On May 12 2011 21:44 raviy wrote: I'm amazed at the number of people voting that it's objective. I'm also amazed that this thread has gone on this long.
If the question of whether morality is subjective or objective is in itself a subjective question, then by extension morality itself must be subjective.
How can people debate this? Why do you think people disagree on the death penalty? Age limits for consensual sex? Age limits for voting?
If you were fighting a war, would you bomb a military compound knowing that 10% of its inhabitants are innocent civilians? How about 20%? 50%? 80%? The fact that everyone will have a different answer for that question should be sufficient.
Now as to whether there is a part of morality that is objective, then that gets more interesting, but not much more so. Humans have "similar" value systems across the world despite differing cultures is due largely to the fact that we face similar environments and issues. It's more telling to consider the morality of animals. There are those who fiercely protect their own species. There are cannibals. There are animals who eat their own young. There are animals who eat their parents. There are animals that protect other species around them. There are animals with the ability to easily kill other species, but will not do so for sport.
So. 100% subjective.
It's going on so long because people keep recycling the same arguments, like the convergence in morality due to environmental needs. But to address your examples:
People disagree on the death penalty, but they will never disagree that one should be punished for a crime. People disagree on age limits for consensual sex, but you will rarely see anybody challenge whether sex should be consensual. The same goes for age limits of voting. As for animals...I believe they're driven purely by instinct and don't possess a true sense of morality.
You're looking at every little minute difference and assuming that shows subjectivity of morals. I would argue that they are all aware of the same basic morals, but differ in the manner and degree to which they should be upheld. That is NOT subjective morality. Morals are very basic ideas of right and wrong...of course people will always disagree on how they should be exercised. What we're arguing is whether people even have a conception of these basic rights and wrongs. I think it's pretty clear that they do.
This thread should be stopped. Moral and ethics are such major and difficult components in modern philosphy, that, when put on a forum and discussed by anons, will only end up validating one thing: Godwin's law is true.
On May 13 2011 00:28 Lassepetri wrote: This thread should be stopped. Moral and ethics are such major and difficult components in modern philosphy, that, when put on a forum and discussed by anons, will only end up validating one thing: Godwin's law is true.
You obviously don't understand Godwin's law, as there have been no nazi analogies, just questions about whether their actions were immoral, which is NOT a Godwin. Now back ontopic.
On May 12 2011 07:20 KillerPenguin wrote: True morality doesn't exist for a number of reasons one of which is that there is no free will. If we want to define morality like Sam Harris does as sort of a Utilitarian getting happiness for everyone than it is objective but there are many ways to attain it.
Dude, in a serious topic if you're going to make a claim that 'free will doesn't exist' you should really provide at least a single sentence trying to back up the claim. Sam Harris is an idiot who isn't even an academic author, he writes trendy little pop novels.
If you want to argue about morality and free will read Kant, read Wittgenstein, read Nietzsche.
In a serious topic you would have to make the claim that free will does exist and that things happen by magic. Nearly every sentence needs another sentence to support it unless you already understand the sentence I don't feel like writing a 2 page post on why free will doesn't exist when people can search google. The claim itself is worth making before I go off and build the pillar of sand of utilitarianism upon which I build everything else. Sam Harris is a genius, academics mean little beyond not being retarded, and I've already read those authors.
On May 12 2011 07:20 KillerPenguin wrote: True morality doesn't exist for a number of reasons one of which is that there is no free will. If we want to define morality like Sam Harris does as sort of a Utilitarian getting happiness for everyone than it is objective but there are many ways to attain it.
Dude, in a serious topic if you're going to make a claim that 'free will doesn't exist' you should really provide at least a single sentence trying to back up the claim. Sam Harris is an idiot who isn't even an academic author, he writes trendy little pop novels.
If you want to argue about morality and free will read Kant, read Wittgenstein, read Nietzsche.
In a serious topic you would have to make the claim that free will does exist and that things happen by magic. Nearly every sentence needs another sentence to support it unless you already understand the sentence I don't feel like writing a 2 page post on why free will doesn't exist when people can search google. The claim itself is worth making before I go off and build the pillar of sand of utilitarianism upon which I build everything else. Sam Harris is a genius, academics mean little beyond not being retarded, and I've already read those authors.
Hmmm. Though he was responding to a completely different issue, I think Tyler made a very important statement about the nature of our arguments, (this is responding to the 'you have to prove your view of free will here before you talk about it' line)....
On May 04 2011 17:08 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
...... It's essentially impossible to engage in any discussion worth a discussion without committing a fallacy around these parts. No one ever engages in a real full argument to the end. You have to truncate to participate. To try to get out of an argument early AND scot-free is a guaranteed method for committing a fallacy. The only pure way to deal with an issue is to refuse to address it. And I think I might be taking that route more often. Better to stay quiet than to misrepresent your true attitude and your true knowledge. This is true whether you are doing it on purpose (like the PR robots that come do their business on tl.net) or doing it because you don't have the time and the means to properly represent your attitude and knowledge.
The exercises you can judge me on in my interactions within this community are nothing compared to what you might observe in an environment that truly puts reading comprehension, critical thinking and logic skills to the test. I can say with 100% honesty that I take no offense whatsoever to your judgment of me and I'm replying just to try to further your understanding and perhaps win you over, but it's ok if I don't win you over. Very Jesus-like of me.
Was everything I said in this post perfectly clear? Perfectly unambiguous? If not, then too bad, I'm not gonna take the time to clear it up. Was something I said irrational or stupid? I'm not gonna take the time to patch up the mistake and revise my argument to improve my position. Was it clear to 99% of people and not to you? Through no egregious fault of mine (or yours)? Then continue to think we're all dumb if you want to. True argument takes an incredible amount of time and everyone makes mistakes.
On May 12 2011 21:44 raviy wrote: I'm amazed at the number of people voting that it's objective. I'm also amazed that this thread has gone on this long.
If the question of whether morality is subjective or objective is in itself a subjective question, then by extension morality itself must be subjective.
How can people debate this? Why do you think people disagree on the death penalty? Age limits for consensual sex? Age limits for voting?
If you were fighting a war, would you bomb a military compound knowing that 10% of its inhabitants are innocent civilians? How about 20%? 50%? 80%? The fact that everyone will have a different answer for that question should be sufficient.
Now as to whether there is a part of morality that is objective, then that gets more interesting, but not much more so. Humans have "similar" value systems across the world despite differing cultures is due largely to the fact that we face similar environments and issues. It's more telling to consider the morality of animals. There are those who fiercely protect their own species. There are cannibals. There are animals who eat their own young. There are animals who eat their parents. There are animals that protect other species around them. There are animals with the ability to easily kill other species, but will not do so for sport.
So. 100% subjective.
It's going on so long because people keep recycling the same arguments, like the convergence in morality due to environmental needs. But to address your examples:
People disagree on the death penalty, but they will never disagree that one should be punished for a crime. People disagree on age limits for consensual sex, but you will rarely see anybody challenge whether sex should be consensual. The same goes for age limits of voting. As for animals...I believe they're driven purely by instinct and don't possess a true sense of morality.
You're looking at every little minute difference and assuming that shows subjectivity of morals. I would argue that they are all aware of the same basic morals, but differ in the manner and degree to which they should be upheld. That is NOT subjective morality. Morals are very basic ideas of right and wrong...of course people will always disagree on how they should be exercised. What we're arguing is whether people even have a conception of these basic rights and wrongs. I think it's pretty clear that they do.
So moral rules are objective and true, but they can interpreted differently.
But where did those objective rules come from? Certainly not humans, then it's subjective. Nature/the universe itself? Everything is natural, even 'objective rule'-breaking things.
I also wonder where the objective GOOD and BAD exists. Since it exists somewhere outside of our conciousness and would do so even if humanity died out, I wonder where it's hiding.
morality is an invention of man to try and dictate an order to the human race. I know of no other animal that has a sense of morality. therefore, being an invention of the human race, morality should be subjective.
How could we even discover what a truly objective thing is? we as humans can only come to an agreement of subjective values, as the universe doesn't just tell us what is right and what is wrong. if there were a book written by the universe with a code of morality, then it would be objective. So the only way I can see anyone truly believing that there is an objective morality, is if they believe in God and the bible (being that they think that the bible is a set of rules on morality passed on by the creator of the universe).
First of all you don't need to be able to explain how objective morality can exist. You can determine it exists. It's like saying you can't say gravity exists unless you can explain why it exists. It's a false line of argument that reminds me of all those religious people trying to argue from that if objective morality has to exist there has to be a god.
The only arguments against objective morality I have seen, apart for the source argument, are arguments for subjective ethics. Ethics are subjective. Morality isn't.
Morality is both convergent because of how societies operate and because of how human genes are. It's just like how evolution is convergent on the eye design and evolved it several times separately. Stating that an eye is a good evolutionary solution is objective in the same way as this relates to ethnics and morality. Some ethical rules are bad solutions while others are grey and others are good.
Objective morality doesn't mean there's no moral dilemmas or that there is no grey area.
People don't realize what supporting subjective morality means. It means any code of ethics is as 'good' as any other. It means you can't make judgment based on morality ever and it to have any meaning. Every society is build on a fundamental of objective morality and every person here in their heart or subconscious mind know morality is objective.
We know that morality is objective because every moral theory has at it's core some of the same principles. Like Chomsky said: "In fact, one of the, maybe the most, elementary of moral principles is that of universality, that is, If something’s right for me, it’s right for you; if it’s wrong for you, it’s wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow.”
Silver rule or golden rule, every society decides that is a good principle. This isn't arbitrary but this is because apparently it is recognized that those two rules have some merit to them.
The problem is figuring out what this objective morality actually is and how detailed it is or can be discovered. Being a supporter of objective morality doesn't mean you deny this is a problem. It is merely the only explanation on how it isn't an accident that moral codes from independent societies have consensus or similarities.
This is a separate discussion from a philosophical and more direct one. It is an observation that is true even if you can't explain or argue for it. Objective morality is what we observe regardless of if we can explain it or if it is intellectual satisfying.
Almost all countries have signed the universal declaration of human rights.I don't believe 68% of the people here don't support the concept of this declaration. If you believe morality is subjective, how can you believe that what human rights a person is entitled to is not subjective? Do you truly believe, like Saudi Arabia, that freedom of speech and freedom of religion is not something that is good for Saudi people? Or that execution of homosexuals isn't immoral in Saudi Arabia because Saudi Arabia is an Islamic country and that makes things different?
First of all you don't need to be able to explain how objective morality can exist. You can determine it exists. It's like saying you can't say gravity exists unless you can explain why it exists. It's a false line of argument that reminds me of all those religious people trying to argue from that if objective morality has to exist there has to be a god.
The only arguments against objective morality I have seen, apart for the source argument, are arguments for subjective ethics. Ethics are subjective. Morality isn't.
Morality is both convergent because of how societies operate and because of how human genes are. It's just like how evolution is convergent on the eye design and evolved it several times separately. Stating that an eye is a good evolutionary solution is objective in the same way as this relates to ethnics and morality. Some ethical rules are bad solutions while others are grey and others are good.
Objective morality doesn't mean there's no moral dilemmas or that there is no grey area.
People don't realize what supporting subjective morality means. It means any code of ethics is as 'good' as any other. It means you can't make judgment based on morality ever and it to have any meaning. Every society is build on a fundamental of objective morality and every person here in their heart or subconscious mind know morality is objective.
My thoughts exactly, this is why i'd describe morality as something objective in the big picture, however at a personal level every1 sees/experiences it subjectively. Then again that goes for just about everything.
On May 13 2011 02:20 Suisen wrote: People here are thoroughly confused.
First of all you don't need to be able to explain how objective morality can exist. You can determine it exists. It's like saying you can't say gravity exists unless you can explain why it exists. It's a false line of argument that reminds me of all those religious people trying to argue from that if objective morality has to exist there has to be a god.
The only arguments against objective morality I have seen, apart for the source argument, are arguments for subjective ethics. Ethics are subjective. Morality isn't.
Morality is both convergent because of how societies operate and because of how human genes are. It's just like how evolution is convergent on the eye design and evolved it several times separately. Stating that an eye is a good evolutionary solution is objective in the same way as this relates to ethnics and morality. Some ethical rules are bad solutions while others are grey and others are good.
Objective morality doesn't mean there's no moral dilemmas or that there is no grey area.
People don't realize what supporting subjective morality means. It means any code of ethics is as 'good' as any other. It means you can't make judgment based on morality ever and it to have any meaning. Every society is build on a fundamental of objective morality and every person here in their heart or subconscious mind know morality is objective.
Gravity allows for predictions and can be manipulated in experiments etc. You can't do that with "objective morals". The false line of arguing is to claim that something exists and then give no reason for it, when the burden of evidence lies with the claim. Otherwise you could just claim that any number of invisible but true and objective things exists. Like god, and objective ethics. "God did it" is a better argument for objective morals than anything I've seen so far.
So in an evolutionary sense, eyesight has been a successful trait. Does that make eyesight good? Perhaps someone who is blind is then evil? I know you don't mean it like that but the problem is that the example isn't even about morals but simple a statement about what evolution is. Humans defined evolution, so of course meeting the goal of the definition could be considered a successful.
I don't understand what you mean about subjective ethics and objective morals. Why do you make that distinction?
I think it's perfectly possible to have a subjective set of morals and be judgemental all at once. The difference is that I realize that they are mine and if humans didn't exist neither would morality. So while my morals are largely based on human nature, culture, environment, my morals wouldn't exist if I wasn't there to perceive it in my conciousness.
Edit: there are some interesting cultures out there btw. One comes to mind where basically incest molestation is the norm for young boys, so it's not all the same. There are definetely some basic human features that I can see as objective but it's one thing for something concrete to exist objectively, or even something abstract that can have some predictive value or something, than to claim that a moral value is an actual part of the universe.
there are some interesting cultures out there btw. One comes to mind where basically incest molestation is the norm for young boys, so it's not all the same. There are definetely some basic human features that I can see as objective but it's one thing for something concrete to exist objectively, or even something abstract that can have some predictive value or something, than to claim that a moral value is an actual part of the universe.
Part of the human universe more like, at any rate "incest" is only wrong now that we know it will make your kids handicaped 90% of the time, royal blood families were doing that kind of crap for hundreds of years so i wouldn't call it immoral in ignorance.
However thiefs are thiefs everywhere, same with murderers, con artists and so on.
You admit yourself that you don't understand my post because you don't understand the words. If so, why try to be so snug? Maybe try to watch these strings of video to test is you can understand the nuances.
It's not really good but the first thing that came to my mind that you can actually watch on youtube.
Ethnics is the philosophy that deals with morality.
You can observe that there is a universal or objective aspect to ethnics. This reflects the underlying objective morality. People asked how this can be and that it needs to be explained before it can be true. So the analogy is spot and yours is wrong and dishonest and it doesn't even have to do with the distinction between morals and ethnics.
You say you can make judgments on morality while recognizing morality is subjective. How? You mean you can arbitrarily make some arbitrary judgment? I of course meant a meaningful judgment. If morality is subjective then why do you have the right to judge? Are some codes of ethnics more subjective than others? You don't explain this. You just said you can. It's like slamming your head into a wall.
The existence of objective morality is only debated by religious people, who believe the only source of objective morality can be god and radial post-modernists who believe everything is relative.
On May 13 2011 01:43 Sablar wrote: So moral rules are objective and true, but they can interpreted differently.
But where did those objective rules come from? Certainly not humans, then it's subjective. Nature/the universe itself? Everything is natural, even 'objective rule'-breaking things.
I also wonder where the objective GOOD and BAD exists. Since it exists somewhere outside of our conciousness and would do so even if humanity died out, I wonder where it's hiding.
Damn...one thing at a time! But you're right; once you accept that there is an objective standard out there that exists independently of people's perceptions of it, then the natural "next-step" is to determine where the standard comes from. That's a whole new can of worms that's outside the confines of the OP, so I won't bother going there. Definitely worth talking about, however, and if you want your understanding to be complete you will have no choice but to address it.
It's a natural next step for a lot of people. But it's not a fair criticism.
I think a lot of people would have no problem with saying that logic is objective and exists outside of humans. But only religious people have a problem with the lack of explanation of where they come from or what their 'source' is. But the same criticism is seen as 'fail' when it comes to morality, it seems.
I don't think morality is not subject to logic. So in the end morality will be a product of these logical absolutes and the universal human nature of humans by genetic and the convergence that exists in the problems and solutions of societies of intelligent individuals, whatever their genetic nature.
It's a can of worms, but it is not a problem.
I think a lot of people like the idea that there isn't an universal morality, regardless of if it is completely knowable or not, because obviously it's a nuisance. It would be better for there to be an objective morality that is impossible not to know. Or a subjective morality.
What we have now is more difficult than either of the two. It means a lot of people in their ethics are objectively wrong. People don't like to be wrong.
I think it is neither. It depends on the circumstances and the situation.
Is killing someone morally wrong? Most would agree. Is killing someone in self-defence wrong? Almost universally the answer will be no.
Is stealing wrong? Most would agree. Is stealing food due to suffering from starvation morally wrong? I don't think anyone in his right mind would agree as long as there is no excessive cruelty and damage involved in the act of stealing that can be attributed to the offender's negligence.
On May 12 2011 15:53 XeliN wrote: Instead of saying that perhaps provide a coherent argument for why you disagree with him and/or think he is a bad philosopher.
Harris keeps stumbling on the point Craig keeps hammering. The concept that maximizing well-being is something which we are all bound to is ridiculous. He refutes himself when he says "who are you to say that we are obligated to maximize well-being?" but then he shrugs it off without giving the question the seriousness it deserves. He just gives you a dumbfounded look that just says "duh, well-being man, it's soooo obvious duuude".
Craig is right on that. Harris has not succeeded in grounding his well-being concept as a binding moral obligation. His entire philosophy is a failure. It seems good enough at first sight yes. But consider for example the Nietzschean thought that suffering, intoxication and destruction can be desirable for the life-affirming type of man. Harris does not cover that angle very well and he knows it. He tries to cover it up so hard with that mocking look on his face. I do believe Nietzsche has a much more satisfying account of human morality than Harris. On so many levels. It's so arrogant on Harris' part to claim that his work is objective and no one else's is.
But I will say that evolutionary accounts of morality are interesting. However I think they have a limit. I think they are more useful as a descriptive, historical, explanatory tool than a prescriptive tool for me or future generations.
(BTW, I used Nietzsche here but feel free to insert any other philosopher. It's just who I had in mind at that precise moment."
I'll just take this as an illustration of my former post, where I criticised Harris for being a demagogue. Only in demagogy, one could actually be perceived as the losing side of an argument when arguing for well-being... in a real argument, systemic doubt would be below the belt, and only factual doubt counts.
As for your Nietzsche reference, please look that up again. Nietzsche's amor fati implies to accept suffering as a part of life, but nowhere does Nietzsche argue against well-being... quite the opposite actually.
He does argue against the narrow british concept of well-being (the same concept that harris is inheriting). Also, suffering, intoxication and destruction does not only come in as amor fati would have it. It's part of his Dionysian and Apollonian dichotomy. It's also part of his concept of improvement only coming off when overcoming obstacles and trials.
I consider myself a Nietzsche expert, I read all his books, read secondary literature, wrote essays in university, etc. I'm pretty confident in thinking that Nietzsche would hate the idea of maximising well-being. He would be far more concerned about the flourishing of great creative minds, athletes and leaders.
Consider these quotes:
The discipline of suffering, of great suffering — do you not know that only this discipline has created all enhancements of man so far? That tension of the soul in unhappiness which cultivates its strength, its shudders face to face with great ruin, its inventiveness and courage in enduring, persevering, interpreting, and exploiting suffering, and whatever has been granted to it of profundity, secret, mask, spirit, cunning, greatness — was it not granted to it through suffering, through the discipline of great suffering? (BGE 225; cf. BGE 270)
referring to hedonists and utilitarians — that, “Well-being as you understand it — that is no goal, that seems to us an end, a state that soon makes man ridiculous and contemptible…” (BGE 225).
Are we not, with this tremendous objective of obliterating all the sharp edges of life, well on the way to turning mankind into sand? Sand! Small, soft, round, unending sand! Is that your ideal, you heralds of the sympathetic affections? (D 174)
On May 13 2011 03:55 Bleak wrote: Is killing someone morally wrong? Most would agree. Is killing someone in self-defence wrong? Almost universally the answer will be no.
Is stealing wrong? Most would agree. Is stealing food due to suffering from starvation morally wrong?
This is a play with words and has nothing to do with morality or ethics.
It is a matter of if ethics is just a personal opinion and each ethical code is just as good an opinion as anyone else's. Or if ethics is a teaching of morality where there are things to know about morality. There can be things known about what a killing is and what consequences it has.
You say that saying killing is never wrong is equally good as saying killing is always wrong, and everything in between. It is obviously false and in your heart you know it. The question is why it is true and when killing ought to be moral and when not. That's when we get mundane principles like the golden and silver rules which all societies somehow discovered and respected.
They all hint to objective morality. What you understand to be objective morality is not what it is. You think objective morality is some back and white world in which some pope dictates the world of god to the people and that's it and you either go to hell or heaven.
That's not what it is. Subjective morality is saying that every code of ethics is equal to any other code of ethics. No ethical principle is objectively better than other. It's all just personal opinion. Saying killing is always allowed is as good an ethical code as saying killing is never allowed. And both are just as good as saying sometimes killing is allowed but sometimes not and a good reason needs to be given. That and only that is subjective morality. Any other ethical teaching has a objective element to it and depends on objective morality.
On May 13 2011 02:20 Suisen wrote: We know that morality is objective because every moral theory has at it's core some of the same principles. Like Chomsky said: "In fact, one of the, maybe the most, elementary of moral principles is that of universality, that is, If something’s right for me, it’s right for you; if it’s wrong for you, it’s wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow.”
Silver rule or golden rule, every society decides that is a good principle. This isn't arbitrary but this is because apparently it is recognized that those two rules have some merit to them.
No they don't? There's a bazillion of other theories and lines of thought that you conveniently chose to ignore. The golden rule is nothing other a huge generalization with several exception. Which only practical value is that you can tell it to dumb people who cannot grasp anything more complicated.
"Oh you're too dumb to understand there is no morals? Would be too risky to let you do whatever comes up in your head? So here, just follow THESE basic rules and you'll PROBABLY be ok... MOST of the time."
Well, you are entitled to your own opinion, but it is my understanding that those in the field see it very different.
I have never see anyone before claim that the golden and silver rule are merely there because they can give people who don't understand ethics a simple principle to go by. All seem to believe that the underlying principle hints at the nature of objective morality, as said by Chomsky, who worked close to the field and is famous to be one of the earliest people to approach this in a scientific manner and bring it to the popular arena.
On May 13 2011 04:26 Suisen wrote: Well, you are entitled to your own opinion, but it is my understanding that those in the field see it very different.
Except you ignore 99.9% of "those who work in the field" and cherry pick only those who support your opinion.
EPT
