EPTIs Morality Subjective or Objective? - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
pedduck
Thailand468 Posts
| ||
|
OopsOopsBaby
Singapore3425 Posts
| ||
|
FranzP
France270 Posts
On May 11 2011 16:48 Deadlyfish wrote: Objective imo. But it depends on how you define "moral". If you define it as "what is good" then there is definitely an answer. It may be that some people have different morals or different interpretation of "what is good", but there is always an answer. 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. 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  Man it is so easy to turn your argument into something silly :p (I'm not saying that in a negative way it's just that whan you try to explain something complex that you don't completely understand yourself people usually have awful logic) How can you say moral is objective and after say it depends on a goal. Imagine my goal is to make someone as happy as possible, but to do that I have to kill someone. So saying it depends on something as tangible as a goal is saying that moral is subjective. To say that moral is objective, you'll have to prove that there is some kind of universal super ego, that regulate behavior without distinction with culture. I mean some kind of primal call that tells people what is moral and what is not. If it's not rooted in the human mind as deep as survival instinct it can't be universal because then it will be twisted by culture and if culture is in the mix then it's subjective. I think it's much more easy to find a logic path to prove it's subjective, I'm not saying it's the right one, but moral can be seen as a survival mechanism to justify your action with respect to yourself, to not feel guilty for what you did, as an individual or as a country or as a nation or as a culture. This set of principle change with time (slavery was totally ok for people living in the europe and america of the 15th century) and space. | ||
|
Yotta
United States270 Posts
On May 11 2011 16:45 mufin wrote: For example, 99.9% of people will agree that murder is wrong. This would make murder an objective morality (everyone agrees). Since we're proving our points with made up statistics: only 50% of people would agree that murder is objectively immoral. The other 49.9% believe that it is bad, but not that human thought gives things absolute meaning. The other 0.1% believe that murder is purple. Also, 17% of people are so proud of their nihilistic/existential/atheist beliefs that they make/post in forums on the internet to show off how modern and intellectual they are. On May 11 2011 17:04 OopsOopsBaby wrote: hmm i highly suspect the op is in a psychology class cos the same question is brought up in every class at some point. i agree | ||
|
Rucky
United States717 Posts
On May 11 2011 17:04 FranzP wrote: Man it is so easy to turn your argument into something silly :p (I'm not saying that in a negative way it's just that whan you try to explain something complex that you don't completely understand yourself people usually have awful logic) How can you say moral is objective and after say it depends on a goal. Imagine my goal is to make someone as happy as possible, but to do that I have to kill someone. So saying it depends on something as tangible as a goal is saying that moral is subjective. To say that moral is objective, you'll have to prove that there is some kind of universal super ego, that regulate behavior without distinction with culture. I mean some kind of primal call that tells people what is moral and what is not. If it's not rooted in the human mind as deep as survival instinct it can't be universal because then it will be twisted by culture and if culture is in the mix then it's subjective. I think it's much more easy to find a logic path to prove it's subjective, I'm not saying it's the right one, but moral can be seen as a survival mechanism to justify your action with respect to yourself, to not feel guilty for what you did, as an individual or as a country or as a nation or as a culture. This set of principle change with time (slavery was totally ok for people living in the europe and america of the 15th century) and space. I find it interesting how you think of objectivity. You define it as something deep rooted in the human mind so deep as survival instincts and that it must be universal. I don't want to go on a tangent but it seems like the answer lies with another controversial topic, which is the nature vs nurture debate. If everything is nurture dependent then I agree everything will be shaped by your environment and culture including your morals. But that debate is also unconclusive, so there is room for objectivity that is rooted in ourselves as human beings of the natural world. | ||
|
Poffel
471 Posts
If I want to talk about ethics, I must be able to pose the question "What should I do?" This implies the presumption of being able to chose what I can do. Hence, ethics do not make sense without the assumption of a - however limited - freedom. Freedom makes only sense if there is a causal relation between my choice and my actions, because else my decisions would have no importance at all, and ethics would once again be a moot point. Causality is lawful. Hence, moral choice and action is lawful, or in other words: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction." My own take at 3 minutes of Kantian philosophy... ;-) | ||
|
Severedevil
United States4830 Posts
On May 11 2011 17:01 ZessiM wrote: 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. No, because the effect can be one that you don't want, and the question will still have an objective answer. Just as you can calculate how much orange juice is required to fill your glass, even if you wanted tea. Obviously it is frequently difficult to determine the answer, and you may need to approximate. 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'  Yes, if you subjectively decide that one particular being gets to choose the meaning of "right" and "wrong", then that being's decrees will be the objective definition of "right and wrong". Under your subjective perspective. The same would be true if you gave The Oxford English Dictionary authority over the meaning of "right" and "wrong". | ||
|
Iplaythings
Denmark9110 Posts
On May 11 2011 15:45 VIB wrote: 100% agree. Morals are an illusion created by people to feel better to themselves. Same as god. People are just afraid that without these pre-set unquestionable rules. The world would collapse. So they make stuff up. So you consider morals rules and illusions? They're very damn real and you cant denie it because unlike god they're not a thing, just your ethical impression of the world. Nihilism is a term that you find the life to have no deeper meaning. Unless I am an idiot On another point; they're subjective. You might have other morals than another guy who will shun at your morals as you shun at his morals Saying that theyre not is like saying noone is allowed to challenge your view of the world. While some morals like racism etc shouldnt be toleratedl. | ||
|
FireSA
Australia555 Posts
 Values, morals, behaviours, and various perceptions of such values, morals, behaviours are socially constructed. There is no argument for objectivity in this thread so far that is not easily unraveled. And then the arguments with made up statistics or open ended questions that attempt to shift the burden of proof (its objective, you cant prove otherwise so I am right [lol]) are not exactly arguments for that need any consideration. | ||
|
Yotta
United States270 Posts
On May 11 2011 17:14 Poffel wrote: Ethics are intersubjectively universal. Customs are something completely different than ethics, and intersubjectively particular. If I want to talk about ethics, I must be able to pose the question "What should I do?" This implies the presumption of being able to chose what I can do. Hence, ethics do not make sense without the assumption of a - however limited - freedom. Freedom makes only sense if there is a causal relation between my choice and my actions, because else my decisions would have no importance at all, and ethics would once again be a moot point. Causality is lawful. Hence, moral choice and action is lawful, or in other words: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction." My own take at 3 minutes of Kantian philosophy... ;-) There's no logic connecting the two bolded statements. You could conclude that the mechanisms by which your decisions are converted into actions are lawful because your actions are caused by your decisions. Nothing about your argument says anything about the lawfulness of the morality of the decisions; you state that you believe people should follow the golden rule, which is subjective. | ||
|
naggerNZ
New Zealand708 Posts
For example, we can objectively say that a person with a moral view that eating babies alive is good, and should be promoted, has a worse set of moral values than someone who believes that infants should be loved and protected at all costs. Anyone who says that all morals are subjective and a lie clearly don't understand anything about Moral Philosophy and are just angry teenagers out to get revenge on the "man". | ||
|
Iplaythings
Denmark9110 Posts
On May 11 2011 17:25 naggerNZ wrote: Morality is subjective, however that is not to say that we can't objectively identify which morals are better than others. For example, we can objectively say that a person with a moral view that eating babies alive is good, and should be promoted, has a worse set of moral values than someone who believes that infants should be loved and protected at all costs. Anyone who says that all morals are subjective and a lie clearly don't understand anything about Moral Philosophy and are just angry teenagers out to get revenge on the "man". You can objectively define which morals you think are better than the others, you cant objectively change what other people think about the world even if your point of view is "better". | ||
|
Yotta
United States270 Posts
On May 11 2011 17:25 naggerNZ wrote: Because your interpretation of moral philosophy is the only correct and objective one, right?Morality is subjective, however that is not to say that we can't objectively identify which morals are better than others. For example, we can objectively say that a person with a moral view that eating babies alive is good, and should be promoted, has a worse set of moral values than someone who believes that infants should be loved and protected at all costs. Anyone who says that all morals are subjective and a lie clearly don't understand anything about Moral Philosophy and are just angry teenagers out to get revenge on the "man". That eating babies alive is bad is only objective if the value of human life is objective; it is not. | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On May 11 2011 17:22 Iplaythings wrote: Then again I can argue that what's real is subjective So you consider morals rules and illusions? They're very damn real and you cant denie it because unlike god they're not a thing, just your ethical impression of the world. Your definition of the word 'real' is clearly different from mine ^^ | ||
|
wwer
United States53 Posts
| ||
|
Deadlyfish
Denmark1980 Posts
On May 11 2011 17:04 FranzP wrote: Man it is so easy to turn your argument into something silly :p (I'm not saying that in a negative way it's just that whan you try to explain something complex that you don't completely understand yourself people usually have awful logic) How can you say moral is objective and after say it depends on a goal. Imagine my goal is to make someone as happy as possible, but to do that I have to kill someone. So saying it depends on something as tangible as a goal is saying that moral is subjective. To say that moral is objective, you'll have to prove that there is some kind of universal super ego, that regulate behavior without distinction with culture. I mean some kind of primal call that tells people what is moral and what is not. If it's not rooted in the human mind as deep as survival instinct it can't be universal because then it will be twisted by culture and if culture is in the mix then it's subjective. I think it's much more easy to find a logic path to prove it's subjective, I'm not saying it's the right one, but moral can be seen as a survival mechanism to justify your action with respect to yourself, to not feel guilty for what you did, as an individual or as a country or as a nation or as a culture. This set of principle change with time (slavery was totally ok for people living in the europe and america of the 15th century) and space. My argument is that all humans have the same goal. We're all just made up of atoms and whatever, so in theory everything is determined by logic. It's not like we choose what we want to do. The problem is that we dont know what our purpose is, if there is one. I feel like the question will never be answered because life is too complicated. If someone defines moral differently than me then the question is irrelevant because we arent talking about the same thing. Most people define moral pretty similar though. Also, i dont believe there will be some universal answer that will always be the right one. Like if you ask "should i kill someone?" then there may be some cases where you should, and some where you shouldnt. It's so hard to explain though, and English isnt my first language either, so that doesnt help  | ||
|
FireSA
Australia555 Posts
On May 11 2011 17:29 Yotta wrote: Because your interpretation of moral philosophy is the only correct and objective one, right? That eating babies alive is bad is only objective if the value of human life is objective; it is not. Lol to make a judgement call on what morals are better than others is subjective. ALTHOUGH one major flaw (imo) with the second person, objectivity is not synonymous with correctness/truth/fact. Accepted truth, knowledge, fact claims are also subjective. | ||
|
Poffel
471 Posts
On May 11 2011 17:25 Yotta wrote: There's no logic connecting the two bolded statements. You could conclude that the mechanisms by which your decisions are converted into actions are lawful because your actions are caused by your decisions. Nothing about your argument says anything about the lawfulness of the morality of the decisions; you state that you believe people should follow the golden rule, which is subjective. Well, if A causes B sometimes, I wouldn't call it lawful at all. So unless A and B are abiding to universal laws themselves, we wouldn't be perceiving causality, because A and B would behave arbitrarily. Secondly, the categorical imperative is not the golden rule. The golden rule is based on the assumption of the reciprocity of sins, while the categorical imperative is based on the assumption of the inherent lawfulness of practical reasoning. To illustrate, the golden rule would indicate that nobody should pay taxes, while the categorical imperative implies that everybody should do so. | ||
|
Yotta
United States270 Posts
On May 11 2011 17:34 FireSA wrote: Lol to make a judgement call on what morals are better than others is subjective. ALTHOUGH one major flaw (imo) with the second person, objectivity is not synonymous with correctness/truth/fact. Accepted truth, knowledge, fact claims are also subjective. where/how did i link objectivity with truth? I said "correct and objective", not "correct and therefore objective" On May 11 2011 17:35 Poffel wrote: Well, if A causes B sometimes, I wouldn't call it lawful at all. So unless A and B are abiding to universal laws themselves, we wouldn't be perceiving causality, because A and B would behave arbitrarily. Secondly, the categorical imperative is not the golden rule. The golden rule is based on the assumption of the reciprocity of sins, while the categorical imperative is based on the assumption of the inherent lawfulness of practical reasoning. To illustrate, the golden rule would indicate that nobody should pay taxes, while the categorical imperative implies that everybody should do so. 1) Your decisions can abide to universal laws, but that doesn't mean the morality of those decisions abide to universal laws. Whether you think something is moral or immoral may abide by universal laws, but whether you think something is moral has nothing to do with whether it is "really" moral, unless you consider reality to be the human experience. 2) the golden rule is do to others as you'd have them do to you right? I'd very much like to have others pay for things that benefit me, therefore i should pay for things that benefit others; everybody should pay taxes. This is open to multiple interpretations. | ||
|
FireSA
Australia555 Posts
On May 11 2011 17:37 Yotta wrote: where/how did i link objectivity with truth? I said "correct and objective", not "correct and therefore objective" Hmm fair enough. However in my defense, you certainly did not clarify that you did not imply some relationship between correct and objective, and I believe most would be tempted into associating the two given the way you presented it. I mean what you are effectively saying is that you were making two points right there, one about objectivity and one about correctness, however correctness was not really the topic of discussion, so assuming you made two individual points you could have done with following up both of them, rather than just the point of objectivity. My opinion of course. | ||
| ||
