EPTIs Morality Subjective or Objective? - Page 28
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
imagine7xy
United States34 Posts
| ||
yamato77
11589 Posts
On May 12 2011 14:19 Seide wrote: How about those same people that traded the slaves to the white man in the first place. The African tribes. They seemed to have no issue with enslaving people and peddling them off as goods. Even now human trafficking is a regular thing in those areas. You imply that slavery is objectively morally wrong. | ||
|
yamato77
11589 Posts
On May 12 2011 14:35 imagine7xy wrote: Subjective, however I am very thankful that anyone foolish enough to think that they are objective does so. What does that even mean? | ||
|
Zeri
United States773 Posts
On May 12 2011 14:34 unionbank wrote: If life is inherently meaningless can I ask you what's the point in a starting a thread on the internet and conversing with meaningless human beings? In fact I'll go on further to ask you why are you even alive? why bother with what life throws at you? in the end our lives amount to absolutely nothing and that there is nothing wrong with chopping off peoples heads because its all meaningless. Or do you believe there is something wrong with chopping peoples heads off? If not, why not do to your parents or your siblings after all they're meaningless too aren't they? Well for one blood kinda grosses me out..... In all seriousness the 'you don't matter, life has no meaning' argument is true at face value. But where does that leave us? I'm here, I do things and observe things that I make me feel good, I do things and observe things that make me suffer. I try to maximize the former and minimize the latter...what kind of answer are you looking for?? | ||
|
imagine7xy
United States34 Posts
It means if morals are subjective then we decide them ourselves, but you wouldn't want to give a foolish person that responsibility. Natural selection ftw  Objective morals are a stepping stone to enlightment | ||
|
yamato77
11589 Posts
On May 12 2011 14:39 imagine7xy wrote: It means if morals are subjective then we decide them ourselves, but you wouldn't want to give a foolish person that responsibility. Well if you think someone is foolish, then obviously you judge actions based on something that isn't "well if he thinks so, it must be right"! That's what subjectivism would say. I don't think you actually agree. | ||
|
Zeri
United States773 Posts
On May 12 2011 14:39 imagine7xy wrote: It means if morals are subjective then we decide them ourselves, but you wouldn't want to give a foolish person that responsibility. Natural selection ftw Objective morals are a stepping stone to enlightmentIf morality is truly subjective, then giving an idiot the responsibility of determining his own moral code is no different than giving a complete and utter ethical genius the responsibility of determining a moral code. (because everything is subjective, one cannot be related to the other in any sort of objective comparison) So the fact that you even say 'you wouldn't want to' projects that you believe there are at least SOME objective truths to be known about morality. | ||
|
Seide
United States831 Posts
On May 12 2011 14:31 j2choe wrote: True. But those types of activities are essentially motivated by greed and other unsavoury aspirations. These are the types of things that lead people to abandon their morals. I would highly doubt, however, that they would consider peddling off their own countrymen for pecuniary gain an honourable activity in and of itself. I think this is the problem of many arguments in this thread: Your argument is something a long these lines(correct me please if I am wrong): Morality is objective, but there are certain motivators that can make people break their morality, they know what they are doing is immoral, but the benefits of being immoral outweigh the benefits of being moral. Many people say: Because those people are being immoral when they know what they are doing is immoral, yet they are willing to put their morality aside, thus morality is subjective. Now its a question of point of view. We have really been conditioned since birth that certain things are right and wrong. This has been going on for a long time(thousands of years). One can argue that morality is a sort of social contract in this case right? Now the argument turns to what constitutes objective morals. It seems to me that many peoples argument revolves around arguing what exactly constitutes objective morals, and what makes morals objective is going to be subjective from person to person. Edit: saw a mention of natural selection is this case. Humans are a social species, could it be possible that natural selection worked out in the favor of those with better morals, as they were trusted more in society and were more willing to help each other survive than not? | ||
|
Traveler
United States451 Posts
On May 12 2011 14:29 yamato77 wrote: Before you get into an argument about subjectivism and objectivism (moral realism), you ought to know what they are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_subjectivism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism Subjectivism does not exist in any science. They all believe in empirically identifiable and reproducible systems of cause and effect. Thus, since biology is a science, it is, by definition, not subjective. It is objective. The flowchart below demonstrates how the sciences relate to one another, and also serves to prove the point that they are ALL objective. (each arrow implies the words "is applied") sociology>psychology>biology>chemistry>physics>mathematics Also convenient is the idea that things don't have to include every single person to be considered universal. It only requires a large enough majority that outliers are considered basically irrelevant. I have the entirety of human history on my side when I say that the killing of innocent people is objectively morally wrong. What do you have, Charles Manson? Hah. First off, for some perspective on me: I am an engineering major at a top 20 school. I know the sciences are objective in their studies. However, secondly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy) (Not going to condescend) Just read those first lines... Third: (flowchart) http://xkcd.com/435/ Fourth: Unfortunately you don't have the entirety of human history on your side, you don't even have the past year on your side... considering what is happening in Syria, Libya, and other nations in the past month. (I watched a video where a protesting man has his entire jaw blown off by police who opened fire on the protesters) Also, if you are also an engineer or scientist, you should know better, outliers cannot just be rejected, you have to explain them, and if you cannot explain their presence, it means your model is wrong. This has been a large driving force for modern particle physics experiments, in fact I just visited Fermilab, and they said the exact same thing. So please explain the outliers to me if you wish to disregard them. | ||
|
j2choe
Canada243 Posts
On May 12 2011 14:19 Seide wrote: I think this is the problem of many arguments in this thread: Your argument is something a long these lines(correct me please if I am wrong): Morality is objective, but there are certain motivators that can make people break their morality, they know what they are doing is immoral, but the benefits of being immoral outweigh the benefits of being moral. Many people say: Because those people are being immoral when they know what they are doing is immoral, yet they are willing to put their morality aside, thus morality is subjective. Then "many people" are unfortunately wrong. Subjective morality is not the rejection of one's morals, but the lack of standard morals outright. If you're rejecting a moral command that is pressing on you, and you realize that the moral command is there and that you did not create it, then you believe in objective morality. In a nutshell, the objective moralist feels the weight of his conscience but chooses to reject it for whatever reason. The subjective moralist lacks a conscience at all; since whatever action he or she so chooses automatically becomes part of his or her morality (i.e. if I chose it, then that makes it right). | ||
|
imagine7xy
United States34 Posts
On May 12 2011 14:43 Zeri wrote: If morality is truly subjective, then giving an idiot the responsibility of determining his own moral code is no different than giving a complete and utter ethical genius the responsibility of determining a moral code. (because everything is subjective, one cannot be related to the other in any sort of objective comparison) So the fact that you even say 'you wouldn't want to' projects that you believe there are at least SOME objective truths to be known about morality. When I say 'you would not want to' I am speaking from the point of view of natural selection, which is running simulations to determine what maximizes survival for genes. In the infancy of civilization objective morals would have utility because it abstracts the tool. The species and individuals within benefit from morals like "do not steal" and decide it right because "it just is the right thing to do - I was told by God, etc." | ||
|
yamato77
11589 Posts
On May 12 2011 14:53 Traveler wrote: First off, for some perspective on me: I am an engineering major at a top 20 school. I know the sciences are objective in their studies. However, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy) (Not going to condescend) Just read those first lines... Third: (flowchart) http://xkcd.com/435/ Fourth: Unfortunately you don't have the entirety of human history on your side, you don't even have the past year on your side... considering what is happening in Syria, Libya, and other nations in the past month. (I watched a video where a protesting man has his entire jaw blown off by police who opened fire on the protesters) Also, if you are also an engineer or scientist, you should know better, outliers cannot just be rejected, you have to explain them, and if you cannot explain their presence, it means your model is wrong. This has been a large driving force for modern particle physics experiments, in fact I just visited Fermilab, and they said the exact same thing. So please explain the outliers to me if you wish to disregard them. I don't care about what you major in or what school you don't go to. I guarantee that there are valedictorians that went to Harvard and graduated Summa Cum Laude that don't know what subjectivism or moral realism are. I don't know why you posted essentially the same things I did, but moral realism (which is the opposite of ethical subjectivism and decidedly based on objectivism) does not necessitate a completely universal acceptance of moral rules for them to be objective. Perhaps people just don't know of the rules? Perhaps they have other, selfish motivations that lead them to act immorally, as other people tend to? I could say the same things about the governments that kill protestors; they certainly justify their actions, however selfish they may be. After all, the point of discussing ethics isn't to argue about why people do what they do, it is to ague about what people ought to do. We can certainly, with our reason, come to objective moral truths that people ought to follow. We can also see that most people seem to agree with this moral reasoning in most situations. It does happen. Arguing against it is to ignore the development of the human race from nomads to the large-scale societies we now live as a part of. This happened because people agreed on moral rules that were objectively true, like not killing innocent people for no reason. | ||
|
XeliN
United Kingdom1755 Posts
Unless you are arguing that human beings happened to agree on moral rules that were, luck would have it, precicely in concordance with the pervading moral law. In the latter case you would be wrong, or at least there is no evidential basis to believe such is true. | ||
|
Fyodor
Canada971 Posts
On May 12 2011 14:29 yamato77 wrote: Before you get into an argument about subjectivism and objectivism (moral realism), you ought to know what they are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_subjectivism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism Subjectivism does not exist in any science. They all believe in empirically identifiable and reproducible systems of cause and effect. Thus, since biology is a science, it is, by definition, not subjective. It is objective. The flowchart below demonstrates how the sciences relate to one another, and also serves to prove the point that they are ALL objective. (each arrow implies the words "is applied") sociology>psychology>biology>chemistry>physics>mathematics Also convenient is the idea that things don't have to include every single person to be considered universal. It only requires a large enough majority that outliers are considered basically irrelevant. I have the entirety of human history on my side when I say that the killing of innocent people is objectively morally wrong. What do you have, Charles Manson? Hah. It's not entirely clear that social science is entirely objective like your purport it to be. You might wanna check out Ernest Nagel's work called The Value-Oriented Bias of Social Inquiry. Lot harder to read than wikipedia though, I warn you. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45028 Posts
On May 12 2011 15:21 XeliN wrote: if something requires human beings to agree on it in order to make it objectively true then it is not objectively true. Unless you are arguing that human beings happened to agree on moral rules that were, luck would have it, precicely in concordance with the pervading moral law. In the latter case you would be wrong, or at least there is no evidential basis to believe such is true. Something can be objectively true regardless of whether or not someone agrees, accepts, or believes it. Logic and mathematics prove things objectively, regardless of the opinions of individuals (or even the majority). | ||
|
XeliN
United Kingdom1755 Posts
Edit, I don't think it's even that though, its not that something can be objectively true independant of belief or acceptance, it's that by the nature of objectivity, if something is to be considered objectively true it MUST be so independant of acceptance, knowledge, belief etc. | ||
|
Traveler
United States451 Posts
On May 12 2011 15:14 yamato77 wrote: I don't care about what you major in or what school you don't go to. I guarantee that there are valedictorians that went to Harvard and graduated Summa Cum Laude that don't know what subjectivism or moral realism are. I don't know why you posted essentially the same things I did, but moral realism (which is the opposite of ethical subjectivism and decidedly based on objectivism) does not necessitate a completely universal acceptance of moral rules for them to be objective. Perhaps people just don't know of the rules? Perhaps they have other, selfish motivations that lead them to act immorally, as other people tend to? I could say the same things about the governments that kill protestors; they certainly justify their actions, however selfish they may be. After all, the point of discussing ethics isn't to argue about why people do what they do, it is to ague about what people ought to do. We can certainly, with our reason, come to objective moral truths that people ought to follow. We can also see that most people seem to agree with this moral reasoning in most situations. It does happen. Arguing against it is to ignore the development of the human race from nomads to the large-scale societies we now live as a part of. This happened because people agreed on moral rules that were objectively true, like not killing innocent people for no reason. Good, I am glad you don't care, that means you will take my arguments based on their merit, even if I was homeless or in prison. (Atleast I hope this is what you would do) I posted those things because it shows that in order for something to be objective it must exist independent just the realm of thought. Since morality appears to only exist as the products of thoughts, and it not universally the same, then for all intents and purposes we can call it subjective. Why would we call morality objective, and then say that perhaps those people with different views on it are just wrong or don't know what is right? Occam's razor necessitates that in the absence of a better explanation, morality is subjective because of those "exceptions". I disagree that we can use reason to come up with Objective Moral Truths. Circumstances always change, and what we have know is largely a product of maximizing well-being for a majority. Despite the fact that most people agree with this moral reasoning (they have also largely been indoctrinated by religion to believe that we need morals) that does not make that moral reasoning objective. People agreed on those moral rules, but only in selfishness or because they believed it would benefit them, and this is why our society has developed those certain rules... however this is not what would define them as objective. | ||
|
Zeri
United States773 Posts
This debate at Notre Dame has not yet been posted and I think it is a must watch as it discusses Morality specifically in relation to whether or not it can be provided by god or whether an objective morality can be provided in the absence of god. (don't be fooled by the title, this debate is mostly about morality) | ||
|
Traveler
United States451 Posts
On May 12 2011 15:38 Zeri wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqaHXKLRKzg&feature=player_embedded This debate at Notre Dame has not yet been posted and I think it is a must watch as it discusses Morality specifically in relation to whether or not it can be provided by god or whether an objective morality can be provided in the absence of god. Funny you should post that, I got into an argument with Harris right after the debate about objective morality. Also I got to personally experience how much WLC's worldview disgusts me. Also, the question the girl on the balcony asks was one I was going to ask (similar enough), and I was sitting behind her so I had to go sit back down  | ||
|
imagine7xy
United States34 Posts
Long lecture about morality without gods by Sam Harris | ||
| ||
