|
On May 12 2011 12:36 AlphaNoodle wrote: But for the sake of the poll, morals are subjective because they do not exist naturally. It is man made so it must be subjective.
You're assuming human beings aren't a part of nature. If however you accept human beings are just a part of the animal kingdom, and are just a part of the material universe, then surely everything they create, including their systems of morality, are in fact very much "natural" and thus as objective as the study of mating habits of marmots.
|
On May 12 2011 12:47 tdt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 12:42 stevarius wrote:On May 12 2011 12:29 tdt wrote:On May 12 2011 12:25 Applecakes wrote:On May 12 2011 12:20 Noak3 wrote:
Well it really depends on whether you're religious or not, I think. What kind of objective morality can exist besides one based on the idea of a deity? Personally I don't believe in any kind of god so I chose subjective, but it really depends on beliefs. Generally the most common defense of morality along these lines rests on an appeal to reason. For example, the golden rule. The existence of a god or gods does not change the validity of logic. Golden rule is a fallacy. What do you do if a man loves to fight and walks into a bar? Give him a fight? Golden rule says you're obliged to walk up to him and punch him in the mouth to get things started. Are you sure you even know what the Golden Rule is? There are actual criticisms of it, but yours is not one of them.... lol. "He who has the gold, makes the rules."  Seriously yes and I'm a sado masochist so can I come torture you?
Or: "I'm gay, you'd be immoral to not let me fuck you in the butt"
Seriously, the golden rule is pretty silly. It completely ignore people have different points of view and history shows people's morals completely ignore that.
|
That poll is depessing me...
|
On May 12 2011 12:50 Applecakes wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 12:36 AlphaNoodle wrote: But for the sake of the poll, morals are subjective because they do not exist naturally. It is man made so it must be subjective. You're assuming human beings aren't a part of nature. If however you accept human beings are just a part of the animal kingdom, and are just a part of the material universe, then surely everything they create, including their systems of morality, are in fact very much "natural" and thus as objective as the study of mating habits of marmots.
We define anything subjective as "of man".
Anything objective as independent "of man". (can still affect men)
If we were to use your definition we wouldn't have any use at all for the word "subjective".
So because we are part of nature does not make morality objective. In fact all morality is; is the amalgamation of the chemical signals in the brain, and we all have some form of it.
|
On May 12 2011 12:47 Traveler wrote:
Well I tried to think of what I would do in Fallout, since that is the closest simulation I have experienced to a world without society. In Fallout there were plenty of times were I killed someone and took their stuff because I wanted it.
Now in real life, society I think has biased me to feel bad about that choice.
What if instead you knew that person was a murderer? What if you thought they would kill you?
What if that person was a child? What if you thought you could raise that child and teach him so that he can help you on your travels.
It all depends on situation.
#Edit
To the guy above me:
Yes, yes you can if you wanted to. Can = possible, can =/= may.
Yes it does depend a lot on situation, but that is over-complicating it because we would have to discuss a whole other set of morals or incentives for each situation. The example only works if you have no idea one way or another about that person. It's a pure choice.
I believe in objective morality, but I have no problem running people over in GTA or shooting at civilians in a war game. In a fantasy world, all bets are off because none of the decisions you make have any real repercussions. I guess immoral actions within a fantasy world could spill over and influence your decision-making in the real world, but I doubt it. These things are outlets for fantastical notions, and the only objective within them is to increase enjoyment. The real world is another story.
Anyways, nice talking to you.
To VIB: I actually like your example of slavery, as I do agree that slavery has persisted over thousands of years and ended completely only within the last 200. But I think that you're off when you say that the end of slavery was a pure product of economic convenience. It is certainly more economically convenient to still have slaves, is it not? Just as it is more economically convenient to have sweatshops, animal testing, and exploitation of resources. But the universal condemnation of these practices runs counter to your notion that all morality is influenced only by politics and economics.
Anyways, if people were truly morally subjective, there would be little basis to condemn such a practice with so much social utility. Economics would work a hell of a lot better if you could force people to work rather than hire and pay them. So then, why do we celebrate Abraham Lincoln for the extinction of slavery?
|
On May 12 2011 12:26 tdt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 12:20 Noak3 wrote:
Well it really depends on whether you're religious or not, I think. What kind of objective morality can exist besides one based on the idea of a deity? Personally I don't believe in any kind of god so I chose subjective, but it really depends on beliefs. Religion is just another form of indoctrination. Gods laws as opposed to man made secular societies have. Either way both have morals, both are indoctrinated usually from a child, both use threats to keep you in line. Burning hell for religion, prison for secular society.
It's super common for our secular society to complain that religion is just some other common way to indoctrinate, but that doesn't mean that Noak3 is wrong. If there were a deity, that deity absolutely has the ability to serve as an objective source of moral codes. If some religion happened to be true, that religious belief may or may not "indoctrinate" it's adherents, but the God that religious belief serves would also almost necessarily function as a legitimate source of moral truth.
As far as I'm concerned, if tdt is right and no religion were true, there would be absolutely no purely secular reason to believe there are objective moral standards. Whether or not we believe that pain and suffering is "preferable" or not makes no difference in objective moral discussions. There is nothing in this material world, be it physical or rational, that forces us to conclude that there are universally applicable moral standards.
Either there is some sort of god or there are only social preferences. This board tends to be fairly a-religious, and loves to conclude on its own that, "hot dog! there must be no god." I wish I could see what moltke would say, this would probably be very interesting.
|
11589 Posts
On May 12 2011 12:55 Traveler wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 12:50 Applecakes wrote:On May 12 2011 12:36 AlphaNoodle wrote: But for the sake of the poll, morals are subjective because they do not exist naturally. It is man made so it must be subjective. You're assuming human beings aren't a part of nature. If however you accept human beings are just a part of the animal kingdom, and are just a part of the material universe, then surely everything they create, including their systems of morality, are in fact very much "natural" and thus as objective as the study of mating habits of marmots. We define anything subjective as "of man". Anything objective as independent "of man". If we were to use your definition we wouldn't have any use at all for the word "subjective". So because we are part of nature does not make morality objective. In fact all morality is is the amalgamation of the chemical signals in the brain, and we all have some form of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivism
No, subjectivism (even in ethics) does not particularly refer to something that is "from man". The problem with Ethical Subjectivism (which is the theory most people that have argued for subjective morals in this thread have espoused) is that not all of what is considered moral has to do with attitudes or emotions. We don't stop the killing of innocent people always because we have an aversion, no, we stop it because it's wrong. Wrong because our biology (which isn't subjective, btw) makes us more inclined to choose to advance our own species than hinder it by mindless slaughter. Wrong because, in any sane person's logic, there can be no justification for the slaughter of people that it views as innocent.
|
On May 12 2011 12:55 Traveler wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 12:50 Applecakes wrote:On May 12 2011 12:36 AlphaNoodle wrote: But for the sake of the poll, morals are subjective because they do not exist naturally. It is man made so it must be subjective. You're assuming human beings aren't a part of nature. If however you accept human beings are just a part of the animal kingdom, and are just a part of the material universe, then surely everything they create, including their systems of morality, are in fact very much "natural" and thus as objective as the study of mating habits of marmots. We define anything subjective as "of man". Anything objective as independent "of man". If we were to use your definition we wouldn't have any use at all for the word "subjective". So because we are part of nature does not make morality objective. In fact all morality is is the amalgamation of the chemical signals in the brain, and we all have some form of it.
Actually no. According to the OP the definitions of "subjective" and "objective" for this thread are based on whether one believes moral standards are merely something one invents for himself or universal, akin to mathematical proofs.
The post to which I replied however was asking a different question altogether: Is morality "a part of nature"? The asking of this question, and your response that lists things "of man" suggests there is some kind of mind/nature dichotomy that is incredibly suspect.
So yes, when talking about the ontological reality of the world I am suggesting that even the usage of the word "subjective" is without use. That human beings are a part of nature does indeed not prove the universal validity of any morality. But morality, as a set of beliefs humans hold, is an objective part of nature.
|
On May 12 2011 13:04 LeafHouse wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 12:26 tdt wrote:On May 12 2011 12:20 Noak3 wrote:
Well it really depends on whether you're religious or not, I think. What kind of objective morality can exist besides one based on the idea of a deity? Personally I don't believe in any kind of god so I chose subjective, but it really depends on beliefs. Religion is just another form of indoctrination. Gods laws as opposed to man made secular societies have. Either way both have morals, both are indoctrinated usually from a child, both use threats to keep you in line. Burning hell for religion, prison for secular society. It's super common for our secular society to complain that religion is just some other common way to indoctrinate, but that doesn't mean that Noak3 is wrong. If there were a deity, that deity absolutely has the ability to serve as an objective source of moral codes. If some religion happened to be true, that religious belief may or may not "indoctrinate" it's adherents, but the God that religious belief serves would also almost necessarily function as a legitimate source of moral truth. As far as I'm concerned, if tdt is right and no religion were true, there would be absolutely no purely secular reason to believe there are objective moral standards. Whether or not we believe that pain and suffering is "preferable" or not makes no difference in objective moral discussions. There is nothing in this material world, be it physical or rational, that forces us to conclude that there are universally applicable moral standards. Either there is some sort of god or there are only social preferences. This board tends to be fairly a-religious, and loves to conclude on its own that, "hot dog! there must be no god." I wish I could see what moltke would say, this would probably be very interesting.
I'm not a-religious I recognize it for what it is, giving people hope, setting a tone/mores/tenants for society etc I have no real opinion on it because it's just another way of doing things. After enlightenment aka age of reason we chose to apply more man's law using what we call reason, I feel the same way about that too, just another way of doing things. This just goes to prove our ever changing morals if anything.
BTW all seek the best way for humans to get along. Being apex predators we'd kill each other off without morals. Recently as we understand more we have extended this to nature as well with environmental/endangered species morals.
|
If "morality" is subjective, then there is really no such thing as morals. Thus, it can't be definitively said that anyone, even Hitler was immoral.
This is obviously not the case. Morality is certainly objective. There are such things as right and wrong. Unfortunately, people today are so liberal and set on challenging the status quo that they often forget the basic fundamentals of life. Quite silly.
|
On May 12 2011 13:09 yamato77 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 12:55 Traveler wrote:On May 12 2011 12:50 Applecakes wrote:On May 12 2011 12:36 AlphaNoodle wrote: But for the sake of the poll, morals are subjective because they do not exist naturally. It is man made so it must be subjective. You're assuming human beings aren't a part of nature. If however you accept human beings are just a part of the animal kingdom, and are just a part of the material universe, then surely everything they create, including their systems of morality, are in fact very much "natural" and thus as objective as the study of mating habits of marmots. We define anything subjective as "of man". Anything objective as independent "of man". If we were to use your definition we wouldn't have any use at all for the word "subjective". So because we are part of nature does not make morality objective. In fact all morality is is the amalgamation of the chemical signals in the brain, and we all have some form of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SubjectivismNo, subjectivism (even in ethics) does not particularly refer to something that is "from man". The problem with Ethical Subjectivism (which is the theory most people that have argued for subjective morals in this thread have espoused) is that not all of what is considered moral has to do with attitudes or emotions. We don't stop the killing of innocent people always because we have an aversion, no, we stop it because it's wrong. Wrong because our biology (which isn't subjective, btw) makes us more inclined to choose to advance our own species than hinder it by mindless slaughter. Wrong because, in any sane person's logic, there can be no justification for the slaughter of people that it views as innocent.
Now you would be right, except that not everyone chooses to stop the slaughter of innocents.
Yes subjective is not limited to man (animals etc), but since the only form we really care about in relation to this debate is the subjective experience of men, then that definition is the one we are holding to. Since we don't have any non-human entities espousing what is moral (yes attitudes and emotions of humans are the only things we are getting) then Ethical Subjectivism is the form we are relegated to using.
Since subjective refers to the difference in experience, and since our biology does not universally cause the same things for all human beings, it is subjective in this context.
On May 12 2011 13:12 Applecakes wrote:
Actually no. According to the OP the definitions of "subjective" and "objective" for this thread are based on whether one believes moral standards are merely something one invents for himself or universal, akin to mathematical proofs.
The post to which I replied however was asking a different question altogether: Is morality "a part of nature"? The asking of this question, and your response that lists things "of man" suggests there is some kind of mind/nature dichotomy that is incredibly suspect.
So yes, when talking about the ontological reality of the world I am suggesting that even the usage of the word "subjective" is without use. That human beings are a part of nature does indeed not prove the universal validity of any morality. But morality, as a set of beliefs humans hold, is an objective part of nature.
Basically all you are achieving is saying that morals are part of humans which are part of nature. It is pretty well known that all our thoughts are the results of chemical changes. So really you aren't stating anything new.
Since I kind of assumed everyone would know that fact, I was simplifying my definitions, when I was saying "of man" I am of course referring to the the differing experiences of different people...
When I said "not of man" I was referring to things like gravity or deities that may or may not exist that can affect men. In other words "objective" would be transcending individual thought.
|
I believe there is a higher level of being besides us of some type, and I choose to link my morality to how I feel we are supposed to act; try to make everyone's life around us better.
|
On May 12 2011 13:03 j2choe wrote:
But I think that you're off when you say that the end of slavery was a pure product of economic convenience. It is certainly more economically convenient to still have slaves, is it not? No it isn't. Slaves don't buy products, paid workers do. Slaves are bad for the bourgeois, but good for land lords. When land lords were dominant, slavery was moral, because there was economic interest in it. When the bourgeois class arose and dominated feudal lords. There were now greater economic and political power against slavery. Then slavery become immoral. Nowadays it's illegal.
Morals have always changed and will keep changing according to our social, political and economic needs.
If we lived a few centuries ago. YOU would be telling slavery is obviously moral and how can anyone possibly disagree with that? Everyone knows slavery good. Well, except the black, but they're not really people.
You only think things are moral because you were taught that way. Were you taught different, you would think differently.
|
On May 12 2011 13:14 ClysmiC wrote:
If "morality" is subjective, then there is really no such thing as morals. Thus, it can't be definitively said that anyone, even Hitler was immoral.
This is obviously not the case. Morality is certainly objective. There are such things as right and wrong. Unfortunately, people today are so liberal and set on challenging the status quo that they often forget the basic fundamentals of life. Quite silly.
Hilter was worshiped by crowds in videos I;ve seen. Today is a different time and place. Plus rest of the world and USA re-indoctrinated Germany and Japan after kicking their ass and killing bunches of them to the point of fearing annihilation. Goes back to what I said earlier about victor sets the tone.
If Germany and Japan had won, we'd still be worshiping Hitler and the Emperor in Japan.
|
11589 Posts
On May 12 2011 13:04 LeafHouse wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 12:26 tdt wrote:On May 12 2011 12:20 Noak3 wrote:
Well it really depends on whether you're religious or not, I think. What kind of objective morality can exist besides one based on the idea of a deity? Personally I don't believe in any kind of god so I chose subjective, but it really depends on beliefs. Religion is just another form of indoctrination. Gods laws as opposed to man made secular societies have. Either way both have morals, both are indoctrinated usually from a child, both use threats to keep you in line. Burning hell for religion, prison for secular society. It's super common for our secular society to complain that religion is just some other common way to indoctrinate, but that doesn't mean that Noak3 is wrong. If there were a deity, that deity absolutely has the ability to serve as an objective source of moral codes. If some religion happened to be true, that religious belief may or may not "indoctrinate" it's adherents, but the God that religious belief serves would also almost necessarily function as a legitimate source of moral truth. As far as I'm concerned, if tdt is right and no religion were true, there would be absolutely no purely secular reason to believe there are objective moral standards. Whether or not we believe that pain and suffering is "preferable" or not makes no difference in objective moral discussions. There is nothing in this material world, be it physical or rational, that forces us to conclude that there are universally applicable moral standards. Either there is some sort of god or there are only social preferences. This board tends to be fairly a-religious, and loves to conclude on its own that, "hot dog! there must be no god." I wish I could see what moltke would say, this would probably be very interesting.
If you believed God was the source of moral truths, then you have an interesting dilemma on your hands. Is what God says morally correct because he says it, or is it because it is right? If it because he says it, then it seems rather arbitrary. There's no particular reason for chopping off the tip of your son's dick at birth, but you do it anyway because God told you to. But if it's simply right, then that implies that there's something else, separate from God, that determines what is right? What could that be? Not... reason! No; God no! That can't be it.
Obviously, my point is that objective moral truth can only ever come from reason. We have to justify why a moral rule exists, because it is otherwise arbitrary and completely meaningless; and that is unacceptable. Now, you can certainly say that this sounds like subjectivism, but you'd be wrong. There are objective truths in reason, much like mathematics, that men come up with. Thus, while it may not appear to exist in our experienced world, the concept of objective moral truths most certainly can exist.
My argument is that they must, because there are obviously actions which can only lead to bad things, and things that are obviously reprehensible on a universally identifiable scale. For example, no one in the entire world thinks that the killing of innocent people without justification is right. It is forbidden in every country, and has been as long as society has existed. Such truths, while admittedly difficult to identify, certainly do exist. Call this argumentum ad populum, but it's verifiable with reason. Why would such an action be bad? Because by killing innocent people, you are proportionately stunting the potential of our entire race, which is bad in so many ways I can't even count. Reason, my friend, is the way.
|
On May 12 2011 12:52 ZessiM wrote:
That poll is depessing me...
hah. It makes sense that TL would distribute in that way, moral relativism is the cool, hip, intellectual way to think about morality right? People who advocate strongly for objective moral truths are usually extremely religious so....
|
On May 12 2011 12:55 Traveler wrote:
We define anything subjective as "of man".
Anything objective as independent "of man". (can still affect men)
If we were to use your definition we wouldn't have any use at all for the word "subjective".
So because we are part of nature does not make morality objective. In fact all morality is; is the amalgamation of the chemical signals in the brain, and we all have some form of it.
Subjective = "of man" ? I don't see why. It seems perfectly arbitrary to define subjective this way. Maybe you can explain your choice ?
I ask because, normally, "objective" is defined "independent of one's cognition". So if we are to understand "subjective" as "dependent of one's cognition", what's actually going on in your physical brain is objective, because it is not determined by what you think (it would be the other way around).
So i think the whole issue around ethics is whether it finds its roots in one's own subjective experience, or if it's grounded in an absolute cause that is completely independent of our particular and individual thoughts (like : God, the physical reality, even subjectivity itself). In the former case, we invent the rules, in the latter, we discover them.
|
To allow the masses to decide each what morals should be help up would result in utter chaos. The trick is to get them all to agree on a single code of morals.
But wait wouldn't that make it subjective but on a societical scale (thats right I just made up a word beacuse I'm a baller) would that make it objective or subjective?
On May 12 2011 13:27 Zeri wrote:hah. It makes sense that TL would distribute in that way, moral relativism is the cool, hip, intellectual way to think about morality right? People who advocate strongly for objective moral truths are usually extremely religious so....
whats that suppose to mean? The church has been the foundation that modern law has been built on. If you learn things your way and I learn things my way it doesn't make them better then one another. Accept what is simply(as in non complex not an arrogant statement of that my way is the unarguable truth) best and not just for you.
|
Kant, anyone? Under metaethical standards, the use of practical reason allows us to establish objective standards for morality, which he dubs the categorical imperative. Certain metaethics like reason cannot be questioned - after all, to challenge the use of reason is to employ reason in that very attack, meaning that this forms the basis of any epistemology that is to follow.
[This part is not Kant, just my own thoughts building upon that]: Continuing upon that line of thought, recognition of our self as self-knowing/aware, or the Cartesian "I think, I am" means that the conscious mind and capacity to think is the basis for meaning in life. Through language and communication, we can recognize that other human beings possess this same capacity for thinking, so we reach our "objective" or universal consensus that this commonality of thinking between us two beings, which we then call "humanity," is valuable as the very connection and basis for us to embrace reason, embrace understanding, which is then what we protect via moral codes.
A more philosophic approach compared to the argument that "as biological machines, survival instincts tell us to adopt 'morals' as survival mechanisms."
|
11589 Posts
On May 12 2011 13:17 Traveler wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 13:09 yamato77 wrote:On May 12 2011 12:55 Traveler wrote:On May 12 2011 12:50 Applecakes wrote:On May 12 2011 12:36 AlphaNoodle wrote: But for the sake of the poll, morals are subjective because they do not exist naturally. It is man made so it must be subjective. You're assuming human beings aren't a part of nature. If however you accept human beings are just a part of the animal kingdom, and are just a part of the material universe, then surely everything they create, including their systems of morality, are in fact very much "natural" and thus as objective as the study of mating habits of marmots. We define anything subjective as "of man". Anything objective as independent "of man". If we were to use your definition we wouldn't have any use at all for the word "subjective". So because we are part of nature does not make morality objective. In fact all morality is is the amalgamation of the chemical signals in the brain, and we all have some form of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SubjectivismNo, subjectivism (even in ethics) does not particularly refer to something that is "from man". The problem with Ethical Subjectivism (which is the theory most people that have argued for subjective morals in this thread have espoused) is that not all of what is considered moral has to do with attitudes or emotions. We don't stop the killing of innocent people always because we have an aversion, no, we stop it because it's wrong. Wrong because our biology (which isn't subjective, btw) makes us more inclined to choose to advance our own species than hinder it by mindless slaughter. Wrong because, in any sane person's logic, there can be no justification for the slaughter of people that it views as innocent. Now you would be right, except that not everyone chooses to stop the slaughter of innocents. Yes subjective is not limited to man (animals etc), but since the only form we really care about in relation to this debate is the subjective experience of men, then that definition is the one we are holding to. Since we don't have any non-human entities espousing what is moral (yes attitudes and emotions of humans are the only things we are getting) then Ethical Subjectivism is the form we are relegated to using. Since subjective refers to the difference in experience, and since our biology does not universally cause the same things for all human beings, it is subjective in this context.
1. Yes, anyone with the power to stop the killing of innocent people without justification certainly would. Whether they view the people being killed as innocent or not is up for question, but that isn't the point. You can point out exceptions you may know of, but those are rarities in the face of the realization that killing innocent people has been forbidden or punishable since the advent of society. I'm most certainly right.
2. Subjectivism refers to the individual, not to man in general. Morality is not subjective. People, in general, do not think that each and every person should be allowed what is right and wrong, because that is obviously false. There would be no way to stop things like murder or rape because they would be right in the assailant's eyes. I don't think anyone would advocate living in a world like that. Thus, there must be universally accepted truths that people adhere to in order for basic society to exist. Human biology even promotes this concept, because we don't generally go around killing innocents and stealing from people for no reason. When it happens, there is most certainly a reason that affects the judgement of the perpetrator, but that reason alone does not justify his action as morally correct.
3. You are absolutely wrong if you think biology is, in any way, subjective. The mere fact that we can study biology and come up with ANY meaningful conclusions immediately necessitates that it must be objective. The same chemical reactions create the same behavior in people universally, which is obviously objective. Everyone's heart beats in the same, everyone's lungs inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide the same, and everyone's intestines produce the same fecal matter. These things are objective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
