|
On May 13 2011 12:06 Redguard1966 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 15:52 VIB wrote:
At the end of the day. Morals are not an absolute truth. They are a consequence of economy and politics. And change through history as the need for new morals arise.
A few centuries ago. Slavery was moral. Because there were economical-political reasons for it. As the economy changed, nowadays slavery is immoral. Likewise, nowadays assigning monopoly property laws to intellectual material is moral, because theres economic interest. As that economic interest is changing. In the future, copyright laws that forbid sharing of creative work will be immoral. Morals will always change to adjust to economics and politics.
Morals is just an illusion invented by men. I'm with this 100% until the last sentence. Wonderful explanation of the fundamental basis for morality. I would say it is not just an "illusion," but I hope I'm not merely reducing this to semantics. What you have clearly demonstrated is that morality definitely has an objective foundation in the functioning of society - there's nothing illusory about that whatsoever. However, I could understand your final sentence if it was meant to convey the idea that "the morals of the day are the best and highest" as they have been purported to be by the rulers of essentially every civilization throughout human history, since classes came into existence.
I say morality is an illusion because what I think is most people's definition of it - it doesn't exist. Most people think morals are the cause from which we base our society rules on. That's false. There is no such thing. In reality, what we percieve as morals are a consequence and not the cause. They just reflect the real cause which are social, economic and political needs.
This universal truth from which base our rules. Doesn't exist. It's an illusion made by men to find an easy explanation to what they cannot grasp (economics, politics etc).
|
|
|
On May 13 2011 02:20 Suisen wrote:
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.
You do realize you've just said you agree morality is subjective but you just disagree that it should stay subjective. And that your opinion is that some ethics are better than others? But who decides which one is the better one? What are the rules? What if someone disagrees? What if the majority disagrees, what happens to that objectivity then? Do you still consider it objective? Seems more like big endian, little endian ... an opinion.
|
On May 13 2011 18:38 dakalro wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 02:20 Suisen wrote:
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.
You do realize you've just said you agree morality is subjective but you just disagree that it should stay subjective. And that your opinion is that some ethics are better than others? But who decides which one is the better one? What are the rules? What if someone disagrees? What if the majority disagrees, what happens to that objectivity then? Do you still consider it objective? Seems more like big endian, little endian ... an opinion.
everyone once thought that black people were inferior to whites, does that mean that it was morally okay to despise black people? of course not. It was obviously morally wrong despite people being heavily against it.
I think there are some major morals that are objecvtive, things like rape murder racism stealing etc, but then other things are subjective, porn for example
|
On May 13 2011 13:15 Sava Fischer wrote:
Suisen,
You keep implying I have said things that I haven't. It doesn't have to be formulated for it to be true.
Just because something is arbitrary doesn't make it useless. Doe you believe mathematics is arbitrary and subjective and useless? Logic principles are ultimately descriptions of reality and the most fundamental metaphors we can create. Logic is the cornerstone on which coherent descriptions of reality are made. This is why and how it exists. It doesn't exist apart from that. I don't see what is controversial about that.
No. You don't understand. That's why you say things you don't agree with.
Logic can be a human concept. Or it can be a property of this universe. I argue that it is a inherit property of the universe. The application of a logical principle by a human is a concept. The application of a logical principle is not the same thing as the principle itself.
In the same a way a word is not it's meaning. You can say a 'car' is a word. But there are two 'cars'. The word written c-a-r and the object or the word refers to.
You said the laws of logic is contingent upon grammar. You didn't say the application of a logic is contingent upon grammar. Either you don't separate them, or you do think logical absolutes don't exist and logic, just as morality if it were subjective, is merely a human opinion and any interpretation of logic, or morality, is just as good as any other one.
This was important because people made the argument that laws of morality can't exist somewhere unless they exist as a god. People said literally '"There needs to be a source of morality for absolute morality, therefore morality is subjective". You yourself talked about laws of logic written down not floating around somewhere in the universe.
But you agreed that the principles of logic are still true even if there are no humans to conceive of them and to apply them and to put them into grammar. This contradicts with your view that logic is contingent upon grammar. If you need grammar for logic to exist, and humans for grammar to exist, how can logic exist if humans don't? (Now if you believe logic is subjective, there can be no logical contradictions. So then this isn't one either. If something contradicts or not would merely be an opinion.)
How can this be?
And yes, if logical principles aren't a property of this universe but merely a human conception based on either grammar or something else, then they are arbitrary and I can't see how logic has any value. And the perceived value and productive nature of logic must be an illusion.
Same with mathematics. There's axioms. But beyond that the principles exist. The concept of e and pi exist in some way or form. They are properties of this universe. They don't exist physical. There isn't a vault of universal truths somewhere in this universe were e and pi and logical principles and moral principles are written down. But neither are they merely conceptual. But still they exist in some sense. They seem to be transcendental in that they are properties of the universe itself and apply to the universe as a whole.
You do realize you've just said you agree morality is subjective but you just disagree that it should stay subjective. And that your opinion is that some ethics are better than others? But who decides which one is the better one? What are the rules? What if someone disagrees? What if the majority disagrees, what happens to that objectivity then? Do you still consider it objective? Seems more like big endian, little endian ... an opinion.
No. You don't know what morality means. Just because people have different views of what morality is doesn't mean it is subjective. Just because cultures have different ethical systems, systems that deal with issues of morality, doesn't mean it has to be subjective.
What you are saying is that something can only be objective if no other view but the objectively true view can be possible. If this is so, nothing is objective. This is a very strange notion.
I can say that Nada never won the golden mouse. Does that mean it isn't objectively true that Nada did win the golden mouse? People clearly have different opinions. So does that change a fact into an opinion.
Osama Bin Laden was assassinated according to the white house. Some people don't believe that. Does that mean the death or non-death of OBL can never be anything more than an opinion?
What if someone thinks the law of identify doesn't hold on Sundays? What if pi is not 3.14 but 14.3 if but only if you have eaten chocolate in the last 24 hours? What if a majority believes this? Do circles suddenly become squares and vice versa? Is it an opinion or an inherit objective property of the universe? Was e not 2.71 before it was discovered?
|
Suisen,
last post because this doesn't seem to be going anywhere. I do not agree with your statement that a logical principle is different from its application. There cannot be a law of logic or logical principle apart from its application. Its definition and its identity are literally applications. I have said it before and I will say it again: without human beings and language and thought logic would not exist because coherent descriptions of the universe would not exist.
Your idea that it doesn't make sense for something to be true, yet not exist is ridiculous. Here is an example in syllogism form and I think you will assent to the truth of it.
There are planets that have no been discovered.
There are possible accurate and coherent descriptions of the previously mentioned undiscovered planets that do not as of yet exist.
Therefore, there are things which are true despite not existing.
The laws of logic cannot be expressed without grammar or course grammar would make no sense without people obeying the laws of logic. They aren't arbitrary they make sense. So do the rules of grammar.
The funny thing is, is that I think morality is objective so we do agree on that. But my own version is a little unique/nuanced for the TL forums.
|
On May 13 2011 00:24 j2choe wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I know Christians who believe that God will judge all people in the afterlife, and so they should not be punished by other men for crimes.
There exist people who challenge non-consensual sex as being wrong. There are people who believe that women are bestowed upon this world to serve men, and their consent is irrelevant.
I personally don't believe there should be an age limit for voting.
And... humans are animals. To say that humans are somehow more unique than any other animal is... well... let's not get into that.
That the majority of humans have the same value systems does not demonstrate that morality is objective.
That said, I have not seen a single event raised that would be considered immoral universally.
|
On May 14 2011 02:33 Sava Fischer wrote:
Suisen,
last post because this doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
This is regrettable. These are all basic nuances in philosophy. I tried to explain them in the same way I was taught them. My line of arguing was very concise and I don't think it can be better explained.
When I think I know where your line or thought goes wrong and I after I explain it suddenly you go off track somewhere else.
I do not agree with your statement that a logical principle is different from its application.
This is a fundamental that needs to be accepted for there to be progress possible.
Separating a word and the meaning of the word is very important in philosophy. A tree is not a word. Nether is logic a word. Both exist regardless of if our words exist. You already said you agree the law of identify holds without humans and without words. Did you? You seem to be flip flopping and making contradictory statements each post. And my attempts to untangle them and to straighten out what you believe fail each time.
There cannot be a law of logic or logical principle apart from its application.
So unless we humans recognize it, a tree can in fact not be a tree? Law of identify depends on it's application by humans?
Its definition and its identity are literally applications. I have said it before and I will say it again: without human beings and language and thought logic would not exist because coherent descriptions of the universe would not exist.
Yet the universe exists.
Your idea that it doesn't make sense for something to be true, yet not exist is ridiculous.
I never said that. I said they don't exist physically. You are the one saying that if they can't exist physically, they can't exist. Obviously they exist, well not to you but to anyone else and to you too if you give it a bit more consideration, but it would be silly for them to exist physically.
Here is an example in syllogism form and I think you will assent to the truth of it.
There are planets that have no been discovered.
There are possible accurate and coherent descriptions of the previously mentioned undiscovered planets that do not as of yet exist.
Therefore, there are things which are true despite not existing.
This makes me even more puzzled about what you think and where you go off track.
The laws of logic cannot be expressed without grammar or course grammar would make no sense without people obeying the laws of logic. They aren't arbitrary they make sense. So do the rules of grammar.
They don't need to be expressed for them to exist.
The funny thing is, is that I think morality is objective so we do agree on that. But my own version is a little unique/nuanced for the TL forums.
Now you suddenly also believe morality is objective. How? You don't think something can exist unless it's expressed by humans or it exists physically.
I give up. I can't make sense of you. I know many scientists and philosophers share the line of thought I tried to explain. That's where I got it from.
I know the mistakes people make in trying to accept this line. But I can't straighten it out in your case. You make contradictory statements but believe I am the one making them. Can't figure it out. If you want to continue this, please be more clear and/or consistent.
|
I don't think I have said inconsistent things. I do not understand why or how something can exist in transcendence rationally. Logic exist as a description. It asserts identity and difference between different objects. It is itself not an object of material reality and I do not grant a robust sense of the word existence to concepts. I would say they exist independently in the same way my thought of a tree exists.
To clear with my own position you can feel free to check out the Nicean Creed, the thought of Jaroslav Pelikan, Pavel Florensky, Alexander Schmemman, John McGuckin, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, etc... alternatively, check out the Russian movie Ostrov.
|
"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?"
- C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
|
On May 14 2011 06:51 Euclid wrote:
"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?"
- C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
Evolution took care of it. We would never have gotten this far without our superior cooperation skills. God is not necessary for moral rules. Good thing too, without god allowing slavery eternally we can reevaluate and ponder matters of happiness and fairness without interruption or superstition.
|
On May 14 2011 06:51 Euclid wrote:
"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?"
- C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
Wait... something I don't understand.... it has to be GOD!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
|
On May 14 2011 07:17 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2011 06:51 Euclid wrote:
"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?"
- C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
Wait... something I don't understand.... it has to be GOD! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
...
A. C. S. Lewis' argument is not committing the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance (did you read the link you posted? It doesn't apply at all) because he doesn't say "well I can't disprove it so it must be so," he posits that God represents a normative concept of perfection because he observes his own normative judgments as a presupposition to his type of thinking (whether or not that specific line of thinking is valid can be questioned, but not by asserting that it is an argument from ignorance).
B. Also, the argument from ignorance isn't "I don't understand, therefore X" that's just a warrantless claim or a non sequitur. There's probably a more specific term for a logical fallacy that addresses this, but it isn't the one you mentinoed lol.
|
On May 14 2011 07:24 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2011 07:17 VIB wrote:On May 14 2011 06:51 Euclid wrote:
"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?"
- C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
Wait... something I don't understand.... it has to be GOD! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance ... A. C. S. Lewis' argument is not committing the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance (did you read the link you posted? It doesn't apply at all) because he doesn't say "well I can't disprove it so it must be so," he posits that God represents a normative concept of perfection because he observes his own normative judgments as a presupposition to his type of thinking (whether or not that specific line of thinking is valid can be questioned, but not by asserting that it is an argument from ignorance). B. Also, the argument from ignorance isn't "I don't understand, therefore X" that's just a warrantless claim or a non sequitur. There's probably a more specific term for a logical fallacy that addresses this, but it isn't the one you mentinoed lol. That's semantics.
"These arguments fail to appreciate that the limits of one's understanding or certainty do not change what is true. They do not inform upon reality."
It is argument from ignorance one way or another. It's accurately what Lewis is doing. He realized he didn't understand what is it that we compare what is right to (which is economics and politic needs btw). Then he concludes that it must be god. He only concludes it was god when he realized he didn't understand it. That's argument from ignorance.
|
Everything is objective, but human kind tends to not try to find what something really is and just make up their own definition of it.
|
The social structure that we have as humans, works on a certain code we call morality. For society to work, the code must work. A social situation where we, as humans, critically think about situations, causality, implications, etc.. and then make a decision based on how we believe the situation should be handled, is what morality implies for me. You can make a good decision, you can make a bad decision, but the decision only becomes good or bad when others are involved in the action (analysing, observing, etc). Maybe we are so focused on 'objectivism' because we are such narcistic animals; viewing life as something extra special (it is by the way, life so awesome), mostly because it's something we all share and can share, but also because we are scared to not experience life anymore through death and reflect that upon others. I feel like it's bullshit to say we have a moral duty towards us humans, but we can kill billions of other life forms just for ourselves. Life stays life; human, plant, unicellular, fish, ..
Morality is definitely subjective, you will never find another human being who has the same decision for every action, who has the same reasoning behind every choice, etc..
You may say, it's objective because 'we know killing isn't a good thing', that's just because for us to work as a species, we can't go around killing everyone left and right. This is more like a basic survival instinct than a moral code in my opinion, just like intercourse producing offspring.
|
On May 14 2011 07:17 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2011 06:51 Euclid wrote:
"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?"
- C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
Wait... something I don't understand.... it has to be GOD! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Lol sorry, I thought we were having a reasonable conversation.
Speaking of arguing semantics... everyone wants to simplify an argument down to how they think they can perceive it to be a logical fallacy. Anyone can appear to win an argument by abusing this method of trivializing an argument out of context and categorizing it into their library of fallacies. (maybe you should actually read the book)
".......What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: A fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist—in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of justice—was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: Just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning." - C.S. Lewis, continued from before.
This argument in isolation does not prove anything as any atheist can easily argue with assumptions or propositions made by Lewis. No argument made by anyone in this thread is going to change anyone's mind, but this should at least give you something to ponder. Have a good one.
|
Epic thread. I wish I had gotten in it at he beginning so I could debate with you guys but it seems like most points have been discussed :-( (super sad face).
For my part, I believe morals are subjective. I have discussed this topic many times with my friends, and it is difficult to discuss because if you adhere to a Subjective Existentialist (or Nihilistic) Universe then any concept you talk about is personal and not applicable to anyone else (and by the way, nihilistic and existentialist are not the same). You can approximate, which is the ultimate goal of language, but you will never be 100% certain that what you are describing is what the same as someone else.
It just feels at times like trying to describe a paradox. Saying all morals are subjective is almost like making an objective standpoint. Really, the better way to word it might be that there are a lack of objective morals, but this is just semantics.
I think what helped me is the concept that that moral relativism does not mean a lack of personal action. What I mean by this is that I want a banana and you want a banana, and a banana here is an opposing world view. If I adhere to moral relativism, then both of us have equal validity in our desire for the banana, but I can still kill you if you try to take the banana. Just because I acknowledge your valid world view, doesn't mean I won't do everything in my power to make sure my world view is dominant. Essentially, I subscribe a pragmatic moral relativism.
I can put this another way though. By viewing myself as living in a subjective universe, it could be argued that it is equivalent to saying that most people live in different universes. I live in a different universe than a fundamentalist of any religion, for example, because their universe is governed by absolute moral and physical laws that my universe is not governed by. Interacting with other people is like having universes collide, and even if I admit that whatever universe a person lives in is always legitimate, I will act on my biological and personal motivation to save my universe from attack by promoting my own to be the universe of choice.
|
As I've said in a previous post, morals are purely subjective. NONE of us have ANY right to judge other people's morals. According to an one person's morals, punishing a child by torture is the right thing to do, but according to mine, it would be horribly wrong. But noone can determine which of us are right or wrong.
So I always try to utilize morals as least as possible, and instead base all decisions on logic.
My basic belief is this: A decision can be determined to be "right" or "wrong" (as in, pointless, uselss) by analyzing if it is beneficial for the human race's prosperity and happiness as a whole.
But I'm not saying that morals have no place in our society, it's just that we should not trust it entirely because it is, as I've said, subjective.
Who are we then to complain about other societies torturing their children etc?
We CAN complain about it, even if morals are subjective, because it's making the children unhappy. Torture is simply beyond the threshold that any person's happiness should ever be lowered to... ah, shit. I guess that means I just used morals. Well, I also have another principle I like to follow. It's this; Nothing, not even principles, should ever be too RADICAL. It should be flexible, independent, in the middle.
So for things like torture which you cannot completely justify or debunk with logic (with the thinking capacity that we as humans currently have), morals would have to come into play. But logical thinking, not morals, should be applied wherever possible.
But then again, this system of principles I've developed is also subjective. I can't claim it's the only way to go.
I also have another idea: Maybe morals are both subjective AND objective. I mean, a person who believes the human race should not be happy obviously does not have very good morals, but then again, that's from my point of view, which may be subjective...
Which leads me to my conclusion: Noone can really label anything "right" or "wrong". However, they can label something "right from MY point of view" and "wrong from MY point of view". So instead of claiming something is right because it feels right, a compromise would be the way to go, so that one person's morals are not placed above another's. But then again, I can go on to think of tens of arguments against that, like how the human race could never advance morally, but then that would be claiming my morals are more right, but they're actually subjective, but that would just be my opinion, which means THAT's subjective too. I can go on and on with this.
This is the stuff makes me want to kill myself.
I guess we really can't think of a perfect system for society in which everything would be just right.
We're humans, after all.
Just live and let live, I guess. Philosophizing may be fun and it kills time, but man, is it difficult, especially when you're trying to consider every single possibility and overthink every single friggin thing.
Just saw this:
It just feels at times like trying to describe a paradox. Saying all morals are subjective is almost like making an objective standpoint. Really, the better way to word it might be that there are a lack of objective morals, but this is just semantics.
I couldn't have worded it better myself! This is what kept me extremely confused this entire time... I can't even say that I'm RIGHT when I say morals are subjective. Now I'm really not sure.
A thought: People who are regarded as "evil"... do they realize that what they are doing is indeed wrong? Do humans actually have a common, built in moral system in them that's just CLOUDED by greed or plain insanity? Deep down, do they actually know that what they're doing is wrong?
I think the answer to that could determine if morals are actually subjective or objective.
|
Morality is objective, as we look throughout history we see commonalities for laws and codes of ethics in the centuries past right up through the present. Murder, adultery, and stealing are the prime examples of this. There are laws against such things dating back to Hammurabi's code, and perhaps even earlier. Society still has laws against these and similar things today. Also, honoring one's parents is seen as a moral tradition throughout all history (though as of late this long held moral is coming at odds with other messages in society).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20110513.gif)
