EPTIs Morality Subjective or Objective? - Page 5
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
darkscream
Canada2310 Posts
| ||
|
Yotta
United States270 Posts
On May 11 2011 17:44 FireSA wrote: I assumed that the person to whom i was replying thought his opinion was truth, so i included "correct" in the list of things which i sarcastically attributed to it. Yeah i should have followed up on the correctness argument.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. naggerNZ: i do not thing that someone who thinks eating babies is good has an objectively "worse" set of morals than someone who thinks it is bad, therefore your assumption that "we" (assumed to mean all humans) can agree on this is incorrect. Also, while I never implied a link between truth and objectivity in that post, the two are linked. *ninja disappearance* | ||
|
VforValdes
Canada96 Posts
Morality is deeply tied to emotion. I feel we can all agree on that. To exemplify this point I will ask you why you choose an immoral act over a moral act. Will this immoral act cause you physical pain, grief, or emotional stress? Perhaps a combination of all three. Now, will choosing the moral action bring about joy, pleasure or relief? Personally I feel morality is inherently a hedonistic practice. As long as I feel I chose the action that would beget me the most pleasure, relative to the other choices, I have made a moral decision. As you can see, I believe in subjective morality. I would like to clear up a few things about this pleasure. This pleasure, and its counter feeling pain, can come from a variety of sources and can be felt in different ways. As long as the feeling is a positive (be it emotional, physical, or intellectual or a net of sum of all three) is pleasure. Vice versa for pain. As well, I would like to touch on the objective aspect of morality. This is also deeply tied to emotion. When one first learns these objective morals, it is under the influence of a another. People have an emotional need to feel accepted and praised by others. At an early age, when most moralities are developed, this need is at an all time high. I feel we are most susceptible to learning moralities when under these conditions. But where do these societal moralities originate from? They were clearly here before I arrived into this world. In the way that I received them, so did my forefathers. And again, how did they, but from their forefathers. Now we know this cycle cannot go on forever. I would like to propose that it is only the group of people who hold the power to manipulate societal moralities who may change these moralities. Yes, this may seem redundant but I would like to point out that not all groups of people have had this influence throughout history. For example, the outcasts of society have historically never had the power to influence morality. This power to shape our societal moralities have usually been held in the hands of those who control the economical-political means, as VIB said. He has given good examples of this. But I would like to elaborate and make these examples into a general argument. Whomever has the power of dictating an individuals feelings of pleasure towards their moral choices will obtain the power of dictating that group's societal moralities. As well, the group who holds the economical-political power will have the ability to enforce their morals upon any group within their sphere of influence who is without an economical-political power of similar magnitude. In layman's terms, if you can convince me something is moral you can go on to convince others it is moral thus becoming a societal norm. In addition, the group who can enforce their societal moralities upon other groups without major repercussions will attempt to do so and be successful. So if you believe as I do moralities are subjective, but the general trend of where moralities shift are controlled by those in power and adopted by the rest who do not have this power. p.s As an after note I will compare my generalization of where moralities come from to where I feel some may originate their objective moralities from. Many objective moralities originate from religious teachings. Those who were thought most knowledgeable, revered, trusted and convincing in historical times have often been those that preach the religious teachings of their group. This may range from a small tribe to an expansive empire. These individuals, which in time grew into the larger cases of institutions, were able to convince their respective groups of their moralities. In the cases of the largest groups, they had the ability to influence the groups around them, spreading their moralities. Therefor I feel the relation between the societal and objective view of morality is dynamic and most similar when two people of similar backgrounds discuss morality. edit: excuse the "to the few" part of my opening sentence, i had started this post early in the thread life and then left my computer for awhile. | ||
|
Poffel
471 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" 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. 1.) Bolded the important part. Yes, I'm only talking about reality as far as it can be experienced by humans, so while you may want to distinguish "the real" morality from moral decisions, I simply wouldn't do so, because as far as I'm concerned "the real" morality is beyond my area of expertise, since I have no means to experience and thus gain knowledge of it. 2.) Well, my point still stands, even if you twist it around: According to the categorical imperative, one would pay taxes for a completely different reason than "I'd like to". Also, I would be careful not to overinterpret such rules, or else I might say that I wanted that woman to have sex with me, so the golden rule indicated that I was morally obliged to rape her... | ||
|
Flatha
Canada45 Posts
| ||
|
ZessiM
United Kingdom232 Posts
On May 11 2011 17:17 Severedevil wrote: 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. But there is no objective answer to your question. We cannot compare one person's happiness to another person's happiness objectively because we'd be talking about two different mental phenomena. We do not know if the happiness described by two different people are the same thing, let alone compare them and evaluate which is more important or greater in quantity, because they are subjective ideas. No amount of scientific progress will tell you how much happiness I get from being wealthy, or even what my "happiness" is like, and whether it is worth the same as your "happiness" derived from the same thing. They are unique phenomena, and so they cannot be compared objectively. You say it is difficult to determine. It isn't, it's impossible. | ||
|
Umpteen
United Kingdom1570 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. Morality can be thought of as objective and goal dependent provided the goal in question could not be other than it is. That might sound a bit odd, but it does add up. As others have pointed out, from an evolutionary perspective there's a definite arrow of 'successful behaviour', in the same way as there's a definite arrow of 'successful genes'. The direction of both arrows is context-dependent and difficult to appreciate in the moment, but in the same way as one can isolate successful gene combinations by waiting for a while and seeing what's still kicking, one can isolate successful morality by letting societies compete over a long period and seeing which standards prevail. The point is, we don't get to decide what works and what doesn't, and, more importantly, nor do we get to decide whether finding 'morals that work' should be our goal. If we pick anything else as the goal for our moral standards, we'll get steamrolled by societies who make the 'right' choice. | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
On May 11 2011 15:35 Pleiades wrote: I have a moral nihilistic view of the world, so subjective for me. That does not mean I don't value anything at all. I just have my own set of values, and I try not to value it above others' values. By electing your set of values as the ones you will live by, you are automatically valuing them above others. | ||
|
RoseTempest
Canada196 Posts
Both subjective and objective, there's no definite answer to the question. | ||
|
Kickboxer
Slovenia1308 Posts
Those who believe in science will drone about relativity and argue against anything that can't be measured or proven as if science offered definitive answers to anything. To them morals are subjective and if you don't agree you are a deluded zombie and an ignorant midget. Those who believe in an organized religion will repeat whatever their respective god purportedly claims. To them morals are objective because Jamofaba said so and if you disagree you are taking the infidel shuttle straight to hell where the errors of your condescending attitude will be made clear in rather unpleasant ways. Members of both groups will state their views as "facts" and bombard one another with condescending remarks and snide comments. | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
On May 11 2011 18:15 Kickboxer wrote: These topics are pointless to discuss in a large group environment because everyone's view invariably depends on their religion. Atheism is just another religion where god is replaced by science. Given that very few people develop an authentic system of beliefs you can mostly guess what someone will say in advance. Those who believe in science will drone about relativity and argue against anything that can't be measured or proven as if science offered definitive answers to anything. To them morals are subjective and if you don't agree you are a deluded zombie and an ignorant midget. Those who believe in an organized religion will repeat whatever their respective god purportedly claims. To them morals are objective because Jamofaba said so and if you disagree you are taking the infidel shuttle straight to hell where the errors of your condescending attitude will be made clear in rather unpleasant ways. Members of both groups will state their views as "facts" and bombard one another with condescending remarks and snide comments. Could pretty much have put this on the first page and called it a day xD | ||
|
Pleiades
United States472 Posts
On May 11 2011 18:03 Kimaker wrote: By electing your set of values as the ones you will live by, you are automatically valuing them above others. Please explain so. Are you refering that I put my own morals above others', because you assume I act upon them? There are a lot of things I don't agree that is right or wrong in the world, but I don't force people to agree with me. Just because I don't act upon my morals doesn't invalidate them. If people ask my opinion, I'll answer my view on it, unless I consider it a personal thing. | ||
|
LuCiD37
United States150 Posts
The generalized Objective vs Subjective argument encompasses too much, potentially putting an atheist who believes in objective morality in the same boat as the Christian who believes in objective morality, and assuming each one's philosophy is made of the same stuff. At the same time, it puts someone who believes that there is such thing as right and wrong, with some aspects of morality being absolute truths, and other aspects being subjective; with someone who believes that there is no right and wrong whatsoever. Most people fall in the middle ground, and do not say that morality is always black and white, while at the same time they also do not say that there is no such thing as morality. It is true that there is no system of morality set in stone- that has been passed down from the heavens to guide us in life (unless you actually believe in God)- but this does not mean that because we have no external source to go to for our morality, that we should abandon the concept that it exists altogether. I think that not only should we recognize the existence of an inherent sense of morality, but we should also accept the notion that everyone has the ability to construct an objective and rational basis of morality that promotes life (especially human life) as the highest value: and that our sense of reason is the means through which we may aspire to promote the prosperity of that life. Within this construct, there is vast room for disagreement as to the specifics on each moral issue, but it is at least a place to start- and to recognize that there are some systems of morality that are simply better than others, based on the fact that they elevate the value of human life and the human experience above other systems. | ||
|
Yotta
United States270 Posts
On May 11 2011 18:15 Kickboxer wrote: Atheism is just another religion where god is replaced by science. Atheism does not imply scientific reasoning, only the lack of belief in a deity. Atheism does not imply a religious belief, only a lack of belief in a deity. Science is not to Atheism as deities are to religions. | ||
|
Hidden_MotiveS
Canada2562 Posts
edit: Oh, I also wanted to add. To the nihilist, perhaps you should look into existentialism if you haven't already. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On May 11 2011 18:15 Kickboxer wrote: These topics are pointless to discuss in a large group environment because everyone's view invariably depends on their religion. Atheism is just another religion where god is replaced by science. Given that very few people develop an authentic system of beliefs you can mostly guess what someone will say in advance. Those who believe in science will drone about relativity and argue against anything that can't be measured or proven as if science offered definitive answers to anything. To them morals are subjective and if you don't agree you are a deluded zombie and an ignorant midget. Those who believe in an organized religion will repeat whatever their respective god purportedly claims. To them morals are objective because Jamofaba said so and if you disagree you are taking the infidel shuttle straight to hell where the errors of your condescending attitude will be made clear in rather unpleasant ways. Members of both groups will state their views as "facts" and bombard one another with condescending remarks and snide comments. And yet a lot of atheist would tell you that morality is objective. I definitely would. And no atheism is not a religion, unless your definition of religion is so broad that it loses all meaning. Science has no direct link with atheism as there are atheists that decry science useless. As for OP, core of our morality is objective as it is rooted in our biology. Some people asked what is it that different societies have in common. Basically all societies consider stealing, murder, rape, ... wrong. Objection that it is for survival is true, but that just says why it evolved. They are still moral rules common to all humans, as they in our minds take the form of right/wrong decisions therefore moral decisions. Note that our biological moral rules are confined to our own small group and most of moral/ethical development of human civilization was about extending those rules to bigger and bigger groups of people. | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
On May 11 2011 18:26 Pleiades wrote: Please explain so. Are you refering that I put my own morals above others', because you assume I act upon them? There are a lot of things I don't agree that is right or wrong in the world, but I don't force people to agree with me. Just because I don't act upon my morals doesn't invalidate them. If people ask my opinion, I'll answer my view on it, unless I consider it a personal thing. The very fact that you choose or elect to act upon certain values means that, unless you have not considered the alternatives (I'm going to assume you have) that you clearly value those morals you have decided to follow above others for some reason. It's implicit. Honestly, I'm just insanely tired and the wording frustrated me. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 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. Fact is: laws are just a representation for the morals of a society and selfish nihilistic people are protected by them as well. So go on and explain why you wouldnt die the instant there wasnt a law against killing people and someone else didnt like your face. Thus morals are NECESSARY and nihilists are just selfish idiots who dont care to be part of a community. | ||
|
MindRush
Romania916 Posts
ex: 200 years ago it was BOTH moral and legal to own slaves go back a cpl hundred years, and then it was accepted for nobles to do whatever to common folks. this included killing at their will, raping, abusing, etc. and this can go on and on ...... | ||
|
Pleiades
United States472 Posts
On May 11 2011 18:39 Kimaker wrote: The very fact that you choose or elect to act upon certain values means that, unless you have not considered the alternatives (I'm going to assume you have) that you clearly value those morals you have decided to follow above others for some reason. It's implicit. Honestly, I'm just insanely tired and the wording frustrated me. I do think about some of the alternatives, but I can't say all of them since it's quite impossible. If something changes/convinces me the way I see currently that is right or wrong, I'll change my values accordingly. It still does not mean I'm closed-minded that there may be other potential values that I have might of overlooked. My current moral values are the ones that currently make logical sense to me, and the ones that don't, I don't devalue or ignore them. If I don't understand their reasoning for them, I ask, and if I still don't understand, I'll apologise for any misunderstood reasoning. My view of moral nihilism is that although I have my own set of moral values, I know that there is no definite/objective set of values that is considered right or wrong, and that another person has his/her own set of moral values to rival mines. | ||
| ||
