EPTIs Morality Subjective or Objective? - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
PepperoniPiZZa
Sierra Leone1660 Posts
| ||
|
Hidden_MotiveS
Canada2562 Posts
On May 11 2011 16:02 ILIVEFORAIUR wrote: Personally, I believe in subjective morals, based on my existential worldview. I believe that there is not inherent meaning to life, in that we go through our life and create our own meaning. This world view would be consistant with subjective morals. You have piqued my interest my friend! I would say that, because we are all humans, we have construed societies similarly. By constructing societies similarly, the humans in those societies figured out what was the best way to survive (working together, not harming one another etc.). I posit that it is not an eternal being which made "some things wrong and some things right". We have determined the morality of actions. So, in theory, if the best course of action for a particular society was to eat it's young, and mate with trees, then in that society, those actions would be considered moral. It is absurd to think that a human society could survive by taking part in those practices, in fact, all human societies would consider those practices immoral. Not because of God, but because they are extremely counter productive to the survival and life-bettering of the humans race. I think I'm really going to like you  I don't think I've met people who had these same views as I did. Ok so marriage: some societies have developed to live monogamously for tens of thousands of years, a decent amount of time to develop some societal codes and to learn to encourage certain sets of actions. Other societies have always been about raising the children of a tribe, regardless of whether or not it was one's own child. This indicates something... if people are able to live one way for thousands of years, then evolution could allow people who work together to survive and reproduce more often. Perhaps Morality isn't just objective or just subjective (by your definition of objectivity, since it will always be beneficial for society to function without murder, then murder is objectively immoral). Most of us are wired to believe in monogamy or in murder being bad. We aren't moral just because we've been taught to be moral, but because our ancestors who were moral survived and reproduced more. Being taught to be moral and being wired to be moral go hand in hand. Oh. I just thought of a great example. A wolf is wired to be loyal to its companions, through years of evolution. All wolves are loyal (objective morality). At the same time, the wolf is taught to be moral by its pack. Some other wolves share food with it when its young and it gets habituated to do the same things. Any morality that is taught is subjective morality. Maybe one pack of wolves believes its right to bury a dead wolf, they've just been habituated to be like this. Another pack of wolves believes that it is right to cremate dead wolves. Neither one will oust the other given a hundred thousand years because the difference between cremation and burying on an evolutionary sense is rather small compared to that of say the strength of the hind legs. They've both reached local maxima, and will be free to develop their morals based on how they are raised. sry. I is sleepy :O zzzz... | ||
|
targ
Malaysia445 Posts
What tends to be debated are things like euthanasia. In the case of euthanasia, it can definitely bring good to individual cases, but the precedent of "it's ok to kill someone" makes it a tough nut for many to swallow. So in this case, it is an example of an action for good (killing someone's whose life is not a life anymore) clashing with a rule for good (avoid taking life unless absolutely necssary). Many moral debates, as I see it, are of this nature: case-utilitarianism clashing with rule-utilitarianism. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17845 Posts
On May 11 2011 16:24 _Darwin_ wrote: That's not true at all. Moral realism is one example of an objective moral system. And a normative system (prescriptive) has no relation to whether it is subjective. But moral realism is still ethics, not morality... Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is a sense of behavioral conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong). What OP meant is the oldest dilemma shown by Aristotle and being the base discussion in axiology: Do the values (like "good" and "beauty") exist in the world and we're just discovering them, or do we create them? | ||
|
TechniQ.UK
United Kingdom391 Posts
Either your an atheist existentialist as the OP is who doesn't believe in God therefore there is no essence that preceeds man's existance and no objective standards of morality apart from which you create moment by moment as an individual or society. Or you believe in a conscious higher being, namely God. Who with his consciousness had an essence in mind for man and has established a morality outside of man to which man is accountable. Thus resulting in objective moral values. I really don't see any other philosophical options. The notions of a higher power, that doesn't have consciousness or that isn't a personal being, would merely take us back to existentialism. | ||
|
nihlon
Sweden5581 Posts
On May 11 2011 16:31 targ wrote: As I see it, most morals are the logical rules any society would have to set in order to live together reasonably well. Rules against things such as murder and theft are obviously necessary for a functioning society, while encouragement of charity and helping each other are definitely positive factors. But nobody disputes these things when debating on morality. What tends to be debated are things like euthanasia. In the case of euthanasia, it can definitely bring good to individual cases, but the precedent of "it's ok to kill someone" makes it a tough nut for many to swallow. So in this case, it is an example of an action for good (killing someone's whose life is not a life anymore) clashing with a rule for good (avoid taking life unless absolutely necssary). Many moral debates, as I see it, are of this nature: case-utilitarianism clashing with rule-utilitarianism. How does things like the death penalty fit into such a discussion? If the moral code is "not to murder" how can we as a society accept killing people in the name of justice? If you are for the death penalty why shouldn't you be for euthanasia? I do suspect there is a lot of people where this isn't the case. | ||
|
Bartuc
Netherlands629 Posts
| ||
|
mufin
United States616 Posts
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) | ||
|
FranzP
France270 Posts
http://academicearth.org/courses/justice-whats-the-right-thing-to-do | ||
|
Rucky
United States717 Posts
I'm believe in the objectivity of morality. When it comes down to it, like some have said, everything we do may only be for survival and evolution. And if so, whatever is morally right is just everything consistent with that train of thought | ||
|
ixi.genocide
United States981 Posts
On May 11 2011 15:31 ILIVEFORAIUR wrote: This is always a fun conversation! Like the title asks, "Is morality subjective or objective?" A couple definition for the nubs Subjective morals: Each person determines his/her own morals based on their experiences. For example, a priest would believe it is moral to help others, a murder would think it is moral to end another's life. There is no set moral code which we all live by. We make this moral code through our experiences. Objective morals: What is considered "right" and "wrong" are universal and will always be such. For example, it is moral for a priest to help others, it is immoral for a murder to end another's life. Personally, I believe in subjective morals, based on my existential worldview. I believe that there is not inherent meaning to life, in that we go through our life and create our own meaning. This world view would be consistant with subjective morals. I would love to know what the TLr's think Cheers, ILIVEFORAIUR The word moral is a definition in and of itself. It could be called a category, or even a list. Most morals (maybe all morals) are common sense. Because morals are generally looked at as common sense it is hard to not say that they aren't objective. But because humans are independent of each other you can't say that "right and wrong" are universal. While everyone will come to the same conclusion (subjective) it isn't truly subjective either. A cold blooded warrior will not think it is morally correct to murder someone, a thief won't believe it is moral to steal. These acts are done out of necessity (for the most part, there are exceptions). | ||
|
Deadlyfish
Denmark1980 Posts
If you have a problem, there will always been a solution that is the best solution, therefore the answer. And there will also be the wrong answer. Some people may think that the wrong answer is the right one, but there will always be a "best" answer. But it all depends on what your goal is. I dont know, it's really hard to explain. But basically; If you have a clearly defined goal, there will always be a right and wrong choice. And all living creatures will always have the same goal, that's just chemistry/biology. There is no "free will" it's all just atoms interacting. Lets say your goal is to make someone "as happy as possible". You have 2 choices. One of them will be the best. There is no other way. . Argh, so hard to try and explain  | ||
|
ZERG_RUSSIAN
10417 Posts
| ||
|
Rucky
United States717 Posts
On May 11 2011 16:48 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: For there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. To me, it is a prison. If it is a prison then stop it. | ||
|
Aberu
United States968 Posts
On May 11 2011 16:01 VIB wrote: You really cannot think of one single hypothesis for that? You need to work on your creativity Different groups come to similar problems and finds similar solutions.... that's all. Or it is in relation to not only what Sam Harris argues that a value of a society's morals can actually be looked almost formula-ically based on the treatment of humans in that society, but to also the evolutionary explanation, that societal cooperation leads to greater evolutionary success. Humans help those in need that they don't know, because before the only people you did know were those around you, those helping persist your genes. If people weren't moral to each other in some way, and pondering over how to improve their condition through morality, humans wouldn't be as successful a species evolutionarily speaking. | ||
|
Cyber_Cheese
Australia3615 Posts
| ||
|
Rucky
United States717 Posts
The chicken or the egg. Which came first? | ||
|
ZessiM
United Kingdom232 Posts
On May 11 2011 16:27 Severedevil wrote: A set of rules (or behavioral guideline) can't be 'true' or 'false'. Invoking a deity changes nothing; it merely allows you to claim that one particular set of rules is the one 'God' prefers. However, moralities can be compared and judged based on various other criteria, so the question, "Which morality will best produce this particular desired effect?" has an objective answer. 'Minimize suffering' and 'maximize freedom' are popular choices, although of course they have to be specified further. Firstly, when you talk about 'desired effects' those are YOUR desired effects. Even if you claim the desired effect to be 'maximum happiness', that is still your subjective idea of what maximum happiness is. So the objective answer to the question "Which morality will produce this particular desired effect?", will tell you only about what you want. I don't think any amount of scientific advancement will be able to tell us what another person does or does not want. Secondly, there are very few cases where we can determine all the outcomes of an action. We may be seeking to minimise suffering. No matter how much scientific knowledge we have of what brings about happiness and what brings about suffering (which, incidentally, sounds a lot like the study of history) we can never be certain in the way that we can about scientific observations, because every event requiring a moral decision to be made has an entirely different set of variables to consider. Also, I think if God determines what right and wrong is then his commandments about what right and wrong are have objective truth. Not that I'm a theist, I'm just sayin' | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On May 11 2011 16:54 Aberu wrote: Doesn't humans adapting and evolving their behavior fits exactly the description of subjective morals? That's precisely the main point, morals are not universal and people change their definition of morality depending on their needs. If there was some universal moral. Human behavior wouldn't have evolved. We would still be following the same morals for thousands of years. Which is far from true.Or it is in relation to not only what Sam Harris argues that a value of a society's morals can actually be looked almost formula-ically based on the treatment of humans in that society, but to also the evolutionary explanation, that societal cooperation leads to greater evolutionary success. Humans help those in need that they don't know, because before the only people you did know were those around you, those helping persist your genes. If people weren't moral to each other in some way, and pondering over how to improve their condition through morality, humans wouldn't be as successful a species evolutionarily speaking. | ||
|
targ
Malaysia445 Posts
How does things like the death penalty fit into such a discussion? If the moral code is "not to murder" how can we as a society accept killing people in the name of justice? If you are for the death penalty why shouldn't you be for euthanasia? I do suspect there is a lot of people where this isn't the case.[/QUOTE] The death penalty argument may in a way be related to case-utilitarianism versus rule-utilitarianism. Proponents of it can say that the penalty in place can scare more people into avoiding commiting such crimes and that it is the only way to do justice in the case of murder, so the death penalty benefits the society as whole, while detractors can say that in certain cases the man executed has been found innocent later, thus in individual cases it harms people. Of course, the arguement can take the other direction as well, with proponents citing indivdual cases in which crimes so heinous have been commited that only execution can serve justice, such as serial murderers and child rapists, while detractors saying that the rule of "not taking human life" is so important to the general moral fibre of society that we cannot break it just for individual cases such as this. So even the death penalty argument can, to a degree I believe, be fitted into the rule vs case discussion. Actually, I think there are people who are pro-euthanasia and against the death penalty, as well as vice versa. The death penalty is killing in the name of justice, while euthanasia is killing to reduce suffering. Two different motives in my opinion, though those who argue against it may have common grounds in the objection to taking of human life for any reason. | ||
| ||
