EPTIs Morality Subjective or Objective? - Page 23
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Squishy-1
United States30 Posts
| ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On May 12 2011 10:42 Squishy-1 wrote: I dont care much for morality, altruism is where its at. Yeea because THAT doesn't share the same subjective problem as morality  | ||
|
neohero9
United States595 Posts
Assume you subscribe to the view that morality is subjective. You're walking down the street, and a man stops you, points a gun at you, and says, "Stand and deliver: your money or your life!" (hint: he's mugging you). As you reach for your wallet (slowly), you raise the (ethically) obvious question: "How can you possibly do this to another human being? This isn't right!" The mugger, who happens to be of a philosophical bent, responds with an explanation-- in his culture, taking from those who cannot stop you isn't immoral, it's just how life works. So to him, his robbing you is not immoral. It is actually perfectly in line with his ethics. This leaves you, the moral subjectivist, with no course other than than to say "okay", hand him your wallet, and part ways. After all, he's not being immoral. You are having a disagreement over who has rights to the wallet, but it is not a moral one, and therefore you CANNOT CONDEMN HIM FOR STEALING YOUR WALLET. At least not with the force of morality. It's something like that. It's been like 8 months since that lecture. | ||
|
nArAnjO
Peru2571 Posts
On May 12 2011 09:55 tdt wrote: 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. dont wanna argue but you can't say something like this and use as an argument an isolated story about a guy and his son both of which are probably mentally handicapped, need more data | ||
|
Nakama
Germany584 Posts
Scientific truth also changed over the past and still u call them objektive. Or is newton wrong and einstein right ? And even nowadays different scientific communities have different views on the same topic. The true Problem why ppl like u think Moral isnt objective and Science is, is the fact that science tells us sth about the world how it is while moral tells us how it should be. Therefore u can make Experiments in science (and "see" the results while u naturally cant do it in Moral issues) Still this does not proof that Moral isnt objektive, cause even in Experiments u can not "see" the results by itself, but that would lead way too far away from the Discussion. PS: Sry for my bad english | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On May 12 2011 09:54 j0k3r wrote: If 99.9% of people agreed on human sacrifice, there's a 99,9% that YOU would find it fine and dandy 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. And wouldn't be here thinking a higher morals would be needed to fight that. You would just agree with it and find it normal. | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On May 12 2011 10:44 neohero9 wrote: No I cannot condemn him on morality. So what? What's your point? I can still try to get him arrested under law. Why would I care about morality? I don't want him arrested because it's moral. I want him arrested so he doesn't steal me.The mugger, who happens to be of a philosophical bent, responds with an explanation-- in his culture, taking from those who cannot stop you isn't immoral, it's just how life works. So to him, his robbing you is not immoral. It is actually perfectly in line with his ethics. This leaves you, the moral subjectivist, with no course other than than to say "okay", hand him your wallet, and part ways. After all, he's not being immoral. You are having a disagreement over who has rights to the wallet, but it is not a moral one, and therefore you CANNOT CONDEMN HIM FOR STEALING YOUR WALLET. At least not with the force of morality. | ||
|
VanGarde
Sweden755 Posts
On May 12 2011 10:46 Nakama wrote: The argument that Human morality has constantly changed over decades and within communities and therefore isnt objective is wrong. Scientific truth also changed over the past and still u call them objektive. Or is newton wrong and einstein right ? And even nowadays different scientific communities have different views on the same topic. The true Problem why ppl like u think Moral isnt objective and Science is, is the fact that science tells us sth about the world how it is while moral tells us how it should be. Therefore u can make Experiments in science (and "see" the results while u naturally cant do it in Moral issues) Still this does not proof that Moral isnt objektive, cause even in Experiments u can not "see" the results by itself, but that would lead way too far away from the Discussion. PS: Sry for my bad english There is quite a dramatic difference between how scientific theories evolve and how morality changes over time. Scientific theories does not radically change in opposite direction, theories build and expand on one another. Einstein did not make Newton wrong, Newtonian mathematics were used to get people to the moon. As for different scientific communities having different vies on the same topic, those topics would be ones that are not fully proven yet. Physics is quite objective and does not change based on what we do, the fact that scienfitic theories are constantly modified with new findings is in fact evidence of why the laws of nature are objective. There is no discovery that can be made that proves that murder in any situation is wrong. People can agree that it is wrong but you can't prove the immorality of murder through any other means reasoning. That does not make questions of morality insignificant, but if you are to argue that morality is objective you really need to present where that law is coming from. Because the universe and nature sure as hell does not subscribe to human morality, in fact if we were to approach morality as if it was objective we ought to live by darwinian laws and I don't think anyone wants that. Moral positions though don't only change from one extreme to another over time but also change back and fourth in either direction and changes in moral discourse does not come about from discoveries but gradual change of collective opinion either by force from a state or a church or through open discussion and collective group pressure if you will. | ||
|
neohero9
United States595 Posts
On May 12 2011 10:55 VIB wrote: No I cannot condemn him on morality. So what? What's your point? I can still try to get him arrested under law. Why would I care about morality? I don't want him arrested because it's moral. I want him arrested so he doesn't steal me. The topic is about Morality being subjective or objective. That is to what I was responding. Law and morality, as much as they are supposed to be informed, are not always bedfellows. Basically, your comment is unrelated to the content of my post. But to respond: You could easily locate this situation in the mugger's nation/region, and assume that said region had no laws against this act. Therefore, you could not have him arrested. Then you are left in exactly the position outlined above. | ||
|
Tdelamay
Canada548 Posts
On May 12 2011 04:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Whether or not you care about an issue has no reflection on whether or not it's objective or subjective. Calculus only matters to humans, yet it's objective. Calculus is a method. It is a way to interpret numbers, but calculus itself does not 'exist'. Physics however, affects us whether we know of it or not. Animals are affected by the same physics laws as we are. Morality does not have that same reach. Morality is another creation of humanity. It changes according to our preferences. To be objective, it would have to be universal, and then, what exactly would it affect? Say, if killing a man was universally immoral, then wouldn't that make life itself immoral since death eventually 'kills' a man. What would it matter if the universe as a whole was immoral? | ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On May 12 2011 11:03 VanGarde wrote: There is quite a dramatic difference between how scientific theories evolve and how morality changes over time. Scientific theories does not radically change in opposite direction, theories build and expand on one another. Einstein did not make Newton wrong, Newtonian mathematics were used to get people to the moon. As for different scientific communities having different vies on the same topic, those topics would be ones that are not fully proven yet. Physics is quite objective and does not change based on what we do, the fact that scienfitic theories are constantly modified with new findings is in fact evidence of why the laws of nature are objective. There is no discovery that can be made that proves that murder in any situation is wrong. People can agree that it is wrong but you can't prove the immorality of murder through any other means reasoning. That does not make questions of morality insignificant, but if you are to argue that morality is objective you really need to present where that law is coming from. Because the universe and nature sure as hell does not subscribe to human morality, in fact if we were to approach morality as if it was objective we ought to live by darwinian laws and I don't think anyone wants that. Moral positions though don't only change from one extreme to another over time but also change back and fourth in either direction and changes in moral discourse does not come about from discoveries but gradual change of collective opinion either by force from a state or a church or through open discussion and collective group pressure if you will. Newton was WRONG, he was wrong then and he is wrong now. Einstein is probably wrong too. The point is the reality of what is has nothing to do with what people believe about it. So just because people's Beliefs about morality are subjective does not mean morality is not objective. However, unlike the physical world, the Impact of morality on your life is primarily based on the beliefs people have about it. (if 99.9% of people believe human sacrifice is moral, then you may get punished if you don't sacrifice humans). So Morality itself is either objective or it doesn't really exist. The people's beliefs about morality are also "objective" but for a particular situation (like the air temperature where you live is objective, but it is subject to where you live) | ||
|
j2choe
Canada243 Posts
On May 12 2011 10:44 neohero9 wrote: My Ethics prof had a wonderful illustration of the incoherence of the idea that morality is subjective. .... The mugger, who happens to be of a philosophical bent, responds with an explanation-- in his culture, taking from those who cannot stop you isn't immoral, it's just how life works. So to him, his robbing you is not immoral. It is actually perfectly in line with his ethics. This leaves you, the moral subjectivist, with no course other than than to say "okay", hand him your wallet, and part ways. After all, he's not being immoral. You are having a disagreement over who has rights to the wallet, but it is not a moral one, and therefore you CANNOT CONDEMN HIM FOR STEALING YOUR WALLET. At least not with the force of morality. It's not only incoherent, it's completely outside the real world experience. By that I mean, there is not a culture on Earth that would embody the morals of the mugger and uphold them. He must be a deviant, or in this case, a fictional being. Morals, at the base level, always gravitate towards an easily-identifiable standard. The things that people often identify as differences are conventions, not morals. There is a huge difference. Objective morality must reign. Anybody who argues otherwise is, I suspect, looking for ways to excuse or justify their own failure or unwillingness to abide by them. | ||
|
QuestSeekers
United States39 Posts
On May 12 2011 10:55 VIB wrote: No I cannot condemn him on morality. So what? What's your point? I can still try to get him arrested under law. Why would I care about morality? I don't want him arrested because it's moral. I want him arrested so he doesn't steal me. I think part of what the above post is pointing out is that you really do think it is wrong for people to steal from you (or murder you, etc) and your worldview does not account for that. I think people find it very hard to say that the evils in the world aren't 'wrong' in some cosmic sense. When we say it is wrong for a child to be tortured, we are not saying it is inconvenient to use, or simply that we don't like it, we are saying 'that ought not be!'. We all have this tendency as people, and the question is, how does your worldview explain that? | ||
|
neohero9
United States595 Posts
On May 12 2011 11:11 j2choe wrote: It's not only incoherent, it's completely outside the real world experience. By that I mean, there is not a culture on Earth that would embody the morals of the mugger and uphold them. He must be a deviant, or in this case, a fictional being. Morals, at the base level, always gravitate towards an easily-identifiable standard. The things that people often identify as differences are conventions, not morals. There is a huge difference. Objective morality must reign. Anybody who argues otherwise is, I suspect, looking for ways to excuse or justify their own failure or unwillingness to abide by them. You could easily change the mugger from being a cultural relativist to an individual relativist. Examples of people who have no problem taking from those who cannot fight back are much easier to find. Cultures which function this way tend to either die or evolve past that rule, so you're right on there. Like I said, it's been a long time since that lecture, so I may have flubbed it here or there. | ||
|
Traveler
United States451 Posts
On May 12 2011 11:11 j2choe wrote: It's not only incoherent, it's completely outside the real world experience. By that I mean, there is not a culture on Earth that would embody the morals of the mugger and uphold them. He must be a deviant, or in this case, a fictional being. Morals, at the base level, always gravitate towards an easily-identifiable standard. The things that people often identify as differences are conventions, not morals. There is a huge difference. Objective morality must reign. Anybody who argues otherwise is, I suspect, looking for ways to excuse or justify their own failure or unwillingness to abide by them. Actually, people think subjective morality exists because that is what the evidence points to... sure objective morality would be all nice and easy, but so far we have yet to see justification and evidence for it. To the guy before, sorry but your professor is fairly incorrect. You might give the mugger your wallet, but not because you "suddenly" adhere to his system of morality. Rather you would do it because you value your life, and he will hurt you. You don't care about his system of morals, you only care about your own, and another way that situation might go is you knock the gun out of his hand and kill him... To think that subjective morality means that everyone has equal basis and right to do anything is absolutely absurd. There is no right or basis, people decide for themselves why they do things and they do that based on consequences. No intelligent person hands their wallet over to the mugger for any reason other than looking after their own well-being (or perhaps they have pity for him). | ||
|
Nakama
Germany584 Posts
" Scientific theories does not radically change in opposite direction" yeah and neither do Moral theories.. It is in fact the other way around if u want to bring in some empirical arguments. Overall the world u still read Aristotels or Kant and so on if it comes to Ethics and Moral, while rly noone reads Gallilei anymore. To Murder ur own child is beeing wrong since ever ( dont come with isolated stories), 500 years ago ppl still though the earth is flat =) and to ur second Point: Just read my last sentence... "but if you are to argue that morality is objective you really need to present where that law is coming from" if u can explain me where ur "natural law" comes from. Since Popper it is known that u cant make any sentence with scientific value that hasnt some theoretical Terms in it so what u call objective is highly dependant on other things then pure empirical data. I am not saying i can proof that Moral is Objective, all i say is that no one can proof the opposite. Casue all arguemts i read are based upon a totally wrong comprehension of science | ||
|
neohero9
United States595 Posts
On May 12 2011 11:23 Traveler wrote: Actually, people think subjective morality exists because that is what the evidence points to... sure objective morality would be all nice and easy, but so far we have yet to see justification and evidence for it. To the guy before, sorry but your professor is fairly incorrect. You might give the mugger your wallet, but not because you "suddenly" adhere to his system of morality. Rather you would do it because you value your life, and he will hurt you. You don't care about his system of morals, you only care about your own, and another way that situation might go is you knock the gun out of his hand and kill him... To think that subjective morality means that everyone has equal basis and right to do anything is absolutely absurd. There is no right or basis, people decide for themselves why they do things and they do that based on consequences. No intelligent person hands their wallet over to the mugger for any reason other than looking after their own well-being (or perhaps they have pity for him). ...I never once said you give it to him because you adhere to his moral code. You're precisely right in that you hand it over because he's still going to shoot you and your life is assumed to be worth more than the contents of your wallet (plus if you don't hand it over, he'll just shoot you and take it anyway). And you're missing the point. The point is that morality is supposed to give us a basis for declaring the actions of ourselves and others right or wrong. If objective morality does not exist, and if a person is obeying their own moral code, then their actions are not condemnable no matter how cruel, disgusting, disrespectful, etc they may be. | ||
|
Traveler
United States451 Posts
On May 12 2011 11:26 neohero9 wrote: ...I never once said you give it to him because you adhere to his moral code. You're precisely right in that you hand it over because he's still going to shoot you and your life is assumed to be worth more than the contents of your wallet (plus if you don't hand it over, he'll just shoot you and take it anyway). And you're missing the point. I believe your point was that you don't have the right to argue that what he is doing is wrong... my point was that there is no such thing as you "not having the right" to do anything. You can lie your ass off to him and tell him that what he is doing is "wrong" and that he doesn't have the "right" to steal from you. That would be subjective morality, where your system of morals is only restricting yourself, and in my system I sure as hell would tell that robber that what he is doing is wrong if I thought it would provide me an advantage. | ||
|
Fyodor
Canada971 Posts
On May 12 2011 11:26 Nakama wrote: " Scientific theories does not radically change in opposite direction" I thought they did. It's called Paradigms. | ||
|
neohero9
United States595 Posts
On May 12 2011 11:30 Traveler wrote: I believe your point was that you don't have the right to argue that what he is doing is wrong... my point was that there is no such thing as you "not having the right" to do anything. You can lie your ass off to him and tell him that what he is doing is wrong and that he doesn't have the "right" to steal from you. That would be subjective morality, where your system of morals is only restricting yourself, and in my system I sure as hell would tell that robber that what he is doing is wrong if I thought it would provide me an advantage. Yes. But no matter how much you say "What you're doing is wrong," you will be incorrect, in his eyes. He will have no reason to even consider what you say with any kind of force. The issue is taken down from a moral issue to a simple disagreement. You don't like it, he likes it, them's the breaks cuz he's the one with the gun. Yes, you could lie to him, attack him, and even survive and kill him, retaining your wallet and your life. But that's outside the scope of the question. | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YB2KX.jpg)
