to protect our children, people who didnt have this drive either let their children die, or just killed them. leading to those people dying out.
this is why its so hard to want to kill your own family members. its much easier to be ok with someone you dont know dying, someone far away. its morally wrong to kill your children in almost any circumstance.
but its all relative (hurr play on words). in times of plentiful supplies its ok to let your competition live. they might be 1% like you, from generations before, so theres still a chance your dna will be passed on by them, but when times are hard you withdraw to just yourself, the only person you can be sure is 100% like you in terms of dna.
this idea of what is morally ok changing as our situation changing can be seen today, in the western world people will share anything, because theres no limit on resources anymore, where as the third world is still so tribal, because of the family links and the importance of family survival.
i cant be bothered to explain it better in a forum post, but thats the jist of a system of objectively shared morals developed through evolution because they increase the survival rate of your dna.
On May 12 2011 08:24 Fyodor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 08:18 Acrofales wrote:On May 12 2011 06:22 BleaK_ wrote:
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. Why is incest morally wrong? Because it leads to malformed babies? How about incestuous relationships that use birth control (lets say a mutually consenting, adult, brother and sister)? There would be no victim of this "universal morally wrong" act, so why is it wrong? I believe I read something about the risk of malformation in incestuous relations to be greatly exaggerated.
incest is a difficult one. between close family members the risk is certainly reasonable, but as you get further away it drops down again quickly. its another relative thing. if you have 10000 women to choose from, the risk of a malformed baby (that cant mate) isnt worth it, we have evolved this disgust to prompt us to look outside the nest for a mate. but if you were the last 2 people on earth, would you be so hesitant to have sex with your sibling? probably not, its the only way to ensure your dna lives on
|
On May 12 2011 08:22 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 08:08 kataa wrote:
Philosophy really hasn't moved on much in the past 2,500 years outside of rhetoric, but maybe thats just me reading too much Wittgenstein and Rorty. I think that's being a bit unfair to Descartes, Hume, Kant and all the other enlightenment philosophers. That Wittgenstein disagreed with them doesn't mean he didn't need to build upon their thought processes to disagree with them! It's like saying Freud was a horrible psychologist because he has been proven wrong on almost every account. However, if he hadn't done the pioneering work we might still have looked at phrenology as a valid explanation of people's behaviour (I know, I exaggerate).
I don't think Wittgenstein meant something so vapid.
|
On May 12 2011 08:24 Fyodor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 08:18 Acrofales wrote:On May 12 2011 06:22 BleaK_ wrote:
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. Why is incest morally wrong? Because it leads to malformed babies? How about incestuous relationships that use birth control (lets say a mutually consenting, adult, brother and sister)? There would be no victim of this "universal morally wrong" act, so why is it wrong? I believe I read something about the risk of malformation in incestuous relations to be greatly exaggerated.
Well, between first cousins. Between family members of the first degree I don't think there is any doubt about it being a genetically bad idea, especially if the inbreeding continues. However, if the risks are greatly exaggerated that just strengthens my argument: why is it wrong if there is no victim?
|
On May 12 2011 08:27 Fyodor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 08:22 Acrofales wrote:On May 12 2011 08:08 kataa wrote:
Philosophy really hasn't moved on much in the past 2,500 years outside of rhetoric, but maybe thats just me reading too much Wittgenstein and Rorty. I think that's being a bit unfair to Descartes, Hume, Kant and all the other enlightenment philosophers. That Wittgenstein disagreed with them doesn't mean he didn't need to build upon their thought processes to disagree with them! It's like saying Freud was a horrible psychologist because he has been proven wrong on almost every account. However, if he hadn't done the pioneering work we might still have looked at phrenology as a valid explanation of people's behaviour (I know, I exaggerate). I don't think Wittgenstein meant something so vapid.
I don't think I said anything about what Wittgenstein meant, but rather I was responding to Kataa.
EDIT: ah, I see how you misinterpreted my text. It's late and I should go to bed before I keep writing arguments so badly 
|
On May 12 2011 08:19 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 08:04 travis wrote:On May 12 2011 07:58 divito wrote:On May 12 2011 06:47 travis wrote:
Really, that's why you don't kill people? I am sorry to hear that. But I am not sure how what you're saying has any place in a discussion on morality. You aren't even addressing the issue of morality. Sorry to hear that? Feeling ethically superior or something? I'm sorry for being honest. not ethically, I don't care about that, it doesn't actually mean anything to me. And I think it's great that you are honest. anyways I agree that morality isn't objective. but maybe you should do some more thinking on what reasons there could be for not killing other people. He stated a reason, his desire to not go to jail, and you balked at that.
Did I balk? I don't think I did. I just didn't know if he actually wanted to get into it or not. Perhaps I was rude, but having no qualms about killing people if you won't get caught is pretty unhealthy for yourself and for society.
Obviously what you wanted were not reasons, but emotions, such as guilt, compassion, empathy, etc.
empathy isn't an emotion, and definitely is a great reason.
|
On May 12 2011 08:22 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 08:08 kataa wrote:
Philosophy really hasn't moved on much in the past 2,500 years outside of rhetoric, but maybe thats just me reading too much Wittgenstein and Rorty. I think that's being a bit unfair to Descartes, Hume, Kant and all the other enlightenment philosophers. That Wittgenstein disagreed with them doesn't mean he didn't need to build upon their thought processes to disagree with them!
I've already cited Kant and Descartes in other posts in this thread. I'm well aware of my own personal biased, I'd be an idiot not to be.
All-in all the 'philosophy is a dead end' argument will just derail the thread, but PM if you're actually pedantic enough (I know I am) to engage in it.
edit: Wittgenstein never read Hume He was philosophically retarded by the standards of his time.
|
I don't personally think that there are two sets up moral "standards", subjective and objective seem to be the same; meaning that only the person looking upon another person, who thinks there morals are right, who can say another perception is wrong or right?, what is to say one or the other has right or wrong morale's?
|
I think that's being a bit unfair to Descartes, Hume, Kant and all the other enlightenment philosophers. That Wittgenstein disagreed with them doesn't mean he didn't need to build upon their thought processes to disagree with them!
Wittgenstein was an anti-philosopher. The only extent he "built" upon traditional philosophers like the ones you mentioned was to show them to be completely nonsensical. He showed that philosophy is, to the degree that it is philosophy, based on grammatical misuse.
He called himself a philosopher, but not before he redefined "philosopher" to mean a person helping others clear their conceptual confusions grounded in grammatical distortion.
|
On May 12 2011 08:47 Likeaboss452 wrote:
I don't personally think that there are two sets up moral "standards", subjective and objective seem to be the same; meaning that only the person looking upon another person, who thinks there morals are right, who can say another perception is wrong or right?, what is to say one or the other has right or wrong morale's?
well if you read my post above :D things like killing your own children are seen by 'everyone' to be wrong. theres no subjectivity in that emotion if everyone agrees. and i gave the reason that its so universal.
|
On May 12 2011 08:54 turdburgler wrote:
well if you read my post above :D things like killing your own children are seen by 'everyone' to be wrong. theres no subjectivity in that emotion if everyone agrees. and i gave the reason that its so universal.
Huh, why is it wrong?
Plus, that's a fallacy.
|
On May 12 2011 08:54 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 08:47 Likeaboss452 wrote:
I don't personally think that there are two sets up moral "standards", subjective and objective seem to be the same; meaning that only the person looking upon another person, who thinks there morals are right, who can say another perception is wrong or right?, what is to say one or the other has right or wrong morale's? well if you read my post above :D things like killing your own children are seen by 'everyone' to be wrong. theres no subjectivity in that emotion if everyone agrees. and i gave the reason that its so universal.
What about abortions? And that story in the bible where god asked someone to kill his own son and he went to do it? And while you may be right in the case of 99.999999% of people there are some people who might disagree. And just because everyone agrees with something doesn't make it objective.
|
On May 12 2011 08:54 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 08:47 Likeaboss452 wrote:
I don't personally think that there are two sets up moral "standards", subjective and objective seem to be the same; meaning that only the person looking upon another person, who thinks there morals are right, who can say another perception is wrong or right?, what is to say one or the other has right or wrong morale's? well if you read my post above :D things like killing your own children are seen by 'everyone' to be wrong. theres no subjectivity in that emotion if everyone agrees. and i gave the reason that its so universal.
Well executions, war. Plenty of monarchs probably killed members of their immediate family in self defense.
It is seen by 99.9% of the population to be distasteful, but lots of the population finds brocolli distateful too.
|
On May 11 2011 16:45 mufin wrote:Since we (human beings/people) came up with this idea of "morality" then we are the ones who determine what it is. The "universe" can't know what is moral and what isn't moral because it doesn't know what "moral" is in the first place. Morality is a human invention derived from our ability to reason. So on that note, why can't morality be both subjective (opinions vary) and objective (opinions are in agreement)? For example, 99.9% of people will agree that murder is wrong. This would make murder an objective morality (everyone agrees). But as a counter example, not everyone will agree on moral grey areas such as abortion or the privacy vs. security debate and opinions on these will vary widely from person to person making it a subjective morality. So to put it in picture form: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YB2KX.jpg)
Wait wait wait... so if 99.9% of people of a society agreed on human sacrifice, then that's fine and dandy? The majority should not be tasked with classifying a moral and ethical construct. I'm in firm belief there exists a higher standard to be further hashed out by science, because we can't leave morals to subjectivity. It's too easy for a culture to follow thousand year old traditions that can be objectively identified as bad. This identification process can be found through objective evaluation of the brain itself.
|
100% subjective. I saw a news story once this guy and his son killed his daughter and was proud about it and could not even understand why he was even prosecuted in Canada.
|
Russian Federation905 Posts
What if there is no morality. Only we have illusion of morality?
Humans are horde people and believe what is it the "norm".
|
Subjective
But that doesn't mean that people can't be wrong.
|
On May 12 2011 06:03 lectR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 06:02 Zeri wrote: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?
No.
|
It seems pretty self evident to me, morality is subjective and there is the massive sample data of human history to draw that conclusion from. Human morality has constantly changed over decades and within communities. It is not at all long ago that outright racism was considered perfectly reasonable. There were times when slavery was accepted and there are ideas and behaviours today that might not be considered moral in another hundred years. Just like there are moral standards in one part of the world today that are not the case in other parts. All of this suggests that human beings collectively develop new moral standards.
Now the argument could still be made that there is some objective morality towards which we are all striving and thus the change in human morality is merely the exploration of the path towards the best answers. But to say that morality is objective is to say that morality must be a law like any other, imposed by the very nature of the universe, or by whatever creator being people believe in.
Morality can not be objective without being imposed from outside of humanity and there is absolutely no evidence that this is the case.
That said, I don't subscribe to the postmodernist idea of everyone is right in their own way, I think that there are moral values in my own country that are superior to moral values in Iran. Morality does not have to be objective for one side to be more "right" than another. Its like politics, politics is certainly not objective but given time it can most definitely be argued that certain ideaologies are better than others at accomplishing given goals.
|
On May 12 2011 10:16 VanGarde wrote:
That said, I don't subscribe to the postmodernist idea of everyone is right in their own way, I think that there are moral values in my own country that are superior to moral values in Iran. Morality does not have to be objective for one side to be more "right" than another.
Yes it does... because morality="what is right?"
|
On May 12 2011 10:25 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 10:16 VanGarde wrote:
That said, I don't subscribe to the postmodernist idea of everyone is right in their own way, I think that there are moral values in my own country that are superior to moral values in Iran. Morality does not have to be objective for one side to be more "right" than another. Yes it does... because morality="what is right?"
Ehm no? If morality is simpley "what is right" then the mass of the moon is a moral question, indeed everything would be a moral question. Morality just like politics is a field of thought around how we should act. In politics it is about how we should run a country, society, world to the best outcome based on the goals set. Morality is about how we should act towards other living beings. Neither of them are objective because they are human constructs, if humanity did not exist there would be neither politics nor morals because they are behaviour structures we impose on ourselves, they are not commanded down upon us from the universe.
But if humanity did not exist there would still be physics, gravity worked fine before we figured out that there was such a thing as gravity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
