Like the title asks, "Is morality subjective or objective?"
A couple definition for the nubs
Subjective morals: Each person determines his/her own morals based on their experiences. For example, a priest would believe it is moral to help others, a murder would think it is moral to end another's life. There is no set moral code which we all live by. We make this moral code through our experiences.
Objective morals: What is considered "right" and "wrong" are universal and will always be such. For example, it is moral for a priest to help others, it is immoral for a murder to end another's life.
Personally, I believe in subjective morals, based on my existential worldview. I believe that there is not inherent meaning to life, in that we go through our life and create our own meaning. This world view would be consistant with subjective morals.
I 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.
I think that gacey had awful morals and frankly wrong ones. I don't really care if his childhood was awful and "caused" his insanity. His morals were plain wrong.
Going with objective. Some people just have bad morals
On May 11 2011 15:35 Jayme wrote: I think that gacey had awful morals and frankly wrong ones. I don't really care if his childhood was awful and "caused" his insanity. His morals were plain wrong.
Going with objective. Some people just have bad morals
That is a good point. If you were in his position though, would you consider your actions to be immoral? Just want to make sure, because that is what the moral objectivist position commits one to.
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.
Nihilism huh? I'm sorry to hear that...or wait...am I happy to hear that? Nihilism always confuses me
Morality has to be clearly defined before it can be categorized as objective or subjective. For example, codes of behavior that promote a successful society (one that survives and grows) can be objectively determined... are they 'morality'?
Unless we plan to say that 'morality' is subjective because we don't agree on a definition of 'morality'... but that would be, like, vacuously subjective.
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.
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.
On May 11 2011 15:35 Jayme wrote: I think that gacey had awful morals and frankly wrong ones. I don't really care if his childhood was awful and "caused" his insanity. His morals were plain wrong.
Going with objective. Some people just have bad morals
That is a good point. If you were in his position though, would you consider your actions to be immoral? Just want to make sure, because that is what the moral objectivist position commits one to.
I always viewed it in such a way that he acted that way through a "lack of knowledge" In the same way I don't ask my English teacher for lessons on Global climate change I wouldn't look at Gacey to be the model for human morals because he didn't know a damn thing about it.
So knowing what I know yes I would consider them immoral. In his position? I dont think anyone could figure that guy out.
On May 11 2011 15:35 Jayme wrote: I think that gacey had awful morals and frankly wrong ones. I don't really care if his childhood was awful and "caused" his insanity. His morals were plain wrong.
Going with objective. Some people just have bad morals
That is a good point. If you were in his position though, would you consider your actions to be immoral? Just want to make sure, because that is what the moral objectivist position commits one to.
not true
just because someone doesn't consider their actions to be immoral doesn't mean they aren't immoral
that's what the moral objectivist position is
as for what I personally believe, who knows which is right. it's not really a question that can be answered with certainty, we can only speculate guess and argue
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.
Objective truths are alluring, but I'm not certain if it is even possible to prove the existence of any non-tautological objective truth much less enough to constitute a moral code. Perhaps there are some guiding principals that could be argued to be universal, but for the most part everything is subjective.
edit: Actually, I have thought about this a lot and feel that the real question becomes: if we accept that things are subjective, than it makes it seem as though we should have no morals or change our morals constantly to fit what is convenient at the moment. However, most any viable set of morals will have within it the principal that it is immoral to change your moral system (at least too often or too lightly). With this is mind, does the issue of subject vs object morals become moot, or perhaps does this mean we should be actively working to rid ourselves of that disinclination to change our morals?
Here's an interesting thing to think about. If morals are subjective, how is it that certain things that are considered moral or immoral have been universally reached by different groups of people who have never been in contact with each other? At the same time, if morals are objective, what is it that made some things wrong and some things right? Why did the universe decide that something is more moral than another thing? Some people say God decides it so, but there are reasons why that probably isn't true. I won't go into that though, unless someone actually wants to know.
On May 11 2011 15:35 Jayme wrote: I think that gacey had awful morals and frankly wrong ones. I don't really care if his childhood was awful and "caused" his insanity. His morals were plain wrong.
Going with objective. Some people just have bad morals
That is a good point. If you were in his position though, would you consider your actions to be immoral? Just want to make sure, because that is what the moral objectivist position commits one to.
Unless you believe in a God who handed these rules, it's surely impossible to believe in an objective morality? Morality is a product of your upbringing, life experiences, and social norms. Subjective.
Similar moralities crop up in completely different societies because those societies have the same basic aims i.e survival, prosperity, justice etc
On May 11 2011 15:55 jeeneeus wrote: If morals are subjective, how is it that certain things that are considered moral or immoral have been universally reached by different groups of people who have never been in contact with each other?
You really cannot think of one single hypothesis for that? You need to work on your creativity
Different groups come to similar problems and finds similar solutions.... that's all.
An interesting somewhat related talk I saw a couple of days ago:
If you choose to link morality to suffering and well being then I think you can say that some societies are "better" than others. If we define Evil as a society that maximizes suffering and Good as a society on the other side of the spectrum then I would say that that is an objective way of viewing morality.
My largest complaint with saying that morality is completely subjective is that we then fall into the trap of Moral relativism where we would have to agree that any set of moral codes is no worse or better than any other. Who are we then to complain about other societies torturing their children etc?
On May 11 2011 15:55 jeeneeus wrote: Here's an interesting thing to think about. If morals are subjective, how is it that certain things that are considered moral or immoral have been universally reached by different groups of people who have never been in contact with each other? At the same time, if morals are objective, what is it that made some things wrong and some things right? Why did the universe decide that something is more moral than another thing? Some people say God decides it so, but there are reasons why that probably isn't true. I won't go into that though, unless someone actually wants to know.
You have piqued my interest my friend!
I would say that, because we are all humans, we have construed societies similarly. By constructing societies similarly, the humans in those societies figured out what was the best way to survive (working together, not harming one another etc.).
I posit that it is not an eternal being which made "some things wrong and some things right". We have determined the morality of actions.
So, in theory, if the best course of action for a particular society was to eat it's young, and mate with trees, then in that society, those actions would be considered moral. It is absurd to think that a human society could survive by taking part in those practices, in fact, all human societies would consider those practices immoral. Not because of God, but because they are extremely counter productive to the survival and life-bettering of the humans race.
Does everything need to be black and white? In general I believe the growing sentiment of today of moral relativism can be dangerous. But really ... most things in life are not black and white, but gray.
If the world was ran on pure subjective morals, nothing would really get done or it would be like total anarchy. People / society decide to compromise on differences and similarities to progress through life. Everyone has different set of morals and this will always create conflicts.
Kant had the best idea when it comes to rational morality.
I think morality is subjective but there are better ways for people to deal with their dilemmas, subjective morality is a very improvised and imperfect system but it's the easiest.
Also this guy has alot of good videos, too bad he has a speech impetiment and awful MS paint skillz
On May 11 2011 15:55 jeeneeus wrote: Here's an interesting thing to think about. If morals are subjective, how is it that certain things that are considered moral or immoral have been universally reached by different groups of people who have never been in contact with each other? At the same time, if morals are objective, what is it that made some things wrong and some things right? Why did the universe decide that something is more moral than another thing? Some people say God decides it so, but there are reasons why that probably isn't true. I won't go into that though, unless someone actually wants to know.
I believe in doing whatever is required for the betterment of the universe as a whole. I don't really believe in right and wrong. I just believe in a correct and incorrect action. However, society isn't the most logical of things so I think setting morals isn't necessarily a bad thing.
On May 11 2011 16:01 DrainX wrote: If you choose to link morality to suffering and well being then I think you can say that some societies are "better" than others. If we define Evil as a society that maximizes suffering and Good as a society on the other side of the spectrum then I would say that that is an objective way of viewing morality.
Suffering is still very subjective. If I'm suffering of poverty, is it moral to murder in a nice clean insufferable death to someone just to relieve my suffering?
You can argue that everyone is suffering to some degree. Wealthy people with easy lives often suicide. What is "suffering"? That's just as subjective.
Morals can still be subjective while acting "objectively". Morals would not exist without sentient beings, and it is inherently a property of groups of sentient beings. Flies, fish, etc can't practice morality because, to the best of our knowledge, they lack consciousness.
However, once we have sentient beings, they (as a species) can create a set of objective moral laws for their society. It is subjective in that it is societally determined (ie morality might be made with the goal of maximally reducing suffering of sentient beings) and it doesn't exist outside of that society, but it is still a greater mandate than the individual moralities of the members of the society. Naturally, this starts out at the group/tribe level, then city, then nation, then species. Perhaps even a best set of morals exists for an alliance (or even all of) sentient beings. And it is objective from our perspective as conscious beings, but subjective otherwise (ie subjective to the universe, to rocks, to plants, etc).
3 minute philosophy is beast, crappy MS paint and all. An objective moral reality is definitely the most defensible position that I have seen. Figuring out what it is/how it works is a whole different problem though.
On May 11 2011 15:55 jeeneeus wrote: Here's an interesting thing to think about. If morals are subjective, how is it that certain things that are considered moral or immoral have been universally reached by different groups of people who have never been in contact with each other?
Like what? I mean that a little village isn't going to just kill each other is more like a survival thing for example.
But no, morals are absolutely subjective. The fact that no one can name an absolute source for morals (and don't you give me religion now, it's NOT) is proof enough I should think.
I always felt that morals are yet another tool to keep the general public in check. I very much doubt that CEOs of big corporations, and just people in positions of power concern themselves with morals. When people can get away with something, and they have some reason to do it, they might just do it. It's not morality that stops us from commiting crimes, but rather fear of punishment.
If you choose to link morality to suffering and well being then I think you can say that some societies are "better" than others. If we define Evil as a society that maximizes suffering and Good as a society on the other side of the spectrum then I would say that that is an objective way of viewing morality.
My largest complaint with saying that morality is completely subjective is that we then fall into the trap of Moral relativism where we would have to agree that any set of moral codes is no worse or better than any other. Who are we then to complain about other societies torturing their children etc?
I agree with Harris.
This is a shorter and more concise version that people may want to watch. The grey part of his talk is about suffering: how can we really quantify this? He believes advancement in neuroscience and psychology will eventually allow us to see exactly what psychological suffering is, and to steer away from moral systems that cause such things.
Interesting people are talking about different societies coming up with similar morals despite having no contact between them. Surely that is an argument for some kind of objective morality?
Societies come to certain problems that are common the world over. We all have common ancestry and belong to the same species, so we come up with similar ways of dealing with those problems. The very fact we approach it in similar ways would surely suggest there is some kind of objectivity in morality, at least on the species level? As an example, murder is usually described as being immoral in most societies. Why? Why do most societies arrive at this conclusion?
I'm not trying to argue that there are metaphysical reasons for objective morality, merely species and environment create the morality. Humans create a moral system based on their surroundings, based on their society. Because we exist on planet earth and are the newest monkeys around we have a certain way of approaching life and its problems - is that morality? Can it be anything else?
There's no such thing as objective morals. It all depends on said culture what is good or bad. All the morality rules (those in religious books included) are spawned through the view the author has on the world which is why some sound really stupid at this point. I think the religious books are the best example to see how people's morals changed. Best thing would also be to know something about the times as presented by history. Some of those "wtf!!! how could they do that" moments will make more sense.
If you choose to link morality to suffering and well being then I think you can say that some societies are "better" than others. If we define Evil as a society that maximizes suffering and Good as a society on the other side of the spectrum then I would say that that is an objective way of viewing morality.
Only humans decide what "suffering" is though, so it remains subjective. We call things like death and pain "bad" because they give us unwanted consequences, but that doesn't necessarily make them bad things (pain is obviously useful in that it learns you what damages your body and when something's wrong, death is useful in essence that humans keep evolving and adapting to their environment whilst not overcrowding the earth.)
Morality is made up by people since there's no such thing as good and wrong in nature.
It's not a fun conversation... People have been at it for over 2000 years without any conclusion.
And by the way, it's not morality, it's ethics (or "what's good") what you meant I guess. Morality is a normative system, it's subjective by default. Morality usually takes the form of rules like "you shall not kill".
On May 11 2011 16:21 Manit0u wrote: It's not a fun conversation... People have been at it for over 2000 years without any conclusion.
And by the way, it's not morality, it's ethics (or "what's good") what you meant I guess. Morality is a normative system, it's subjective by default. Morality usually takes the form of rules like "you shall not kill".
That's not true at all. Moral realism is one example of an objective moral system. And a normative system (prescriptive) has no relation to whether it is subjective.
On May 11 2011 15:55 jeeneeus wrote: Here's an interesting thing to think about. If morals are subjective, how is it that certain things that are considered moral or immoral have been universally reached by different groups of people who have never been in contact with each other?
Like what? I mean that a little village isn't going to just kill each other is more like a survival thing for example.
But no, morals are absolutely subjective. The fact that no one can name an absolute source for morals (and don't you give me religion now, it's NOT) is proof enough I should think.
I always felt that morals are yet another tool to keep the general public in check. I very much doubt that CEOs of big corporations, and just people in positions of power concern themselves with morals. When people can get away with something, and they have some reason to do it, they might just do it. It's not morality that stops us from commiting crimes, but rather fear of punishment.
I'm too lazy to quote the other guy who basically said the same thing, but how about something like rape? As far as I know there's no society that thinks rape is socially acceptable, but in an evolutionary standpoint, it's creating more babies, and is therefore a good thing. Also, I like how you go on to mention something that I already mentioned. It's nice to know that people don't like to read entire posts, but finds the one thing they disagree with, and then go on to write about it. Also, how about guilt? Some people won't commit a crime even if they don't get caught, because they would feel guilty about it. Although I guess you could say that guilt is something that is taught by society. I think I remember learning in psychology that empathy is naturally developed in children. Also if guilt was taught by society, does that mean sociopaths/psychopaths were just taught poorly? That there is nothing wrong with these people per se, but that they just weren't raised properly?
On May 11 2011 15:59 ZessiM wrote: Unless you believe in a God who handed these rules, it's surely impossible to believe in an objective morality? Morality is a product of your upbringing, life experiences, and social norms. Subjective.
A set of rules (or behavioral guideline) can't be 'true' or 'false'. Invoking a deity changes nothing; it merely allows you to claim that one particular set of rules is the one 'God' prefers.
However, moralities can be compared and judged based on various other criteria, so the question, "Which morality will best produce this particular desired effect?" has an objective answer.
'Minimize suffering' and 'maximize freedom' are popular choices, although of course they have to be specified further.
On May 11 2011 16:21 Manit0u wrote: It's not a fun conversation... People have been at it for over 2000 years without any conclusion.
Wut? That's like saying people have been arguing which planet circles around which for 2000 years without any conclusion. Of course there's conclusion, some here and there might disagree and keep trying to tell you the earth is the center of the universe today. But there is a conclusion
Entirely subjective and it all started with the most basic human instinct: fear of death. Concepts can be drawn and applied to different fields. It might seem universal but it's really just evolution at work.
On May 11 2011 16:02 ILIVEFORAIUR wrote: Personally, I believe in subjective morals, based on my existential worldview. I believe that there is not inherent meaning to life, in that we go through our life and create our own meaning. This world view would be consistant with subjective morals.
On May 11 2011 15:55 jeeneeus wrote: Here's an interesting thing to think about. If morals are subjective, how is it that certain things that are considered moral or immoral have been universally reached by different groups of people who have never been in contact with each other? At the same time, if morals are objective, what is it that made some things wrong and some things right? Why did the universe decide that something is more moral than another thing? Some people say God decides it so, but there are reasons why that probably isn't true. I won't go into that though, unless someone actually wants to know.
You have piqued my interest my friend!
I would say that, because we are all humans, we have construed societies similarly. By constructing societies similarly, the humans in those societies figured out what was the best way to survive (working together, not harming one another etc.).
I posit that it is not an eternal being which made "some things wrong and some things right". We have determined the morality of actions.
So, in theory, if the best course of action for a particular society was to eat it's young, and mate with trees, then in that society, those actions would be considered moral. It is absurd to think that a human society could survive by taking part in those practices, in fact, all human societies would consider those practices immoral. Not because of God, but because they are extremely counter productive to the survival and life-bettering of the humans race.
I think I'm really going to like you
I don't think I've met people who had these same views as I did.
Ok so marriage: some societies have developed to live monogamously for tens of thousands of years, a decent amount of time to develop some societal codes and to learn to encourage certain sets of actions.
Other societies have always been about raising the children of a tribe, regardless of whether or not it was one's own child.
This indicates something... if people are able to live one way for thousands of years, then evolution could allow people who work together to survive and reproduce more often. Perhaps Morality isn't just objective or just subjective (by your definition of objectivity, since it will always be beneficial for society to function without murder, then murder is objectively immoral). Most of us are wired to believe in monogamy or in murder being bad. We aren't moral just because we've been taught to be moral, but because our ancestors who were moral survived and reproduced more. Being taught to be moral and being wired to be moral go hand in hand.
Oh. I just thought of a great example. A wolf is wired to be loyal to its companions, through years of evolution. All wolves are loyal (objective morality). At the same time, the wolf is taught to be moral by its pack. Some other wolves share food with it when its young and it gets habituated to do the same things. Any morality that is taught is subjective morality. Maybe one pack of wolves believes its right to bury a dead wolf, they've just been habituated to be like this. Another pack of wolves believes that it is right to cremate dead wolves.
Neither one will oust the other given a hundred thousand years because the difference between cremation and burying on an evolutionary sense is rather small compared to that of say the strength of the hind legs. They've both reached local maxima, and will be free to develop their morals based on how they are raised.
As I see it, most morals are the logical rules any society would have to set in order to live together reasonably well. Rules against things such as murder and theft are obviously necessary for a functioning society, while encouragement of charity and helping each other are definitely positive factors. But nobody disputes these things when debating on morality.
What tends to be debated are things like euthanasia. In the case of euthanasia, it can definitely bring good to individual cases, but the precedent of "it's ok to kill someone" makes it a tough nut for many to swallow. So in this case, it is an example of an action for good (killing someone's whose life is not a life anymore) clashing with a rule for good (avoid taking life unless absolutely necssary). Many moral debates, as I see it, are of this nature: case-utilitarianism clashing with rule-utilitarianism.
On May 11 2011 16:21 Manit0u wrote: It's not a fun conversation... People have been at it for over 2000 years without any conclusion.
And by the way, it's not morality, it's ethics (or "what's good") what you meant I guess. Morality is a normative system, it's subjective by default. Morality usually takes the form of rules like "you shall not kill".
That's not true at all. Moral realism is one example of an objective moral system. And a normative system (prescriptive) has no relation to whether it is subjective.
But moral realism is still ethics, not morality...
Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is a sense of behavioral conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong).
What OP meant is the oldest dilemma shown by Aristotle and being the base discussion in axiology: Do the values (like "good" and "beauty") exist in the world and we're just discovering them, or do we create them?
Either your an atheist existentialist as the OP is who doesn't believe in God therefore there is no essence that preceeds man's existance and no objective standards of morality apart from which you create moment by moment as an individual or society.
Or you believe in a conscious higher being, namely God. Who with his consciousness had an essence in mind for man and has established a morality outside of man to which man is accountable. Thus resulting in objective moral values.
I really don't see any other philosophical options. The notions of a higher power, that doesn't have consciousness or that isn't a personal being, would merely take us back to existentialism.
On May 11 2011 16:31 targ wrote: As I see it, most morals are the logical rules any society would have to set in order to live together reasonably well. Rules against things such as murder and theft are obviously necessary for a functioning society, while encouragement of charity and helping each other are definitely positive factors. But nobody disputes these things when debating on morality.
What tends to be debated are things like euthanasia. In the case of euthanasia, it can definitely bring good to individual cases, but the precedent of "it's ok to kill someone" makes it a tough nut for many to swallow. So in this case, it is an example of an action for good (killing someone's whose life is not a life anymore) clashing with a rule for good (avoid taking life unless absolutely necssary). Many moral debates, as I see it, are of this nature: case-utilitarianism clashing with rule-utilitarianism.
How does things like the death penalty fit into such a discussion? If the moral code is "not to murder" how can we as a society accept killing people in the name of justice? If you are for the death penalty why shouldn't you be for euthanasia? I do suspect there is a lot of people where this isn't the case.
I think that apart from subjective morals based on individual experiences and values, most objective morals appear to be so due to a set of commonly shared or agree upon socio-cultural values, whilst they are actually subjective. Are morals such as 'not causing suffering' which are often seen as objective not fundamentally subjective and originating from the human condition?
Since we (human beings/people) came up with this idea of "morality" then we are the ones who determine what it is. The "universe" can't know what is moral and what isn't moral because it doesn't know what "moral" is in the first place. Morality is a human invention derived from our ability to reason.
So on that note, why can't morality be both subjective (opinions vary) and objective (opinions are in agreement)?
For example, 99.9% of people will agree that murder is wrong. This would make murder an objective morality (everyone agrees).
But as a counter example, not everyone will agree on moral grey areas such as abortion or the privacy vs. security debate and opinions on these will vary widely from person to person making it a subjective morality.
.Moral Subjectivity in itself is contradictory. The main idea of it is that everyone has their own moral values which may differ from others. If by morals we mean in the case of ethics, what is right and what is wrong, then how can it be something personal? If one holds a view that one believes is right and someone else holds a widely different view that they believe is also right, then we'll want to ask who the hell is right? If you were one of the two, is it reasonable to think "i believe in subjectivism so we're both right."
I'm believe in the objectivity of morality.
When it comes down to it, like some have said, everything we do may only be for survival and evolution. And if so, whatever is morally right is just everything consistent with that train of thought
On May 11 2011 15:31 ILIVEFORAIUR wrote: This is always a fun conversation!
Like the title asks, "Is morality subjective or objective?"
A couple definition for the nubs
Subjective morals: Each person determines his/her own morals based on their experiences. For example, a priest would believe it is moral to help others, a murder would think it is moral to end another's life. There is no set moral code which we all live by. We make this moral code through our experiences.
Objective morals: What is considered "right" and "wrong" are universal and will always be such. For example, it is moral for a priest to help others, it is immoral for a murder to end another's life.
Personally, I believe in subjective morals, based on my existential worldview. I believe that there is not inherent meaning to life, in that we go through our life and create our own meaning. This world view would be consistant with subjective morals.
I would love to know what the TLr's think
Cheers, ILIVEFORAIUR
The word moral is a definition in and of itself. It could be called a category, or even a list. Most morals (maybe all morals) are common sense. Because morals are generally looked at as common sense it is hard to not say that they aren't objective. But because humans are independent of each other you can't say that "right and wrong" are universal. While everyone will come to the same conclusion (subjective) it isn't truly subjective either. A cold blooded warrior will not think it is morally correct to murder someone, a thief won't believe it is moral to steal. These acts are done out of necessity (for the most part, there are exceptions).
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. And all living creatures will always have the same goal, that's just chemistry/biology. There is no "free will" it's all just atoms interacting.
Lets say your goal is to make someone "as happy as possible". You have 2 choices. One of them will be the best. There is no other way.
On May 11 2011 15:55 jeeneeus wrote: If morals are subjective, how is it that certain things that are considered moral or immoral have been universally reached by different groups of people who have never been in contact with each other?
You really cannot think of one single hypothesis for that? You need to work on your creativity
Different groups come to similar problems and finds similar solutions.... that's all.
Or it is in relation to not only what Sam Harris argues that a value of a society's morals can actually be looked almost formula-ically based on the treatment of humans in that society, but to also the evolutionary explanation, that societal cooperation leads to greater evolutionary success. Humans help those in need that they don't know, because before the only people you did know were those around you, those helping persist your genes. If people weren't moral to each other in some way, and pondering over how to improve their condition through morality, humans wouldn't be as successful a species evolutionarily speaking.
Subjective Morality seems to think it is at the root of it all. i.e. Objectivity is merely born from subjective consensus by all. But can't we turn that on its head and say that subjective consensus is only a derivative of objectivity's existence.
On May 11 2011 15:59 ZessiM wrote: Unless you believe in a God who handed these rules, it's surely impossible to believe in an objective morality? Morality is a product of your upbringing, life experiences, and social norms. Subjective.
A set of rules (or behavioral guideline) can't be 'true' or 'false'. Invoking a deity changes nothing; it merely allows you to claim that one particular set of rules is the one 'God' prefers.
However, moralities can be compared and judged based on various other criteria, so the question, "Which morality will best produce this particular desired effect?" has an objective answer.
'Minimize suffering' and 'maximize freedom' are popular choices, although of course they have to be specified further.
Firstly, when you talk about 'desired effects' those are YOUR desired effects. Even if you claim the desired effect to be 'maximum happiness', that is still your subjective idea of what maximum happiness is. So the objective answer to the question "Which morality will produce this particular desired effect?", will tell you only about what you want. I don't think any amount of scientific advancement will be able to tell us what another person does or does not want.
Secondly, there are very few cases where we can determine all the outcomes of an action. We may be seeking to minimise suffering. No matter how much scientific knowledge we have of what brings about happiness and what brings about suffering (which, incidentally, sounds a lot like the study of history) we can never be certain in the way that we can about scientific observations, because every event requiring a moral decision to be made has an entirely different set of variables to consider.
Also, I think if God determines what right and wrong is then his commandments about what right and wrong are have objective truth. Not that I'm a theist, I'm just sayin'
On May 11 2011 15:55 jeeneeus wrote: If morals are subjective, how is it that certain things that are considered moral or immoral have been universally reached by different groups of people who have never been in contact with each other?
You really cannot think of one single hypothesis for that? You need to work on your creativity
Different groups come to similar problems and finds similar solutions.... that's all.
Or it is in relation to not only what Sam Harris argues that a value of a society's morals can actually be looked almost formula-ically based on the treatment of humans in that society, but to also the evolutionary explanation, that societal cooperation leads to greater evolutionary success. Humans help those in need that they don't know, because before the only people you did know were those around you, those helping persist your genes. If people weren't moral to each other in some way, and pondering over how to improve their condition through morality, humans wouldn't be as successful a species evolutionarily speaking.
Doesn't humans adapting and evolving their behavior fits exactly the description of subjective morals? That's precisely the main point, morals are not universal and people change their definition of morality depending on their needs. If there was some universal moral. Human behavior wouldn't have evolved. We would still be following the same morals for thousands of years. Which is far from true.
How does things like the death penalty fit into such a discussion? If the moral code is "not to murder" how can we as a society accept killing people in the name of justice? If you are for the death penalty why shouldn't you be for euthanasia? I do suspect there is a lot of people where this isn't the case.[/QUOTE]
The death penalty argument may in a way be related to case-utilitarianism versus rule-utilitarianism. Proponents of it can say that the penalty in place can scare more people into avoiding commiting such crimes and that it is the only way to do justice in the case of murder, so the death penalty benefits the society as whole, while detractors can say that in certain cases the man executed has been found innocent later, thus in individual cases it harms people.
Of course, the arguement can take the other direction as well, with proponents citing indivdual cases in which crimes so heinous have been commited that only execution can serve justice, such as serial murderers and child rapists, while detractors saying that the rule of "not taking human life" is so important to the general moral fibre of society that we cannot break it just for individual cases such as this.
So even the death penalty argument can, to a degree I believe, be fitted into the rule vs case discussion.
Actually, I think there are people who are pro-euthanasia and against the death penalty, as well as vice versa. The death penalty is killing in the name of justice, while euthanasia is killing to reduce suffering. Two different motives in my opinion, though those who argue against it may have common grounds in the objection to taking of human life for any reason.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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... ;-)
On May 11 2011 15:59 ZessiM wrote: Unless you believe in a God who handed these rules, it's surely impossible to believe in an objective morality? Morality is a product of your upbringing, life experiences, and social norms. Subjective.
A set of rules (or behavioral guideline) can't be 'true' or 'false'. Invoking a deity changes nothing; it merely allows you to claim that one particular set of rules is the one 'God' prefers.
However, moralities can be compared and judged based on various other criteria, so the question, "Which morality will best produce this particular desired effect?" has an objective answer.
'Minimize suffering' and 'maximize freedom' are popular choices, although of course they have to be specified further.
Firstly, when you talk about 'desired effects' those are YOUR desired effects. Even if you claim the desired effect to be 'maximum happiness', that is still your subjective idea of what maximum happiness is. So the objective answer to the question "Which morality will produce this particular desired effect?", will tell you only about what you want.
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".
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.
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.
I am putting my vote into the "almost entirely subjective" box. Why almost? I also think absolutes are bad 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.
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.
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".
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".
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".
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.
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.
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.
Then again I can argue that what's real is subjective Your definition of the word 'real' is clearly different from mine ^^
It seems to me that morality is the act of drawing upon reason, memory, observation, and compassion in order to judge a proposition or action in terms of social permissibility. Moral judgments are subjective and context specific.
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.
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
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".
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
where/how did i link objectivity with truth? I said "correct and objective", not "correct and therefore objective"
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
The fact that you may even ask the question proves that this, like nearly everything else humans have to contemplate, is subjective. There are people who believe that killing tons of people makes them good and just. There are people who believe that saving the lives of tons of people makes them good and just. I don't think morality is objective because if it were, the world would not need laws or scripture to influence the behavior of humans, the humans would just behave with uniform morality.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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*
To the few that have shown serious interest in arguing the root of morality, instead of just typing a quick blurb about their choice of subjective or objective, it may be beneficial to begin by considering two aspects that have possibly shaped where morality originates.
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.
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".
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.
where/how did i link objectivity with truth? I said "correct and objective", not "correct and therefore objective"
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.
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.
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...
On May 11 2011 15:59 ZessiM wrote: Unless you believe in a God who handed these rules, it's surely impossible to believe in an objective morality? Morality is a product of your upbringing, life experiences, and social norms. Subjective.
A set of rules (or behavioral guideline) can't be 'true' or 'false'. Invoking a deity changes nothing; it merely allows you to claim that one particular set of rules is the one 'God' prefers.
However, moralities can be compared and judged based on various other criteria, so the question, "Which morality will best produce this particular desired effect?" has an objective answer.
'Minimize suffering' and 'maximize freedom' are popular choices, although of course they have to be specified further.
Firstly, when you talk about 'desired effects' those are YOUR desired effects. Even if you claim the desired effect to be 'maximum happiness', that is still your subjective idea of what maximum happiness is. So the objective answer to the question "Which morality will produce this particular desired effect?", will tell you only about what you want.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Morality itself is a human construct, so depending on where you're from and how the ideals were formed, they're different, or subjective. However, there will always be an almost universal guideline on the morals (murder, theft, vandalism etc.)
Both subjective and objective, there's no definite answer to the question.
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.
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
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.
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.
I think the question itself is problematic, as it does not allow enough room for other views on morality.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Moral qualities always change, dependant on society, time of history and other situations. It is a function dependant on many variables. 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 ......
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.
Let me start by saying that the 'definition' the OP gives is very weak. It neither explains why we need 'morals' nor does it state how they are created. Both of these questions are essential in finding an agreement on what we are talking in the first place. Second i want to state that there is no such thing as objectivity. Let me elaborate that based on a simple and topic related example: cannibalism. Our humanistic point of view tells us that cannibalism is evil because killing (not even gonna start on murdering) and eating another human being takes away essentiel (human) rights from said person. The reason for this is the value we give to individual in our society. Everyone should at least in theory be allowed to do whatever he or she wants. In some tribes on the other hand cannibalism is part of the day to day live. Their culture favors the survival of the group over the individual and that is exactly what can be achieved through cannibalism as it keeps the population in check, healthy and also preserves the environment which they highly depend on since they don't have to look for excessive amounts of food there. As shown you can't really say something is absolutely good or absolutely evil without considering the background. Some people in this thread expressed that they belief that morals aren't necessary. This is a very nearsighted perspective. Humans are the only species that is not only capable to cause it's own demise and take half the solar system with it but also stupid enough to actually do it when left unchecked. So in my opinion morals - however weak they may be - are a necessity to ensure the possibility of survival on the long run.
The concept of, "Right," and, "Wrong," are literally some of the most subjective stuff in the world. If they weren't, maybe the countries of the world wouldn't be such shit shows.
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.
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.
What you fail to understand is laws will exist regardless of morals. Because there's social, economic and political needs for laws. Morals are not necessary for laws.
You don't need to be afraid of a moralless world. We live in a moralless world, and we have laws.
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.
Moral or metaphysical laws clearly aren't binding. Those who act "immorally" (ie murder, rape, and other actions of ill repute) can and do get away with it, living happy lives with their ill-gotten gains. So clearly moral laws on this plane of existence aren't binding (or in that sense, objective, because can't see what a moral law is because there is no enforcement.)
Some people think they get enforced in the afterlife, but it is rather trivial to show all the world religions are false (I'll leave this exercise up to the reader).
Even beyond that, we can sidestep that issue. Religions (for the most part) claim god is the author of moral laws. But let's not kid ourselves, might doesn't make right. Just because God has the ability to enforce a law and I don't, doesn't make his position suddenly privileged to mine.
So that leaves us with each of us coming up with our own moral laws. Our own set of preferences for how others act, that we hope are enforced. As a society we amalgamate our preferences into a set of a laws, but the laws don't always accord with any given individual's moral sense.
Frankly I don't see why anyone gets frustrated with this idea. Moral laws are subjective, but so what? That doesn't mean someone else who I disagree with get's equal weight in their opinion. My opinions are all that matter. The opinions of other people only matter in the sense that they might prevent a law from passing that accords with my sense of rightness.
I would say it is subjective because morals is not something predefined given to us by birth, it is something we learn during the course of our lives. Morality depends upon where you are from, who your parents were, what books you read and all that good stuff.
For example: If someone was born on the street he would think it was ok to steal so he could get something to eat, but the shopkeeper would think it immoral to steal because he would lose profit.
Every person has a defined set of moral values that they built up during their lives, but if those values are distinct from what society has decided in the letter of the law they simply won't do it out of fear of punishment. Some do it anyway and serve as examples to all those who would think it morally right, thereby causing them to question their values.
Hmmm... Everyone's just stating their own opinion in response to OP's question, so I guess I'll state God's point of view in the most succinct manner.
What is right? Loving the Creator and loving mankind is right. What's wrong? Not loving God and fellow mankind. Why? God created you, in the image of Him he created you. He love, he created you to rule the world under his authority, to rule over all of the earth, over all animals. He created us to be fruitful and multiply, to enjoy the fruits he has provided for us, to work and to enjoy awesome things like relationships, marriage, family, children, jokes, music, art, science etc.
So who is the giver of morality? God. He isn't human and he doesn't get affected by human sin and failures. He is the judge who will judge justly unlike some of the junk that goes on in our courts (though law and order is essential to our societies).
Let's say we enter God's law court on judgement day. Will we be acquitted? Well it all comes down to whether you've obeyed his laws as he is the Creator of the universe and the giver of law. Love God and Love mankind - that is summary of God's will for us in this life.
On May 11 2011 19:24 Phenny wrote: Completely subjective, you can't say someone's morals are good or bad, as they're only relative to your own morals.
See this is just playing a language game. If the other person assumes that when I say "Your morals are bad" I mean they don't accord with some sort of objective standard, they are missing what I'm saying.
What I'm saying (because there are no magical objective standards) is that "I dislike your opinions." To me, that makes them bad. If I like, or agree with them, I say "I think they are good."
And what do you mean I "can't say". I just said it. Okay well I typed it. That's sort of the whole point I guess.
On May 11 2011 19:47 JesusOurSaviour wrote: Hmmm... Everyone's just stating their own opinion in response to OP's question, so I guess I'll state God's point of view in the most succinct manner.
What is right? Loving the Creator and loving mankind is right. What's wrong? Not loving God and fellow mankind. Why? God created you, in the image of Him he created you. He love, he created you to rule the world under his authority, to rule over all of the earth, over all animals. He created us to be fruitful and multiply, to enjoy the fruits he has provided for us, to work and to enjoy awesome things like relationships, marriage, family, children, jokes, music, art, science etc.
So who is the giver of morality? God. He isn't human and he doesn't get affected by human sin and failures. He is the judge who will judge justly unlike some of the junk that goes on in our courts (though law and order is essential to our societies).
Let's say we enter God's law court on judgement day. Will we be acquitted? Well it all comes down to whether you've obeyed his laws as he is the Creator of the universe and the giver of law. Love God and Love mankind - that is summary of God's will for us in this life.
What if I disagree with god? Say, for example, god happens to hate gay people. And I like them. I dunno if your god hates gays, pick another opinion I happen to disagree with if he doesn't.
Now, let's pretend you are right. So he made me? So what? So he can punish me for disagreeing with me, so what? That makes him the ultimate arbiter? I don't think so. I'm the only person who can decide if I agree with him.
Morality is, after all, internal. The only person who can change how you feel about your own actions and the actions of others, is yourself.
It's subjective. Moral depends of culture, education and social interaction. Even then Moral can be changed with personal experience. So what's right to me might not be right for someone in the next door.
Also. Moral can't be defined by things that are 'Right' and things that are 'Wrong'. There is an huge amount of points in between. The so called 'shades of grey'. And those are very occasion specific. So you can't simply say "When this guy from this country does something at that time of the day then he is RIGHT". So....subjective.
On May 11 2011 19:47 JesusOurSaviour wrote: Hmmm... Everyone's just stating their own opinion in response to OP's question, so I guess I'll state God's point of view in the most succinct manner.
What is right? Loving the Creator and loving mankind is right. What's wrong? Not loving God and fellow mankind. Why? God created you, in the image of Him he created you. He love, he created you to rule the world under his authority, to rule over all of the earth, over all animals. He created us to be fruitful and multiply, to enjoy the fruits he has provided for us, to work and to enjoy awesome things like relationships, marriage, family, children, jokes, music, art, science etc.
So who is the giver of morality? God. He isn't human and he doesn't get affected by human sin and failures. He is the judge who will judge justly unlike some of the junk that goes on in our courts (though law and order is essential to our societies).
Let's say we enter God's law court on judgement day. Will we be acquitted? Well it all comes down to whether you've obeyed his laws as he is the Creator of the universe and the giver of law. Love God and Love mankind - that is summary of God's will for us in this life.
Exactly the point, we are stating our opinions, just like you are stating yours. I'm not going to argue whether you are right or wrong, as I don't mind people believing in religion.
On May 11 2011 19:47 JesusOurSaviour wrote: Hmmm... Everyone's just stating their own opinion in response to OP's question, so I guess I'll state God's point of view in the most succinct manner.
What is right? Loving the Creator and loving mankind is right. What's wrong? Not loving God and fellow mankind. Why? God created you, in the image of Him he created you. He love, he created you to rule the world under his authority, to rule over all of the earth, over all animals. He created us to be fruitful and multiply, to enjoy the fruits he has provided for us, to work and to enjoy awesome things like relationships, marriage, family, children, jokes, music, art, science etc.
So who is the giver of morality? God. He isn't human and he doesn't get affected by human sin and failures. He is the judge who will judge justly unlike some of the junk that goes on in our courts (though law and order is essential to our societies).
Let's say we enter God's law court on judgement day. Will we be acquitted? Well it all comes down to whether you've obeyed his laws as he is the Creator of the universe and the giver of law. Love God and Love mankind - that is summary of God's will for us in this life.
What if I disagree with god? Say, for example, god happens to hate gay people. And I like them. I dunno if your god hates gays, pick another opinion I happen to disagree with if he doesn't.
Now, let's pretend you are right. So he made me? So what? So he can punish me for disagreeing with me, so what? That makes him the ultimate arbiter? I don't think so. I'm the only person who can decide if I agree with him.
Morality is, after all, internal. The only person who can change how you feel about your own actions and the actions of others, is yourself.
Your point is valid - indeed, each person's morality is his own. My morality is based off of what God has shown me so far from reading his Word, the bible. Yet - had I not read his Word, my set of morality would be significantly different. Each person's morality is dependent and formed according to his experiences.
So my point is that: God is real and he is the ultimate judge. His morality should be ours as well, but if you choose to reject him, then your morality will be of your own genesis and you become your own Boss.
On May 11 2011 18:59 MindRush wrote: Moral qualities always change, dependant on society, time of history and other situations. It is a function dependant on many variables. 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 ......
Actually it was never moral for nobles to do whatever they wanted with common folks. Killing and raping peasants was always considered immoral thing to do, it was just mostly not punished.
As for slaves see my previous post in this thread. Evolution of human morality is basically extending core biological moral values we have (and which are objective) to bigger and bigger groups of people as we realize that the division between "us" and "them" is mostly arbitrary. Slaves were others thus the scope of morality of that time did not apply to them. It is not really that the morality changed much compared to 200 years ago, its more that the arbitrary divisions of groups of people were removed or weakened and we apply the same morality to bigger number of people. I would like to note that when talking about morality I mean that the core is objective, but a lot of mostly arbitrary historical rules that people include in morality are a different matter.
Also it was never moral to own slaves, it was just legal and not considered immoral, so it was morally neutral.
And one more thing the objective vs subjective debate is kind of strange. Shouldn't it be absolute vs relative ? In the previous post I swallowed the hook, but now that I am thinking about it, what does OP actually mean by that ?
On May 11 2011 19:47 JesusOurSaviour wrote: Hmmm... Everyone's just stating their own opinion in response to OP's question, so I guess I'll state God's point of view in the most succinct manner.
What is right? Loving the Creator and loving mankind is right. What's wrong? Not loving God and fellow mankind. Why? God created you, in the image of Him he created you. He love, he created you to rule the world under his authority, to rule over all of the earth, over all animals. He created us to be fruitful and multiply, to enjoy the fruits he has provided for us, to work and to enjoy awesome things like relationships, marriage, family, children, jokes, music, art, science etc.
So who is the giver of morality? God. He isn't human and he doesn't get affected by human sin and failures. He is the judge who will judge justly unlike some of the junk that goes on in our courts (though law and order is essential to our societies).
Let's say we enter God's law court on judgement day. Will we be acquitted? Well it all comes down to whether you've obeyed his laws as he is the Creator of the universe and the giver of law. Love God and Love mankind - that is summary of God's will for us in this life.
Exactly the point, we are stating our opinions, just like you are stating yours. I'm not going to argue whether you are right or wrong, as I don't mind people believing in religion.
On May 11 2011 20:13 Fog-of-War wrote: Subjective. Common sense answer. anyone who answers objective, i would love to see your set list of correct morals.
Love God, Love Mankind - this is the True morality. Yet Humans like to play God and be their own bosses, so I agree with you that for all the non-Christians out there, you are your own Boss and only what you think is right and wrong matters to you.
Morality, for me, is subjective since what is considered "right and wrong" have changed in time. Example, the vikings believe that dying in battle is the best thing you can do in life and dying as an old man in bed will get you straight to hell. I think that society just uses morals as a way of lining things up. The sad thing is, as long as a sin goes unpunished it'll be continued. There are lots of ways to avoid punishment so there is not really a right and wrong, it's just if you get caught or not. Some people also use morality to seem superior than others and immediately judge you as a person.
On May 11 2011 20:13 Fog-of-War wrote: Subjective. Common sense answer. anyone who answers objective, i would love to see your set list of correct morals.
Love God, Love Mankind - this is the True morality. Yet Humans like to play God and be their own bosses, so I agree with you that for all the non-Christians out there, you are your own Boss and only what you think is right and wrong matters to you.
What's the point of your post then? You wrote your answer and all is now obvious. You asked about something you had known.
*This opening paragraph sounds critical, get over it and read on*
There are certain objective morals in the universe. Your decision to ignore or not live up to some/all of them is again, your decision. Calling it subjective is just a way to make you feel better about yourself. The hardest part is delving into what these morals are for most people. However, the truth is, it is not WHAT these morals are, but WHY these morals are.
It is my belief that a moral code exists for the betterment of existence. If something causes "harm" then it is immoral. I believe that subjective or objective, everyone's moral code is based upon this, however not everyone considers every aspect.
Take the example of the thief. If their personal moral code includes (to follow Casta's post [nothing personal, just the post above mine as I type this]) a right to steal so they can have something to eat, they are acting for their own benefit. However, they are not considering the losses incurred by the shopkeeper, i.e. harm. The "moral" solution is for the thief to a) not be a thief and b) work for wages or some other method to exchange something of equal intrinsic value for food. Of course the shopkeeper could give the food for free or a discounted price (charity), but he must deem it so because he is the net-giver. One could argue this is still a net loss for the shop-keeper but the exchange is in fact food for a feeling of do-goodery.
It is my working view that there are seven aspects of morality which are overlappable. I define these as: 1) Individual: How does it affect me/the individual 2) Social: How does it affect those around me? 3) Local: How does it affect my immediate surroundings? 4) Universal: How does this affect the grand scheme of things? 5) Physical: How does it affect health/possessions/etc 6) Emotional: How does it affect feelings/psychology/etc 7) Spiritual: How does it relate to the morals set forth by my religion (even atheistic views fall under this)
Now the seventh I am still toying a lot with in my head, largely because it does not factor into the WHY of morals but rather the WHAT which varies by religion. I am not sure if it should be outright removed or not. I guess if anything it is religions attempts to categorize every action as morally "good" or "bad" when my point is that morals transcend religion. I could easily better define the other categories as well, but simply put, I'm no good with words. Instead I hope you can understand my intentions.
So under this criteria, an action which gives a + or - to ALL categories can safely be judged accordingly. But this is actually quite rare, as it is not every day you see someone steal candy from a baby only to put it as the target of a particle accelerator and see it vaporized (I don't care if a PA can't do that...the point is the action does no good for anyone). So, we run into a lot of the "grey area". This is currently where I am stuck. Do we consider the "net" good/bad of an action? Is that even possible? If something is partially "bad" does it spoil the whole bunch? This requires a lot of thought, and I am not prepared to make a stand.
Next, in regards to the statements about there being no "enforcement" of moral code, not everything is a direct punishment. To put it in the terms of nerdfighters, to act immorally creates "worldsuck" on some level. If morality is a natural law, then it doesn't even have to receive full punishment to be valid. Consider this example: The Sun produces a metric shitton of heat. If things were "fair" the Sun would retain 100% of the heat it generates, forever getting hotter. But this doesn't happen, instead it radiates the heat away, never receiving its "full punishment". So yeah, natural laws aren't "fair", which is for my own satisfaction I do hope there is an afterlife wherein each of us is judged according to our actions to atone for our immorality, nothing is more "fair" than that.
Finally, the greatest cause of struggle with morality is simply lack of education. Why does a child on the streets learn to steal? Because they never learned NOT to (or if they did subsequently rejected morality). Does not knowing morality not make them accountable? No, they are still accountable because the damage they caused to the shopkeeper (and customers, etc in a trickle-down effect) is no less severe. However, given that virtually every discovered culture attempts (at least originally) to procure some level of morality, I would argue that morality itself is innate in everyone, but society represses this sense. The street urchin doesn't steal without first seeing it done. They are simply taught wrong.
My morals are objective in general. I personally feel that the sapient species in the universe have certain laws about what's right and wrong along a pretty large spectrum, such as intentionally causing suffering to an innocent sentient creature (I don't mean sentient like Star Trek uses it, I mean literally, anything capable of experiencing suffering, which includes mammals and birds and the like), sexually abusing the non-consensual, etc.
The reason I don't subscribe to subjective morality is simply that you'd really be surprised what people can justify to themselves given enough time.
There's also a line where people commit crimes because they know what they're doing is immoral in an objective sense, it's not like they justify their actions to themselves because their own subjective moral compass has been adjusted to make what they're doing okay to themselves.
Even at that, even if a criminal such as a pedophile or some other kind of predator on sentient life for the sole purpose of witnessing their suffering were to believe that what they were doing was right, it doesn't make it so.
On May 11 2011 20:13 Fog-of-War wrote: Subjective. Common sense answer. anyone who answers objective, i would love to see your set list of correct morals.
Love God, Love Mankind - this is the True morality. Yet Humans like to play God and be their own bosses, so I agree with you that for all the non-Christians out there, you are your own Boss and only what you think is right and wrong matters to you.
Religion is an excellent example of subjective morals. Many people practiced human sacrifice rituals in older religions, and that was considered good. Many people killed in the name of varying religions, even though their religion was founded on peace, and that at the time was considered good, due to the religion being used as a front to get people to be willing to go to war (for legitimate reasons or not). Religion changes it's rules all the time to fit a more modern audience, and that makes it subjective. If it was truly objective, there would be only one set of rules for all the varying religions, ever.
While for an individual, a religious life could lead to an objective moral base that never changes, the organization that they're with, has subjective morals, and thus the individual is responsible for choosing their morals within the religion, which many religions can support nowadays, with multiple sects, all with their own moral code to follow that's often separate from the others.
I'm skeptical when people use things such as "I personally feel" or "I believe" as a justification for the existence of something.
That would be my criticism of the above two posts -*apart from the one right above who posted while i was typing like some kind of ninja *- . Believing in something doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true.
Morality changes with time. It never stays constant.
Racism, homophobia, sexism, have thankfully gone from this world (or begun to go..!).
But for thousands of years it was acceptable to imprison/kill gay individuals, treat women as second class, treat Black people as slaves. That was the norm, and 'moral'.
Morality is not fixed and permanent. It changes as we as a species learn, advance, and adapt to a better (I think!) way of life.
Anyone who thinks moral objectivity is fixed and static and frankly deluding themselves.
On May 11 2011 20:32 XeliN wrote: I'm skeptical when people use things such as "I personally feel" or "I believe" as a justification for the existence of something.
That would be my criticism of the above two posts -*apart from the one right above who posted while i was typing like some kind of ninja *- . Believing in something doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true.
Truth doesn't equal facts. In cases of something like morality, what is true is what one believes, there's no line separating the two.
Would you argue that there is an absolute morality that is right and wrong and people who express their morality as though it were a belief are somehow incorrect?
On May 11 2011 20:32 XeliN wrote: I'm skeptical when people use things such as "I personally feel" or "I believe" as a justification for the existence of something.
That would be my criticism of the above two posts -*apart from the one right above who posted while i was typing like some kind of ninja *- . Believing in something doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true.
Good point, but as I stated in my post I am still looking for answers. I have actually only bothered to define morality about 3 days ago and I don't think it is a topic that could possibly be finalized in that time. My goal it to make it into a treatise (or that someone else is able to) but until that time, it is just a belief. That's all anything is, even the way we think atoms whizz around through space.
On May 11 2011 20:13 Fog-of-War wrote: Subjective. Common sense answer. anyone who answers objective, i would love to see your set list of correct morals.
Love God, Love Mankind - this is the True morality. Yet Humans like to play God and be their own bosses, so I agree with you that for all the non-Christians out there, you are your own Boss and only what you think is right and wrong matters to you.
Religion is an excellent example of subjective morals. Many people practiced human sacrifice rituals in older religions, and that was considered good. Many people killed in the name of varying religions, even though their religion was founded on peace, and that at the time was considered good, due to the religion being used as a front to get people to be willing to go to war (for legitimate reasons or not). Religion changes it's rules all the time to fit a more modern audience, and that makes it subjective. If it was truly objective, there would be only one set of rules for all the varying religions, ever.
While for an individual, a religious life could lead to an objective moral base that never changes, the organization that they're with, has subjective morals, and thus the individual is responsible for choosing their morals within the religion, which many religions can support nowadays, with multiple sects, all with their own moral code to follow that's often separate from the others.
Hmmm I guess you can say that your Father in heaven (who is looking at you this second) has subjective views because His set of right and wrongs are subjective to Him. Unfortunately though, He is the True God of the universe and He never changes. Abusing / taking his Word out of context and tricking foolish people for your own gain (in war, in indulgences etc etc etc etc) does not change God. All it does it make your judgement day a little bit more painful. God has not changed and will not. His mandate for us to Love Him, to Love each other and to look after and enjoy our time on the earth He has provided us, has not changed over time.
Morality is cultural, it's built up principles and conventions of behavior, based partially on religious doctrine but also just norms connected to activities.
It has nothing to do with "subjective" or "objective" (two words I really dislike, as I do not think they have any meaning).
You cant separate them so easily or define it as one or the other.
We all live by our own subjective morales, these are garnered from our parents, peers, and ourselves. And then theres the collective, the objective morales which are created largely from the individual morales of each member of society.
Laws for example, are founded upon these morales. We obviously wont all feel the same way about everything however theres somethings we cannot change. The structure and function of society as it has developed over thousands of years has shaped this.
For example the majority of us in Britain may believe that the death penalty should be reinstated (Not a fact, just an example). However due to how we feel we will be perceived by others in our society we may not make this change or possibly feel scared to even voice our opinions due to the stigma of the subject and controversy of the matter, even though it may be overall beneficial to us. This is mostly ingrained into our society from modern developments and media exposure which has swayed us into a much more "Civilised" society, this doesn't mean we can't be civilised yet still retain these laws, morales and ethics when it comes to approaching those such as criminals, its just a typical modern way of thinking that has been far contorted and shaped by what is around us, in some cases for good, in some cases for worse - but don't be afraid to think for yourself.
On May 11 2011 20:32 XeliN wrote: I'm skeptical when people use things such as "I personally feel" or "I believe" as a justification for the existence of something.
That would be my criticism of the above two posts -*apart from the one right above who posted while i was typing like some kind of ninja *- . Believing in something doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true.
Truth doesn't equal facts. In cases of something like morality, what is true is what one believes, there's no line separating the two.
Really? the "Its true if it's true for me" argument.
If that is your conception of what is true and actual then there is no debate.
Although I would point out that if your criteria for truth for something like morality is that truth is what one person believes then that would make it subjective in every sense of the word as it would be subject to peoples beliefs.
On May 11 2011 20:32 XeliN wrote: I'm skeptical when people use things such as "I personally feel" or "I believe" as a justification for the existence of something.
That would be my criticism of the above two posts -*apart from the one right above who posted while i was typing like some kind of ninja *- . Believing in something doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true.
Truth doesn't equal facts. In cases of something like morality, what is true is what one believes, there's no line separating the two.
Would you argue that there is an absolute morality that is right and wrong and people who express their morality as though it were a belief are somehow incorrect?
The bolded part completely defeats your own argument, surely? If an individual's beliefs affect his morals, then they can (and history has proven will) be different to the morals of another individual, ergo, they are subjective.
I don't see how any non-religious person can argue for objective morals, and the only way a religious person can make that argument is the same way they make every argument: "God said so."
moralsplural of mor·al (Noun) 1. A lesson, esp. one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience. 2. A person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do. More » Merriam-Webster - The Free Dictionary ►
On May 11 2011 20:32 XeliN wrote: I'm skeptical when people use things such as "I personally feel" or "I believe" as a justification for the existence of something.
That would be my criticism of the above two posts -*apart from the one right above who posted while i was typing like some kind of ninja *- . Believing in something doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true.
Truth doesn't equal facts. In cases of something like morality, what is true is what one believes, there's no line separating the two.
Would you argue that there is an absolute morality that is right and wrong and people who express their morality as though it were a belief are somehow incorrect?
The bolded part completely defeats your own argument, surely? If an individual's beliefs affect his morals, then they can (and history has proven will) be different to the morals of another individual, ergo, they are subjective.
I don't see how any non-religious person can argue for objective morals, and the only way a religious person can make that argument is the same way they make every argument: "God said so."
Read my long-winded post, I believe I refute your "God said so" claim, as well as defending the ability of a non-religious person to argue for objective morals. The interpretation of morals does not change what the morals actually are.
On May 11 2011 20:32 XeliN wrote: I'm skeptical when people use things such as "I personally feel" or "I believe" as a justification for the existence of something.
That would be my criticism of the above two posts -*apart from the one right above who posted while i was typing like some kind of ninja *- . Believing in something doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true.
Truth doesn't equal facts. In cases of something like morality, what is true is what one believes, there's no line separating the two.
Really? the "Its true if it's true for me" argument.
If that is your conception of what is true and actual then there is no debate.
Although I would point out that if your criteria for truth for something like morality is that truth is what one person believes then that would make it subjective in every sense of the word as it would be subject to peoples beliefs.
You have yet to explain what your morals are, actually. You only joined this discussion shortly before I did and said series of incomplete sentences on the subject but never actually revealed your own feelings on the subject.
Rape is bad. That's not subjective, it's bad. It's always been bad, and it'll always be bad. I understand some animals can't actually procreate in situations that seem outwardly consensual in any way, but that's sorta outside the scope of the concept of 'rape'. It's not bad cuz I think it's bad, there aren't people out there who think it's right and moral to rape, even those who do rape unanimously agree that what they're doing is immoral, and if by some delusional meter they happen to not think it's immoral, they've labeled themselves as being more animal than human by their nature.
There's also the line between morals and ethics. There's times where you're forced into a gray area that's outside your own subjective view of morality (Defense attorneys being a prime example of this in motion).
I dunno, I think this is more a breakdown of language. While yeah, 'morals' are wholly subjective (as you describe them) that doesn't necessarily mean that some concepts aren't somehow inherently wrong regardless of our ability to observe them as phenomena and make our own judgments as to their rightness/wrongness.
On May 11 2011 20:32 XeliN wrote: I'm skeptical when people use things such as "I personally feel" or "I believe" as a justification for the existence of something.
That would be my criticism of the above two posts -*apart from the one right above who posted while i was typing like some kind of ninja *- . Believing in something doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true.
Truth doesn't equal facts. In cases of something like morality, what is true is what one believes, there's no line separating the two.
Would you argue that there is an absolute morality that is right and wrong and people who express their morality as though it were a belief are somehow incorrect?
The bolded part completely defeats your own argument, surely? If an individual's beliefs affect his morals, then they can (and history has proven will) be different to the morals of another individual, ergo, they are subjective.
I don't see how any non-religious person can argue for objective morals, and the only way a religious person can make that argument is the same way they make every argument: "God said so."
They are not subjective just because someone else believes something different. This seems to be the main argument that moral is subjective.
If i say the earth is round, and you say the earth is flat. Is the shape of the earth subjective? No. There is still a right and a wrong.
I'm not religious, and i still believe that moral is objective, although way too complicated for me to properly explain.
- Do not - under any circumstances - harm, hurt or betray other beings nor let them suffer.
Think "Asimovs 3 Laws of Robotics" in Human form.
We break this Law often and in some cases it's hard to define on which side of the rule we are (For example the famous abortion or euthanasia), but the rule still holds true, we might just be too stupid to fully understand the implications.
It is often not possible or viable to make the moral decision, for example the woman that decides for an abortion because she can't afford a child - that doesn't make her a bad person. As long as a person knows that he breaks the rule and tries his best not to, the person is "good", eventhough the action is immoral.
PS: Eating other animals is immoral, too, as it harms other beings... but they are still tasty, so i don't stop... but i'm a bad person anyways :p
On May 11 2011 20:32 XeliN wrote: I'm skeptical when people use things such as "I personally feel" or "I believe" as a justification for the existence of something.
That would be my criticism of the above two posts -*apart from the one right above who posted while i was typing like some kind of ninja *- . Believing in something doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true.
Truth doesn't equal facts. In cases of something like morality, what is true is what one believes, there's no line separating the two.
Would you argue that there is an absolute morality that is right and wrong and people who express their morality as though it were a belief are somehow incorrect?
The bolded part completely defeats your own argument, surely? If an individual's beliefs affect his morals, then they can (and history has proven will) be different to the morals of another individual, ergo, they are subjective.
I don't see how any non-religious person can argue for objective morals, and the only way a religious person can make that argument is the same way they make every argument: "God said so."
They are not subjective just because someone else believes something different. This seems to be the main argument that moral is subjective.
If i say the earth is round, and you say the earth is flat. Is the shape of the earth subjective? No. There is still a right and a wrong.
I'm not religious, and i still believe that moral is objective, although way too complicated for me to properly explain.
I love you, and to expand on your point.
It could be that in your experience the earth IS flat. For me it very well could be, I've never been around it or near far enough to really perceive curvature. I actually take it on faith that the Earth is round, but as far as I know, the "round" Earth could be nothing more than an elaborate conspiracy. It is more than just "saying" the Earth is round or flat, it is about experiencing it. The same is applied to what people experience as morals, except there is a definitive answer. The world IS round, despite what my experiences may tell me to the contrary.
On May 11 2011 20:13 Fog-of-War wrote: Subjective. Common sense answer. anyone who answers objective, i would love to see your set list of correct morals.
Love God, Love Mankind - this is the True morality. Yet Humans like to play God and be their own bosses, so I agree with you that for all the non-Christians out there, you are your own Boss and only what you think is right and wrong matters to you.
What do you mean by "Yet Humans like to play God and be their own bosses, so I agree with you that for all the non-Christians out there, you are your own Boss and only what you think is right and wrong matters to you." ?
Where do your beliefs come from ? What constitues them ? What are they built of ? What purpose do they serve ? How do you know that you are right ? How do you know that what you believe is true ?
On May 11 2011 16:47 Rucky wrote: .Moral Subjectivity in itself is contradictory. The main idea of it is that everyone has their own moral values which may differ from others. If by morals we mean in the case of ethics, what is right and what is wrong, then how can it be something personal? If one holds a view that one believes is right and someone else holds a widely different view that they believe is also right, then we'll want to ask who the hell is right? If you were one of the two, is it reasonable to think "i believe in subjectivism so we're both right."
I'm believe in the objectivity of morality.
When it comes down to it, like some have said, everything we do may only be for survival and evolution. And if so, whatever is morally right is just everything consistent with that train of thought
I think you (and few others) are getting mixed up between Morality and Ethics. They often can go hand in hand, but are completely separate concepts.
A high school teacher having a relationship with his student (over legal age). This is unethical in the western society (and most other developed country as well I believe) in the field of education. However, there is nothing immoral about it in most of our eyes. Note here, moral is subjective.
Now likes look at another example. A lawyer defending a child rapist whom has already admitted to the crime. In this case, in most of our eyes, it is immoral to be helping out someone like that. However, the lawyer isn't being unethical, because as per our constitution, it is required to have a defending lawyer even for cases where the criminal have admitted to the crime. Therefore, someone has to do it, and the lawyer that took up the job must do his best to reduce the punishment for the criminal as much as possible.
From those two examples, you can see that things can be both moral but unethical (or vice versa) at the same time. So no, moral is not ethics.
Ethics is objective within its own governing field or industry, while morals is subjective.
On May 11 2011 20:32 XeliN wrote: I'm skeptical when people use things such as "I personally feel" or "I believe" as a justification for the existence of something.
That would be my criticism of the above two posts -*apart from the one right above who posted while i was typing like some kind of ninja *- . Believing in something doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true.
Truth doesn't equal facts. In cases of something like morality, what is true is what one believes, there's no line separating the two.
Would you argue that there is an absolute morality that is right and wrong and people who express their morality as though it were a belief are somehow incorrect?
The bolded part completely defeats your own argument, surely? If an individual's beliefs affect his morals, then they can (and history has proven will) be different to the morals of another individual, ergo, they are subjective.
I don't see how any non-religious person can argue for objective morals, and the only way a religious person can make that argument is the same way they make every argument: "God said so."
They are not subjective just because someone else believes something different. This seems to be the main argument that moral is subjective.
If i say the earth is round, and you say the earth is flat. Is the shape of the earth subjective? No. There is still a right and a wrong.
I'm not religious, and i still believe that moral is objective, although way too complicated for me to properly explain.
This is the same proverbial firetruck that I keep trying to avoid stepping out in front of. I'm so atheist as to be to the point of anti-theism altogether, but I still believe that, even if 'morals' being subjective is taken out of the equation, you still have 'laws' and crimes against those 'laws', even if there's no system to recognize those laws and crimes.
It's kinda funny, I actually see less of a moral dilemma in cases of cannibalism than I do for things like non-consensual sexual relations.
They are not subjective just because someone else believes something different. This seems to be the main argument that moral is subjective.
If i say the earth is round, and you say the earth is flat. Is the shape of the earth subjective? No. There is still a right and a wrong.
I'm not religious, and i still believe that moral is objective, although way too complicated for me to properly explain.
On May 11 2011 20:32 XeliN wrote: I'm skeptical when people use things such as "I personally feel" or "I believe" as a justification for the existence of something.
That would be my criticism of the above two posts -*apart from the one right above who posted while i was typing like some kind of ninja *- . Believing in something doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true.
Truth doesn't equal facts. In cases of something like morality, what is true is what one believes, there's no line separating the two.
Would you argue that there is an absolute morality that is right and wrong and people who express their morality as though it were a belief are somehow incorrect?
The bolded part completely defeats your own argument, surely? If an individual's beliefs affect his morals, then they can (and history has proven will) be different to the morals of another individual, ergo, they are subjective.
I don't see how any non-religious person can argue for objective morals, and the only way a religious person can make that argument is the same way they make every argument: "God said so."
Read my long-winded post, I believe I refute your "God said so" claim, as well as defending the ability of a non-religious person to argue for objective morals. The interpretation of morals does not change what the morals actually are.
Your example of the thief doesn't really help. In the thief's moral code, what if he genuinely believes that it's okay to steal? (for what it's worth, i think most thieves know what they're doing is wrong but their selfish need/want outweighs their guilt, but lets assume that isn't the case for this example). Who is to say that his moral is wrong and that the 'stealing is bad' moral that 99% of us hold is correct? Again, even this truth that appears to be absolute is not actually so. The only person who could possibly decide an absolute moral does not exist.
I prefer to critique others without having to commit myself to stating and defending my own beliefs
But as you've asked I think there is no such thing as "inherently good" or vice versa. Say quite a horrific example of a grown man raping torturing and murdering a small child. He does not break some objective moral law or contravene some universally existing standard for our actions.
The only form of morality we have is fluid, there is no logical criteria by which we can say, This form of morality is 'better' because to do so presupposes what better is.
I think my "belief" - although in the same way atheists often prefer, i would consider it more aptly described as a lack of belief in objective morality - is called Moral Nihilism.
On May 11 2011 20:13 Fog-of-War wrote: Subjective. Common sense answer. anyone who answers objective, i would love to see your set list of correct morals.
Love God, Love Mankind - this is the True morality. Yet Humans like to play God and be their own bosses, so I agree with you that for all the non-Christians out there, you are your own Boss and only what you think is right and wrong matters to you.
Religion is an excellent example of subjective morals. Many people practiced human sacrifice rituals in older religions, and that was considered good. Many people killed in the name of varying religions, even though their religion was founded on peace, and that at the time was considered good, due to the religion being used as a front to get people to be willing to go to war (for legitimate reasons or not). Religion changes it's rules all the time to fit a more modern audience, and that makes it subjective. If it was truly objective, there would be only one set of rules for all the varying religions, ever.
While for an individual, a religious life could lead to an objective moral base that never changes, the organization that they're with, has subjective morals, and thus the individual is responsible for choosing their morals within the religion, which many religions can support nowadays, with multiple sects, all with their own moral code to follow that's often separate from the others.
Hmmm I guess you can say that your Father in heaven (who is looking at you this second) has subjective views because His set of right and wrongs are subjective to Him. Unfortunately though, He is the True God of the universe and He never changes. Abusing / taking his Word out of context and tricking foolish people for your own gain (in war, in indulgences etc etc etc etc) does not change God. All it does it make your judgement day a little bit more painful. God has not changed and will not. His mandate for us to Love Him, to Love each other and to look after and enjoy our time on the earth He has provided us, has not changed over time.
So all the crusaders and inquisitors are burning in hell right now? All the people who fought in wars? Because if they aren't, and they're in paradise, then killing and torture is fine, which according to the new testament, isn't supposed to be part of the christian morality. You're supposed to love your enemy like a friend. Turn the other cheek when you are wronged. Christians are supposed to be, according to the texts that they say they follow, pacifists. Which either means god changes his morals, or humans change religious morals. In either case, religion is a subjective moral system.
On May 11 2011 20:32 XeliN wrote: I'm skeptical when people use things such as "I personally feel" or "I believe" as a justification for the existence of something.
That would be my criticism of the above two posts -*apart from the one right above who posted while i was typing like some kind of ninja *- . Believing in something doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true.
Truth doesn't equal facts. In cases of something like morality, what is true is what one believes, there's no line separating the two.
Would you argue that there is an absolute morality that is right and wrong and people who express their morality as though it were a belief are somehow incorrect?
The bolded part completely defeats your own argument, surely? If an individual's beliefs affect his morals, then they can (and history has proven will) be different to the morals of another individual, ergo, they are subjective.
I don't see how any non-religious person can argue for objective morals, and the only way a religious person can make that argument is the same way they make every argument: "God said so."
They are not subjective just because someone else believes something different. This seems to be the main argument that moral is subjective.
If i say the earth is round, and you say the earth is flat. Is the shape of the earth subjective? No. There is still a right and a wrong.
I'm not religious, and i still believe that moral is objective, although way too complicated for me to properly explain.
The earth is demonstrably round - it can and has been proven. Morals are social constructs and cannot be proven in any way. If i say stealing is right, you can't prove that i'm wrong, you can simply say that the majority is on your side.
On May 11 2011 20:32 XeliN wrote: I'm skeptical when people use things such as "I personally feel" or "I believe" as a justification for the existence of something.
That would be my criticism of the above two posts -*apart from the one right above who posted while i was typing like some kind of ninja *- . Believing in something doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true.
Truth doesn't equal facts. In cases of something like morality, what is true is what one believes, there's no line separating the two.
Would you argue that there is an absolute morality that is right and wrong and people who express their morality as though it were a belief are somehow incorrect?
The bolded part completely defeats your own argument, surely? If an individual's beliefs affect his morals, then they can (and history has proven will) be different to the morals of another individual, ergo, they are subjective.
I don't see how any non-religious person can argue for objective morals, and the only way a religious person can make that argument is the same way they make every argument: "God said so."
They are not subjective just because someone else believes something different. This seems to be the main argument that moral is subjective.
If i say the earth is round, and you say the earth is flat. Is the shape of the earth subjective? No. There is still a right and a wrong.
I'm not religious, and i still believe that moral is objective, although way too complicated for me to properly explain.
If you read the post Zechs was referring to you would understand his point better, it's the same one I made. He was not saying that because people believe different things Therefore morality is subjective.
He was responding to someone who was arguing for objective morality, and yet contradicted this notion by saying truth, for something such as morality, is based on individual belief.
On May 11 2011 20:32 XeliN wrote: I'm skeptical when people use things such as "I personally feel" or "I believe" as a justification for the existence of something.
That would be my criticism of the above two posts -*apart from the one right above who posted while i was typing like some kind of ninja *- . Believing in something doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true.
Truth doesn't equal facts. In cases of something like morality, what is true is what one believes, there's no line separating the two.
Would you argue that there is an absolute morality that is right and wrong and people who express their morality as though it were a belief are somehow incorrect?
The bolded part completely defeats your own argument, surely? If an individual's beliefs affect his morals, then they can (and history has proven will) be different to the morals of another individual, ergo, they are subjective.
I don't see how any non-religious person can argue for objective morals, and the only way a religious person can make that argument is the same way they make every argument: "God said so."
Read my long-winded post, I believe I refute your "God said so" claim, as well as defending the ability of a non-religious person to argue for objective morals. The interpretation of morals does not change what the morals actually are.
Your example of the thief doesn't really help. In the thief's moral code, what if he genuinely believes that it's okay to steal? (for what it's worth, i think most thieves know what they're doing is wrong but their selfish need/want outweighs their guilt, but lets assume that isn't the case for this example). Who is to say that his moral is wrong and that the 'stealing is bad' moral that 99% of us hold is correct? Again, even this truth that appears to be absolute is not actually so. The only person who could possibly decide an absolute moral does not exist.
Morality does not bend to beliefs. It does not matter how okay the thief believed his own actions to be, they still caused harm and therefore the action of stealing was immoral. Was it the most convenient option for their own survival? Possibly, but that does not mean it was the only option and certainly does not mean it was right. Also realize I used "personal moral code" loosely, because it doesn't exist...it is only a perception. The truth is the greater moral code derived by reason (do "good", whatever "good" is)
On May 11 2011 21:00 XeliN wrote: I prefer to critique others without having to commit myself to stating and defending my own beliefs
But as you've asked I think there is no such thing as "inherently good" or vice versa. Say quite a horrific example of a grown man raping torturing and murdering a small child. He does not break some objective moral law or contravene some universally existing standard for our actions.
The only form of morality we have is fluid, there is no logical criteria by which we can say, This form of morality is 'better' because to do so presupposes what better is.
I think my "belief" - although in the same way atheists often prefer, i would consider it more aptly described as a lack of belief in objective morality - is called Moral Nihilism.
Eh, that's kinda what I was getting at.
Here, you present a case like that of a serial pedophile rapist/murderer. To you, my view that that person has committed a crime against the fabric of sapience seems subjective. To me, the law of the fabric of the preservation and wellness of sapient life that such a person committed a crime against is absolute regardless of subjective feelings or even capacity for observation.
Just like the true nature of black holes is somewhat absolute regardless of our subjective feelings or capacity for observation.
Therein lies the weird language or philosophy barrier I mentioned before. In this case, the very subjectivity or objectivity of the subject matter has its own subjectivity applied to it. It's doomed to always be in a state of cyclicle repetition.
On May 11 2011 20:32 XeliN wrote: I'm skeptical when people use things such as "I personally feel" or "I believe" as a justification for the existence of something.
That would be my criticism of the above two posts -*apart from the one right above who posted while i was typing like some kind of ninja *- . Believing in something doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true.
Truth doesn't equal facts. In cases of something like morality, what is true is what one believes, there's no line separating the two.
Would you argue that there is an absolute morality that is right and wrong and people who express their morality as though it were a belief are somehow incorrect?
The bolded part completely defeats your own argument, surely? If an individual's beliefs affect his morals, then they can (and history has proven will) be different to the morals of another individual, ergo, they are subjective.
I don't see how any non-religious person can argue for objective morals, and the only way a religious person can make that argument is the same way they make every argument: "God said so."
Read my long-winded post, I believe I refute your "God said so" claim, as well as defending the ability of a non-religious person to argue for objective morals. The interpretation of morals does not change what the morals actually are.
Your example of the thief doesn't really help. In the thief's moral code, what if he genuinely believes that it's okay to steal? (for what it's worth, i think most thieves know what they're doing is wrong but their selfish need/want outweighs their guilt, but lets assume that isn't the case for this example). Who is to say that his moral is wrong and that the 'stealing is bad' moral that 99% of us hold is correct? Again, even this truth that appears to be absolute is not actually so. The only person who could possibly decide an absolute moral does not exist.
Morality does not bend to beliefs. It does not matter how okay the thief believed his own actions to be, they still caused harm and therefore the action of stealing was immoral. Was it the most convenient option for their own survival? Possibly, but that does not mean it was the only option and certainly does not mean it was right. Also realize I used "personal moral code" loosely, because it doesn't exist...it is only a perception. The truth is the greater moral code derived by reason (do "good", whatever "good" is)
More in reference to your earlier post, but I think you are going about this the wrong way. Instead of assuming there must be an existing moral law that defines good and bad, right and wrong, and, whilst believing this, cannot yet fully explain, argue or understand it. Instead don't ever assume something to be true unless you can prove to a reasonable degree of certainty that it is so.
On May 11 2011 20:54 Deadlyfish wrote: They are not subjective just because someone else believes something different. This seems to be the main argument that moral is subjective.
If i say the earth is round, and you say the earth is flat. Is the shape of the earth subjective? No. There is still a right and a wrong.
I'm not religious, and i still believe that moral is objective, although way too complicated for me to properly explain.
Bad analogy, we're only talking about morals here, not something in a physical sense. It's like saying "I'm taller than you" when cleary I am shorter than you by at least a foot. I would be wrong.
Morals have no physical attribute itself, only actions that are derived from them.
On May 11 2011 20:32 XeliN wrote: I'm skeptical when people use things such as "I personally feel" or "I believe" as a justification for the existence of something.
That would be my criticism of the above two posts -*apart from the one right above who posted while i was typing like some kind of ninja *- . Believing in something doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true.
Truth doesn't equal facts. In cases of something like morality, what is true is what one believes, there's no line separating the two.
Would you argue that there is an absolute morality that is right and wrong and people who express their morality as though it were a belief are somehow incorrect?
The bolded part completely defeats your own argument, surely? If an individual's beliefs affect his morals, then they can (and history has proven will) be different to the morals of another individual, ergo, they are subjective.
I don't see how any non-religious person can argue for objective morals, and the only way a religious person can make that argument is the same way they make every argument: "God said so."
Read my long-winded post, I believe I refute your "God said so" claim, as well as defending the ability of a non-religious person to argue for objective morals. The interpretation of morals does not change what the morals actually are.
Your example of the thief doesn't really help. In the thief's moral code, what if he genuinely believes that it's okay to steal? (for what it's worth, i think most thieves know what they're doing is wrong but their selfish need/want outweighs their guilt, but lets assume that isn't the case for this example). Who is to say that his moral is wrong and that the 'stealing is bad' moral that 99% of us hold is correct? Again, even this truth that appears to be absolute is not actually so. The only person who could possibly decide an absolute moral does not exist.
Morality does not bend to beliefs. It does not matter how okay the thief believed his own actions to be, they still caused harm and therefore the action of stealing was immoral. Was it the most convenient option for their own survival? Possibly, but that does not mean it was the only option and certainly does not mean it was right. Also realize I used "personal moral code" loosely, because it doesn't exist...it is only a perception. The truth is the greater moral code derived by reason (do "good", whatever "good" is)
That's a nice, romantic notion, but where does this absolute moral code come from? Again, if it is 'common sense' or 'reason', that doesn't help the argument either; people reason differently. If an absolute moral code existed, why would anyone break it? Surely we would live in a eutopia where nobody needed to harm anyone else. The thief wouldn't need to steal in the first place. The only immoral people would be ones with birth defects because everyone else has the same in-built morals, no? And yet there are perfectly sane, functional people who perform immoral acts.
Actually, that last sentence is a whole other can of worms...
Another misconception is that just because a lot of people agree or have the same view to something, that doesn't necessarily make it objective. Just because everyone thinks Mr.Beans is ugly or Megan Fox is hot (i know i know) do not make these statements objective, you can only say that everyone's opinion on them agrees subjectively.
Objectivity always has a base of a sort, or something to fall back on, to deem its objectivity. The statement of "Killing is illegal" is an objective statement because by law, it is stated just as that. No one can come up and argue that this statement is false regardless of how much they not agree with this law. However, the statement "Killing is wrong" is a subjective statement, because one can always argue for this clause. For example, if I must throw a bomb into a room of five people in order to save one of my loved person, I would.
The fact that one can argue whether this is moral or immoral simply proves that morality is subjective. However, no one can argue that what I did is illegal, which is an objective matter.
On May 11 2011 20:32 XeliN wrote: I'm skeptical when people use things such as "I personally feel" or "I believe" as a justification for the existence of something.
That would be my criticism of the above two posts -*apart from the one right above who posted while i was typing like some kind of ninja *- . Believing in something doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true.
Truth doesn't equal facts. In cases of something like morality, what is true is what one believes, there's no line separating the two.
Would you argue that there is an absolute morality that is right and wrong and people who express their morality as though it were a belief are somehow incorrect?
The bolded part completely defeats your own argument, surely? If an individual's beliefs affect his morals, then they can (and history has proven will) be different to the morals of another individual, ergo, they are subjective.
I don't see how any non-religious person can argue for objective morals, and the only way a religious person can make that argument is the same way they make every argument: "God said so."
They are not subjective just because someone else believes something different. This seems to be the main argument that moral is subjective.
If i say the earth is round, and you say the earth is flat. Is the shape of the earth subjective? No. There is still a right and a wrong.
I'm not religious, and i still believe that moral is objective, although way too complicated for me to properly explain.
The earth is demonstrably round - it can and has been proven. Morals are social constructs and cannot be proven in any way. If i say stealing is right, you can't prove that i'm wrong, you can simply say that the majority is on your side.
It doesnt matter if i can be proven or not, there is still an answer. I dont know what the right or wrong answer is, but i know there is one.
I get your argument, but you cant prove anything 100%.
If i say god exists, you cant prove that i'm wrong, you can simply say the majority is on your side. But this doesnt matter. Either god exists or he doesnt. It is therefore objective. (if this wasnt the case then everything in the world would be subjective, no?)
Idk, maybe i'm just being stupid. Always hated philosophy - we can never actually prove anything, which is annoying.
Edit: It all depends on how you define morality. And by that i mean the answer depends on it, not whether it is objective or subjective.
C.S. Lewis does an excellent job of explaining the fundamental objective relationship between what we call reality and morality.
These then are the two points that I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in. (Lewis 1952, p. 21)
Lewis also portrays Universal Morality in his works of fiction. In The Chronicles of Narnia he describes Universal Morality as the "Deep magic" which everyone knew. (Lindskoog 2001b, p. 146)
In the second chapter of Mere Christianity Lewis recognizes that "many people find it difficult to understand what this Law of Human Nature [...] is". And he responds first to the idea "that the Moral Law is simply our herd instinct" and second to the idea "that the Moral Law is simply a social convention". In responding to the second idea Lewis notes that people often complain that one set of moral ideas is better than another, but that this actually argues for there existing some "Real Morality" to which they are comparing other moralities. Finally he notes that sometimes differences in moral codes are exaggerated by people who confuse differences in beliefs about morality with differences in beliefs about facts:
I have met people who exaggerate the differences, because they have not distinguished between differences of morality and differences of belief about facts. For example, one man said to me, "Three hundred years ago people in England were putting witches to death. Was that what you call the Rule of Human Nature or Right Conduct?" But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did — if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbors or drive them mad or bring bad weather, surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did. There is no difference of moral principle here: the difference is simply about matter of fact. It may be a great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches: there is no moral advance in not executing them when you do not think they are there. You would not call a man humane for ceasing to set mousetraps if he did so because he believed there were no mice in the house. (Lewis 1952, p. 26)
To call morality subjective is to misunderstand and misrepresent its nature on a very fundamental level, often with potentially terrible consequences for both the individual and those the individual interacts with, directly or indirectly. Arguing that morality is subjective, then, shows a very fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of objective reality and our subjective view of that objective reality. Although our perceptions of morality are never perfect, its firmly rooted in the former (reality, as opposed to our perception).
On May 11 2011 20:32 XeliN wrote: I'm skeptical when people use things such as "I personally feel" or "I believe" as a justification for the existence of something.
That would be my criticism of the above two posts -*apart from the one right above who posted while i was typing like some kind of ninja *- . Believing in something doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true.
Truth doesn't equal facts. In cases of something like morality, what is true is what one believes, there's no line separating the two.
Would you argue that there is an absolute morality that is right and wrong and people who express their morality as though it were a belief are somehow incorrect?
The bolded part completely defeats your own argument, surely? If an individual's beliefs affect his morals, then they can (and history has proven will) be different to the morals of another individual, ergo, they are subjective.
I don't see how any non-religious person can argue for objective morals, and the only way a religious person can make that argument is the same way they make every argument: "God said so."
Read my long-winded post, I believe I refute your "God said so" claim, as well as defending the ability of a non-religious person to argue for objective morals. The interpretation of morals does not change what the morals actually are.
Your example of the thief doesn't really help. In the thief's moral code, what if he genuinely believes that it's okay to steal? (for what it's worth, i think most thieves know what they're doing is wrong but their selfish need/want outweighs their guilt, but lets assume that isn't the case for this example). Who is to say that his moral is wrong and that the 'stealing is bad' moral that 99% of us hold is correct? Again, even this truth that appears to be absolute is not actually so. The only person who could possibly decide an absolute moral does not exist.
Morality does not bend to beliefs. It does not matter how okay the thief believed his own actions to be, they still caused harm and therefore the action of stealing was immoral. Was it the most convenient option for their own survival? Possibly, but that does not mean it was the only option and certainly does not mean it was right. Also realize I used "personal moral code" loosely, because it doesn't exist...it is only a perception. The truth is the greater moral code derived by reason (do "good", whatever "good" is)
That's a nice, romantic notion, but where does this absolute moral code come from? Again, if it is 'common sense' or 'reason', that doesn't help the argument either; people reason differently. If an absolute moral code existed, why would anyone break it? Surely we would live in a eutopia where nobody needed to harm anyone else. The thief wouldn't need to steal in the first place. The only immoral people would be ones with birth defects because everyone else has the same in-built morals, no? And yet there are perfectly sane, functional people who perform immoral acts.
Actually, that last sentence is a whole other can of worms...
I would define such an absolute moral code like what I'm championing (ie the fabric of sapient existence) to be more of a codified set of laws by which a sapient race must adhere to evolve into a state of universal understanding and would be the stepping off point in whether or not such a race would extinguish itself or go extinct.
Surely, a race that preys on its own children is doomed to ultimate failure. A race that preys on itself, that commits to the 'survival of the fittest' mindset, that gives itself over to its animalistic tendencies, will likely crumble under its own weight. Even with our technological advances cruising along as they have, our growth as a species is stunted by are lack of a capacity to recognize the greater necessities of sapient life extending beyond its animalism for the sake of self preservation as a collective entity. For every two steps we make forward as a race, we're taking one step back.
As it is, we're not going to last another five thousand years, IMO.
On May 11 2011 20:32 XeliN wrote: I'm skeptical when people use things such as "I personally feel" or "I believe" as a justification for the existence of something.
That would be my criticism of the above two posts -*apart from the one right above who posted while i was typing like some kind of ninja *- . Believing in something doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true.
Truth doesn't equal facts. In cases of something like morality, what is true is what one believes, there's no line separating the two.
Would you argue that there is an absolute morality that is right and wrong and people who express their morality as though it were a belief are somehow incorrect?
The bolded part completely defeats your own argument, surely? If an individual's beliefs affect his morals, then they can (and history has proven will) be different to the morals of another individual, ergo, they are subjective.
I don't see how any non-religious person can argue for objective morals, and the only way a religious person can make that argument is the same way they make every argument: "God said so."
Read my long-winded post, I believe I refute your "God said so" claim, as well as defending the ability of a non-religious person to argue for objective morals. The interpretation of morals does not change what the morals actually are.
Your example of the thief doesn't really help. In the thief's moral code, what if he genuinely believes that it's okay to steal? (for what it's worth, i think most thieves know what they're doing is wrong but their selfish need/want outweighs their guilt, but lets assume that isn't the case for this example). Who is to say that his moral is wrong and that the 'stealing is bad' moral that 99% of us hold is correct? Again, even this truth that appears to be absolute is not actually so. The only person who could possibly decide an absolute moral does not exist.
Morality does not bend to beliefs. It does not matter how okay the thief believed his own actions to be, they still caused harm and therefore the action of stealing was immoral. Was it the most convenient option for their own survival? Possibly, but that does not mean it was the only option and certainly does not mean it was right. Also realize I used "personal moral code" loosely, because it doesn't exist...it is only a perception. The truth is the greater moral code derived by reason (do "good", whatever "good" is)
More in reference to your earlier post, but I think you are going about this the wrong way. Instead of assuming there must be an existing moral law that defines good and bad, right and wrong, and, whilst believing this, cannot yet fully explain, argue or understand it. Instead don't ever assume something to be true unless you can prove to a reasonable degree of certainty that it is so.
Ok, it is provable. The ability to measure an action's benefits is possible given a standard which I outlined in my seven points. Sure, that is undergoing refinement but is evidence of a possibility, and is already at a reasonable degree of certainty. No one going through a state of depression following the murder of a loved one will tell you they are better for it, I don't care if that loved one was Osama. It is a measurable factor which at this point just needs refinement. I posted to perhaps get some furtherment in that regard. My biggest mistake in that post is not asserting myself, but that isn't something I like doing, I'm not perfect.
The earth is demonstrably round - it can and has been proven. Morals are social constructs and cannot be proven in any way. If i say stealing is right, you can't prove that i'm wrong, you can simply say that the majority is on your side.
It doesnt matter if i can be proven or not, there is still an answer. I dont know what the right or wrong answer is, but i know there is one.
I get your argument, but you cant prove anything 100%.
If i say god exists, you cant prove that i'm wrong, you can simply say the majority is on your side. But this doesnt matter. Either god exists or he doesnt. It is therefore objective. (if this wasnt the case then everything in the world would be subjective, no?)
Idk, maybe i'm just being stupid. Always hated philosophy - we can never actually prove anything, which is annoying.
Edit: It all depends on how you define morality. And by that i mean the answer depends on it, not whether it is objective or subjective.
By your argument, everything and anything is objective.
On May 11 2011 21:00 XeliN wrote: I prefer to critique others without having to commit myself to stating and defending my own beliefs
But as you've asked I think there is no such thing as "inherently good" or vice versa. Say quite a horrific example of a grown man raping torturing and murdering a small child. He does not break some objective moral law or contravene some universally existing standard for our actions.
The only form of morality we have is fluid, there is no logical criteria by which we can say, This form of morality is 'better' because to do so presupposes what better is.
I think my "belief" - although in the same way atheists often prefer, i would consider it more aptly described as a lack of belief in objective morality - is called Moral Nihilism.
Eh, that's kinda what I was getting at.
Here, you present a case like that of a serial pedophile rapist/murderer. To you, my view that that person has committed a crime against the fabric of sapience seems subjective. To me, the law of the fabric of the preservation and wellness of sapient life that such a person committed a crime against is absolute regardless of subjective feelings or even capacity for observation.
Just like the true nature of black holes is somewhat absolute regardless of our subjective feelings or capacity for observation.
Therein lies the weird language or philosophy barrier I mentioned before. In this case, the very subjectivity or objectivity of the subject matter has its own subjectivity applied to it. It's doomed to always be in a state of cyclicle repetition.
Here you are arguing for the existence of some kind of law (I would assume in some kind of physical law governing our universe kind of sense) that dictates universally and objectively how we should act in regards to other sapient life.
Here is my problem with it, there is no means by which you can evidentially show this to be the case. Any other objective law of this universe can be experimentally tested and shown to be true, or proven false. The kind of law you are suggesting requires you to assume it is true in order for it to hold any meaning. You have to belief it is true, on a faith based basis.
What If I came in here now and argued for the Destruction and Desecration of rational beings Law.
Whenever someone does not respect the absolute nature of this law, which dictates we must in every instance cause the maximal suffering possible to any rational being, they commit a crime against this moral law.
Now I have just invented this, it doesn't exist, or I cannot show in any verifiable way that it does, and if I were to suggest now that this doesn't matter for something like morality because I believe in it, and it is binding and absolute. I suspect you would not take me seriously.
To me currently I see what you have suggested in the same way, the only difference is you have argued for something that seems nicer.
The earth is demonstrably round - it can and has been proven. Morals are social constructs and cannot be proven in any way. If i say stealing is right, you can't prove that i'm wrong, you can simply say that the majority is on your side.
It doesnt matter if i can be proven or not, there is still an answer. I dont know what the right or wrong answer is, but i know there is one.
I get your argument, but you cant prove anything 100%.
If i say god exists, you cant prove that i'm wrong, you can simply say the majority is on your side. But this doesnt matter. Either god exists or he doesnt. It is therefore objective. (if this wasnt the case then everything in the world would be subjective, no?)
Idk, maybe i'm just being stupid. Always hated philosophy - we can never actually prove anything, which is annoying.
Edit: It all depends on how you define morality. And by that i mean the answer depends on it, not whether it is objective or subjective.
By your argument, everything and anything is objective.
Yes, if your definition is clear. And by that i mean like if you say "this is beautiful" and "beautiful" is a clear definition then it is objective. Hope i make at least a little sense :S
On May 11 2011 21:00 XeliN wrote: I prefer to critique others without having to commit myself to stating and defending my own beliefs
But as you've asked I think there is no such thing as "inherently good" or vice versa. Say quite a horrific example of a grown man raping torturing and murdering a small child. He does not break some objective moral law or contravene some universally existing standard for our actions.
The only form of morality we have is fluid, there is no logical criteria by which we can say, This form of morality is 'better' because to do so presupposes what better is.
I think my "belief" - although in the same way atheists often prefer, i would consider it more aptly described as a lack of belief in objective morality - is called Moral Nihilism.
Eh, that's kinda what I was getting at.
Here, you present a case like that of a serial pedophile rapist/murderer. To you, my view that that person has committed a crime against the fabric of sapience seems subjective. To me, the law of the fabric of the preservation and wellness of sapient life that such a person committed a crime against is absolute regardless of subjective feelings or even capacity for observation.
Just like the true nature of black holes is somewhat absolute regardless of our subjective feelings or capacity for observation.
Therein lies the weird language or philosophy barrier I mentioned before. In this case, the very subjectivity or objectivity of the subject matter has its own subjectivity applied to it. It's doomed to always be in a state of cyclicle repetition.
Here you are arguing for the existence of some kind of law (I would assume in some kind of physical law governing our universe kind of sense) that dictates universally and objectively how we should act in regards to other sapient life.
Here is my problem with it, there is no means by which you can evidentially show this to be the case. Any other objective law of this universe can be experimentally tested and shown to be true, or proven false. The kind of law you are suggesting requires you to assume it is true in order for it to hold any meaning. You have to belief it is true, on a faith based basis.
What If I came in here now and argued for the Destruction and Desecration of rational beings Law.
Whenever someone does not respect the absolute nature of this law, which dictates we must in every instance cause the maximal suffering possible to any rational being, they commit a crime against this moral law.
Now I have just invented this, it doesn't exist, or I cannot show in any verifiable way that it does, and if I were to suggest now that this doesn't matter for something like morality because I believe in it, and it is binding and absolute. I suspect you would not take me seriously.
To me currently I see what you have suggested in the same way, the only difference is you have argued for something that seems nicer.
I'm not using 'law' above in a scientific sense, but rather a sort of all encompassing legal one. I know I compared it to a black hole, but that was a flaw in my explanation more than anything.
Here in the USA where I'm from, it's against the law to commit premeditated murder, regardless of whether or not it was the situationally ethical thing to do. Those laws aren't really morals. They're not really ethics, either, they're laws. They were written by the judicial branch of a governing body to explain and enform a way to express and support what we consider basic human rights.
But any law is really just a sort of enforced guideline, and such laws don't really exist outside of the system's capacity for enforcing it.
Going back to my 'law of niceness' or your 'law of dickishness' (not calling you a dick here, but the law you invented :p) these laws don't exist because they weren't emplaced by a governing body of any type, and are incapable of being enforced. But, personally I think my 'law of sapience' is something of a milestone for any society's growth, that once it can enact the law as a way of life without it needing to be written or enforced, a moral evolution will have occurred. Subsequently, I think that evolution would be the necessary ingredient of a society not destroying itself, which I believe many have.
On May 11 2011 16:24 jeeneeus wrote: I'm too lazy to quote the other guy who basically said the same thing, but how about something like rape? As far as I know there's no society that thinks rape is socially acceptable, but in an evolutionary standpoint, it's creating more babies, and is therefore a good thing. Also, I like how you go on to mention something that I already mentioned. It's nice to know that people don't like to read entire posts, but finds the one thing they disagree with, and then go on to write about it. Also, how about guilt? Some people won't commit a crime even if they don't get caught, because they would feel guilty about it. Although I guess you could say that guilt is something that is taught by society. I think I remember learning in psychology that empathy is naturally developed in children. Also if guilt was taught by society, does that mean sociopaths/psychopaths were just taught poorly? That there is nothing wrong with these people per se, but that they just weren't raised properly?
First and foremost : what exactly makes it unacceptable in a discussion to talk about something more in depth when someone has mentioned it before? Or even stating the same thing again? I'm not even sure what exactly it is that I "took away" from you. But discussing with people like you...well, reminds me of this one pic in the funny pictures thread. even if I win....
secondly, about rape: It is a valid reproductive strategy yes, but not within a community. The whole community is built on the idea that everyone works together and, to an extent, trusts each other. That is especially true for smaller societies, maybe a village. If you go around and smack people in your village on the head just for the fun of it, you are not a productive or valued member of the community and thats that. Pretty much ditto with rape. As for interaction between communities, I would very much argue that rape has been absolutely acceptable in the past. You think Roman soldiers cared whether one of them raped a slave now and then? Or a Husband raping his unwillig wife? Rape is not acceptable in MODERN DAY SOCIETIES. But that is not the result of an objective morality. If you can call it morality at all, it's a morality we have agreed on, and that is by definition subjective.
Guilt, you said it yourself, is a creation of society. You are taught that certain things are wrong, or learn instinctively from your family. As for the bit about sociopaths, I don't really know what you are making an argument for here, but I believe that yes, some were not raised properly. And some just have an innate disorder. Or a combination thereof.
Subject is way too vast, deep, and difficult to be discussed on a forum without saying stupidities. However, here is a couple of books you may be interested by:
Immanuel Kant, Critic of the Practical Reason: An attempt to create an objective and universal moral, disconnected from any cultural / religious contingency. Kantian moral is designed to be applied anywhere, at any time, in any circumstances.
Friedrich Nietzsche, A Genealogy of Moral: A radical critic of moral in general, maybe the most incisive ever written.
I am happier with Nietzsche than with Kant, so if I had to give my opinion, whatever that means, on the subject, I would just recommend people to read it. One of the most important books ever written in my opinion.
Im going to suggest that this is a false dichotomy, why can't morality be both?
Morality is clearly subjective, what it is to be good in one culture varies from another, as does what it is to be bad. However, that doesn't mean that there is no objectivity to the matter.
While it is true that what it is to be good or bad varies, we can also see that there are certain concepts and values that are held by everyone to be good, and certain ones that are bad. For example, bravery is always applauded. What people define as cowardice, recklessness and bravery vary, but they all think that bravery is good.
This applies to other traits as well, and is known as Virtue ethics. The central view behind virtue ethics being, that although what counts as virtuous can vary between culture and place, the virtues themselves are always good.
Lets take an example, belching, is it good or bad? Well in some cultures, it is polite to belch at a meal, and in others it is rude. So morality is subjective right? wrong, although belching has an indeterminate moral status, in both cultures it is good to be polite, and bad to be rude. A good person appreciates that what is "polite" "friendly" "generous" varies from place to place, but they appreciate that the concepts themselves are still intrinsically good wherever they are
On May 11 2011 20:32 XeliN wrote: I'm skeptical when people use things such as "I personally feel" or "I believe" as a justification for the existence of something.
That would be my criticism of the above two posts -*apart from the one right above who posted while i was typing like some kind of ninja *- . Believing in something doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true.
Truth doesn't equal facts. In cases of something like morality, what is true is what one believes, there's no line separating the two.
Would you argue that there is an absolute morality that is right and wrong and people who express their morality as though it were a belief are somehow incorrect?
The bolded part completely defeats your own argument, surely? If an individual's beliefs affect his morals, then they can (and history has proven will) be different to the morals of another individual, ergo, they are subjective.
I don't see how any non-religious person can argue for objective morals, and the only way a religious person can make that argument is the same way they make every argument: "God said so."
Read my long-winded post, I believe I refute your "God said so" claim, as well as defending the ability of a non-religious person to argue for objective morals. The interpretation of morals does not change what the morals actually are.
Your example of the thief doesn't really help. In the thief's moral code, what if he genuinely believes that it's okay to steal? (for what it's worth, i think most thieves know what they're doing is wrong but their selfish need/want outweighs their guilt, but lets assume that isn't the case for this example). Who is to say that his moral is wrong and that the 'stealing is bad' moral that 99% of us hold is correct? Again, even this truth that appears to be absolute is not actually so. The only person who could possibly decide an absolute moral does not exist.
Morality does not bend to beliefs. It does not matter how okay the thief believed his own actions to be, they still caused harm and therefore the action of stealing was immoral. Was it the most convenient option for their own survival? Possibly, but that does not mean it was the only option and certainly does not mean it was right. Also realize I used "personal moral code" loosely, because it doesn't exist...it is only a perception. The truth is the greater moral code derived by reason (do "good", whatever "good" is)
More in reference to your earlier post, but I think you are going about this the wrong way. Instead of assuming there must be an existing moral law that defines good and bad, right and wrong, and, whilst believing this, cannot yet fully explain, argue or understand it. Instead don't ever assume something to be true unless you can prove to a reasonable degree of certainty that it is so.
Ok, it is provable. The ability to measure an action's benefits is possible given a standard which I outlined in my seven points. Sure, that is undergoing refinement but is evidence of a possibility, and is already at a reasonable degree of certainty. No one going through a state of depression following the murder of a loved one will tell you they are better for it, I don't care if that loved one was Osama. It is a measurable factor which at this point just needs refinement. I posted to perhaps get some furtherment in that regard. My biggest mistake in that post is not asserting myself, but that isn't something I like doing, I'm not perfect.
I think I understand you better now, it was my fault for not truly understanding your point, but as I see it.
1) Individual: How does it affect me/the individual 2) Social: How does it affect those around me? 3) Local: How does it affect my immediate surroundings? 4) Universal: How does this affect the grand scheme of things? 5) Physical: How does it affect health/possessions/etc 6) Emotional: How does it affect feelings/psychology/etc 7) Spiritual: How does it relate to the morals set forth by my religion (even atheistic views fall under this)
These ^^ are, at least in theory, objectively measureable. For a comparison we may not yet be able to measure with certainty the ammount of birds in flight at one one second on this planet. But, nonetheless, the answer is a theorectically measurable one to a degree of 100% certainty.
From there Objective Morality is based around these 7 aspects of our lives and the Objective Moral Law is based upon this, and once we can measure and compare these differing aspects with greater capacity or acuracy, we will be closer and closer to fully grasping and applying the Objective Morality that they entail.
(I'm taking alot of assumptions with this, you may not be arguing for this at all and if not I apologise)
The earth is demonstrably round - it can and has been proven. Morals are social constructs and cannot be proven in any way. If i say stealing is right, you can't prove that i'm wrong, you can simply say that the majority is on your side.
It doesnt matter if i can be proven or not, there is still an answer. I dont know what the right or wrong answer is, but i know there is one.
I get your argument, but you cant prove anything 100%.
If i say god exists, you cant prove that i'm wrong, you can simply say the majority is on your side. But this doesnt matter. Either god exists or he doesnt. It is therefore objective. (if this wasnt the case then everything in the world would be subjective, no?)
Idk, maybe i'm just being stupid. Always hated philosophy - we can never actually prove anything, which is annoying.
Edit: It all depends on how you define morality. And by that i mean the answer depends on it, not whether it is objective or subjective.
By your argument, everything and anything is objective.
Yes, if your definition is clear. And by that i mean like if you say "this is beautiful" and "beautiful" is a clear definition then it is objective. Hope i make at least a little sense :S
Which is wrong, simply due to the fact that there are things that you can not define so specifically that everyone would agree. Try it, try to give me a definition of beautiful. I can make the statement that "Brad Pitt is taller than Mr. Beans", and I can easily define "tall" to the point where no one would argue that statement. However, if you make the statement that "Brad Pitt is more handsome than Mr. Beans", I don't believe you can define the word handsome down to the point where no one would argue this statement.
On May 11 2011 21:28 Biff The Understudy wrote: Subject is way too vast to be discussed on a forum without saying stupidities. Here a couple of books you may be interested by:
Immanuel Kant, Critic of the Practical Reason: A attempt to create an objective and universal moral.
Friedrich Nietzsche, A Genealogy of Moral: A radical critic of moral in general, maybe the most incisive ever written.
I am happier with Nietzsche than with Kant, so if I had to give my opinion, whatever that means, on the subject, I would just recommend people to read it. One of the most important books ever written in my opinion.
Seems a bit biased, although i think utilitarianism is a poor theory, you should probably include something by Mill, and might I also recomend some Aristotle and Macintyre?
People don't need to have read these works, sometimes it fun to just go through the discussion, if you (i presume as a philosopher seeing as you've read Kant and Nietzche) find these discussions intollerable, then just leave people to the conversation and offer subtle suggestions. I thoroughly approve of this thread, and think that people should be having discussions like these more often
Again although im not too keen on him, as Mill says (to paraphrase), we should not let our beliefs become dead dogma's, we should constantly keep them alive through debate
On May 11 2011 20:32 XeliN wrote: I'm skeptical when people use things such as "I personally feel" or "I believe" as a justification for the existence of something.
That would be my criticism of the above two posts -*apart from the one right above who posted while i was typing like some kind of ninja *- . Believing in something doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true.
Truth doesn't equal facts. In cases of something like morality, what is true is what one believes, there's no line separating the two.
Would you argue that there is an absolute morality that is right and wrong and people who express their morality as though it were a belief are somehow incorrect?
The bolded part completely defeats your own argument, surely? If an individual's beliefs affect his morals, then they can (and history has proven will) be different to the morals of another individual, ergo, they are subjective.
I don't see how any non-religious person can argue for objective morals, and the only way a religious person can make that argument is the same way they make every argument: "God said so."
Read my long-winded post, I believe I refute your "God said so" claim, as well as defending the ability of a non-religious person to argue for objective morals. The interpretation of morals does not change what the morals actually are.
Your example of the thief doesn't really help. In the thief's moral code, what if he genuinely believes that it's okay to steal? (for what it's worth, i think most thieves know what they're doing is wrong but their selfish need/want outweighs their guilt, but lets assume that isn't the case for this example). Who is to say that his moral is wrong and that the 'stealing is bad' moral that 99% of us hold is correct? Again, even this truth that appears to be absolute is not actually so. The only person who could possibly decide an absolute moral does not exist.
Morality does not bend to beliefs. It does not matter how okay the thief believed his own actions to be, they still caused harm and therefore the action of stealing was immoral. Was it the most convenient option for their own survival? Possibly, but that does not mean it was the only option and certainly does not mean it was right. Also realize I used "personal moral code" loosely, because it doesn't exist...it is only a perception. The truth is the greater moral code derived by reason (do "good", whatever "good" is)
That's a nice, romantic notion, but where does this absolute moral code come from? Again, if it is 'common sense' or 'reason', that doesn't help the argument either; people reason differently. If an absolute moral code existed, why would anyone break it? Surely we would live in a eutopia where nobody needed to harm anyone else. The thief wouldn't need to steal in the first place. The only immoral people would be ones with birth defects because everyone else has the same in-built morals, no? And yet there are perfectly sane, functional people who perform immoral acts.
Actually, that last sentence is a whole other can of worms...
Speaking from the viewpoint I am familiar with, Christianity, there is an entity out there whose sole purpose is to distort mankind's perception of the moral code. His name is Lucifer. Interestingly enough this permitted two things, evil and free will. If we had this "eutopia" we could not have free-will, or if we did ever person would simply choose the moral course of action which defeats the purpose of free will.
I do believe this eutopia can, and does exist however, along with free-will. This is Heaven, but in order to get there and have free-will one must have experienced free-will as we know it on Earth such that upon entering Heaven they will know the consequences of their actions and desire only to make the moral decision. Entrance to Heaven is granted by a simple test, which I won't bother to explain here, but am sure you know what it is, most people in Western Society are aware. Having free-will is what sets humankind apart from the angels. Lucifer is evidence that free-will could not be handled in Heaven without first experiencing it here on Earth. We all take the fall and some of us ask for help back up.
Oh and Lucifer can and does walk through Heaven's gates (see Job for example), it is not a place only for the pure as some consider it. But I am wandering from the OP. Simply put, there is a reason why we don't all follow this perfect morality.
On May 11 2011 20:32 XeliN wrote: I'm skeptical when people use things such as "I personally feel" or "I believe" as a justification for the existence of something.
That would be my criticism of the above two posts -*apart from the one right above who posted while i was typing like some kind of ninja *- . Believing in something doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true.
Truth doesn't equal facts. In cases of something like morality, what is true is what one believes, there's no line separating the two.
Would you argue that there is an absolute morality that is right and wrong and people who express their morality as though it were a belief are somehow incorrect?
The bolded part completely defeats your own argument, surely? If an individual's beliefs affect his morals, then they can (and history has proven will) be different to the morals of another individual, ergo, they are subjective.
I don't see how any non-religious person can argue for objective morals, and the only way a religious person can make that argument is the same way they make every argument: "God said so."
Read my long-winded post, I believe I refute your "God said so" claim, as well as defending the ability of a non-religious person to argue for objective morals. The interpretation of morals does not change what the morals actually are.
Your example of the thief doesn't really help. In the thief's moral code, what if he genuinely believes that it's okay to steal? (for what it's worth, i think most thieves know what they're doing is wrong but their selfish need/want outweighs their guilt, but lets assume that isn't the case for this example). Who is to say that his moral is wrong and that the 'stealing is bad' moral that 99% of us hold is correct? Again, even this truth that appears to be absolute is not actually so. The only person who could possibly decide an absolute moral does not exist.
Morality does not bend to beliefs. It does not matter how okay the thief believed his own actions to be, they still caused harm and therefore the action of stealing was immoral. Was it the most convenient option for their own survival? Possibly, but that does not mean it was the only option and certainly does not mean it was right. Also realize I used "personal moral code" loosely, because it doesn't exist...it is only a perception. The truth is the greater moral code derived by reason (do "good", whatever "good" is)
That's a nice, romantic notion, but where does this absolute moral code come from? Again, if it is 'common sense' or 'reason', that doesn't help the argument either; people reason differently. If an absolute moral code existed, why would anyone break it? Surely we would live in a eutopia where nobody needed to harm anyone else. The thief wouldn't need to steal in the first place. The only immoral people would be ones with birth defects because everyone else has the same in-built morals, no? And yet there are perfectly sane, functional people who perform immoral acts.
Actually, that last sentence is a whole other can of worms...
I would define such an absolute moral code like what I'm championing (ie the fabric of sapient existence) to be more of a codified set of laws by which a sapient race must adhere to evolve into a state of universal understanding and would be the stepping off point in whether or not such a race would extinguish itself or go extinct.
Surely, a race that preys on its own children is doomed to ultimate failure. A race that preys on itself, that commits to the 'survival of the fittest' mindset, that gives itself over to its animalistic tendencies, will likely crumble under its own weight. Even with our technological advances cruising along as they have, our growth as a species is stunted by are lack of a capacity to recognize the greater necessities of sapient life extending beyond its animalism for the sake of self preservation as a collective entity. For every two steps we make forward as a race, we're taking one step back.
As it is, we're not going to last another five thousand years, IMO.
I feel like you're just trying to use 'morality' as another word for 'biological imperitive' or 'survival of the fittest' in that case. If that's true, then i agree with you to an extent. That explains why some 'morals' have maintained throughout the ages while others have disappeared or been invented. Killing your own is clearly bad for the species' survival and if this is what you mean by 'moral' then this is just a debate about linguistics and semantics.
The earth is demonstrably round - it can and has been proven. Morals are social constructs and cannot be proven in any way. If i say stealing is right, you can't prove that i'm wrong, you can simply say that the majority is on your side.
It doesnt matter if i can be proven or not, there is still an answer. I dont know what the right or wrong answer is, but i know there is one.
I get your argument, but you cant prove anything 100%.
If i say god exists, you cant prove that i'm wrong, you can simply say the majority is on your side. But this doesnt matter. Either god exists or he doesnt. It is therefore objective. (if this wasnt the case then everything in the world would be subjective, no?)
Idk, maybe i'm just being stupid. Always hated philosophy - we can never actually prove anything, which is annoying.
Edit: It all depends on how you define morality. And by that i mean the answer depends on it, not whether it is objective or subjective.
By your argument, everything and anything is objective.
Yes, if your definition is clear. And by that i mean like if you say "this is beautiful" and "beautiful" is a clear definition then it is objective. Hope i make at least a little sense :S
Which is wrong, simply due to the fact that there are things that you can not define so specifically that everyone would agree. Try it, try to give me a definition of beautiful. I can make the statement that Brad Pitt is taller than Mr. Beans, and I can easily define tall to the point where no one would argue that statement. However, if you make the statement that Brad Pitt is more handsome than Mr. Beans, I don't believe you can define the word handsome down to the point where no one would argue this statement.
I cant explain myself well enough, not too good at explaining this :S
There is always an answer. The question (or statement, whatever) may differ. If you define beautiful as one thing, but i define it as another then you're changing the question, but there will still be an answer.
If you give a clear definition of morality, which is needed. The most common one be something like "that which is good" or something like that. Then there IS an answer.
Ahhh this is too frustrating to try and explain. Possibly my logic is just terrible ^^
On May 11 2011 21:14 looknohands119 wrote: C.S. Lewis does an excellent job of explaining the fundamental objective relationship between what we call reality and morality.
These then are the two points that I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in. (Lewis 1952, p. 21)
Lewis also portrays Universal Morality in his works of fiction. In The Chronicles of Narnia he describes Universal Morality as the "Deep magic" which everyone knew. (Lindskoog 2001b, p. 146)
In the second chapter of Mere Christianity Lewis recognizes that "many people find it difficult to understand what this Law of Human Nature [...] is". And he responds first to the idea "that the Moral Law is simply our herd instinct" and second to the idea "that the Moral Law is simply a social convention". In responding to the second idea Lewis notes that people often complain that one set of moral ideas is better than another, but that this actually argues for there existing some "Real Morality" to which they are comparing other moralities. Finally he notes that sometimes differences in moral codes are exaggerated by people who confuse differences in beliefs about morality with differences in beliefs about facts:
I have met people who exaggerate the differences, because they have not distinguished between differences of morality and differences of belief about facts. For example, one man said to me, "Three hundred years ago people in England were putting witches to death. Was that what you call the Rule of Human Nature or Right Conduct?" But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did — if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbors or drive them mad or bring bad weather, surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did. There is no difference of moral principle here: the difference is simply about matter of fact. It may be a great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches: there is no moral advance in not executing them when you do not think they are there. You would not call a man humane for ceasing to set mousetraps if he did so because he believed there were no mice in the house. (Lewis 1952, p. 26)
To call morality subjective is to misunderstand and misrepresent its nature on a very fundamental level, often with potentially terrible consequences for both the individual and those the individual interacts with, directly or indirectly. Arguing that morality is subjective, then, shows a very fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of objective reality and our subjective view of that objective reality. Although our perceptions of morality are never perfect, its firmly rooted in the former (reality, as opposed to our perception).
It seems there is a lot of misguided discussion going on here which conflates reality with our perception of that reality. These are two separate but intertwined concepts and it is important, if this discussion is to continue, that you either make a distinction between the two or articulate a substantially warranted argument for why they are one in the same. Kant argues specifically that the very fact that we have the ability to perceive reality, regardless of how imperfect our perception might be, logically dictates that there must be some objective reality, which is the same regardless of the point of view the individual sees it from, that everyone is observing.
The conclusions about morality, the existence of god, and the fundamental nature of reality he draws from it are as follows:
The first formulation (Formula of Universal Law) of the moral imperative "requires that the maxims be chosen as though they should hold as universal laws of nature" (436). This formulation in principle has as its supreme law the creed "Always act according to that maxim whose universality as a law you can at the same time will" and is the "only condition under which a will can never come into conflict with itself [....]"
The prevailing interpretation of his first formulation is called the "universalizability test." An agent's maxim, according to Kant, is his "subjective principle of human actions": that is, what the agent believes is his reason to act. The universalisability test has five steps:
1. Find the agent's maxim (i.e., an action paired with its motivation). Take for example the declaration "I will lie for personal benefit." Lying is the action; the motivation is to fulfill some sort of desire. Paired together, they form the maxim. 2. Imagine a possible world in which everyone in a similar position to the real-world agent followed that maxim. With no exception of one's self. This is in order for you to hold people to the same principle, that is required of yourself. 3. Decide whether any contradictions or irrationalities arise in the possible world as a result of following the maxim. 4. If a contradiction or irrationality arises, acting on that maxim is not allowed in the real world. 5. If there is no contradiction, then acting on that maxim is permissible, and in some instances required.
(For a modern parallel, see John Rawls' hypothetical situation, the original position.)
The second formulation (or Formula of the End in Itself) holds that "the rational being, as by its nature an end and thus as an end in itself, must serve in every maxim as the condition restricting all merely relative and arbitrary ends." The principle dictates that you "[a]ct with reference to every rational being (whether yourself or another) so that it is an end in itself in your maxim", meaning that the rational being is "the basis of all maxims of action" and "must be treated never as a mere means but as the supreme limiting condition in the use of all means, i.e., as an end at the same time."
The third formulation (Formula of Autonomy) is a synthesis of the first two and is the basis for the "complete determination of all maxims". It says "that all maxims which stem from autonomous legislation ought to harmonize with a possible realm of ends as with a realm of nature." In principle, "So act as if your maxims should serve at the same time as the universal law (of all rational beings)", meaning that we should so act that we may think of ourselves as "a member in the universal realm of ends", legislating universal laws through our maxims (that is, a code of conduct), in a "possible realm of ends." (See also Kingdom of Ends) None may elevate themselves above the universal law, therefore it is one's duty to follow the maxim(s).
Kant stated the practical necessity for a belief in God in his Critique of Practical Reason. As an idea of pure reason, "we do not have the slightest ground to assume in an absolute manner... the object of this idea...", but adds that the idea of God cannot be separated from the relation of happiness with morality as the "ideal of the supreme good." The foundation of this connection is an intelligible moral world, and "is necessary from the practical point of view;" compare Voltaire: "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."In the Jäsche Logic (1800) he wrote "One cannot provide objective reality for any theoretical idea, or prove it, except for the idea of freedom, because this is the condition of the moral law, whose reality is an axiom. The reality of the idea of God can only be proved by means of this idea, and hence only with a practical purpose, i.e., to act as though (als ob) there is a God, and hence only for this purpose" (93, trans. J. Michael Young, Lectures on Logic, p. 590-91).
Along with this idea over reason and God, Kant places thought over religion and nature, i.e. the idea of religion being natural or naturalistic. Kant saw reason as natural, and as some part of Christianity is based on reason and morality, as Kant points out this is major in the scriptures, it is inevitable that Christianity is 'natural'. However, it is not 'naturalistic' in the sense that the religion does include supernatural or transcendent belief. Aside from this, a key point is that Kant saw that the Bible should be seen as a source of natural morality no matter whether there is/was any truth behind the supernatural factor, meaning that it is not necessary to know whether the supernatural part of Christianity has any truth to abide by and use the core Christian moral code.
Kant articulates in Book Four some of his strongest criticisms of the organization and practices of Christianity that encourage what he sees as a religion of counterfeit service to God. Among the major targets of his criticism are external ritual, superstition and a hierarchical church order. He sees all of these as efforts to make oneself pleasing to God in ways other than conscientious adherence to the principle of moral rightness in the choice of one's actions. The severity of Kant's criticisms on these matters, along with his rejection of the possibility of theoretical proofs for the existence of God and his philosophical re-interpretation of some basic Christian doctrines, have provided the basis for interpretations that see Kant as thoroughly hostile to religion in general and Christianity in particular (e.g., Walsh 1967).
Kant had exposure to Islam as well and reflected about the role of reason therein.
On May 11 2011 20:32 XeliN wrote: I'm skeptical when people use things such as "I personally feel" or "I believe" as a justification for the existence of something.
That would be my criticism of the above two posts -*apart from the one right above who posted while i was typing like some kind of ninja *- . Believing in something doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true.
Truth doesn't equal facts. In cases of something like morality, what is true is what one believes, there's no line separating the two.
Would you argue that there is an absolute morality that is right and wrong and people who express their morality as though it were a belief are somehow incorrect?
The bolded part completely defeats your own argument, surely? If an individual's beliefs affect his morals, then they can (and history has proven will) be different to the morals of another individual, ergo, they are subjective.
I don't see how any non-religious person can argue for objective morals, and the only way a religious person can make that argument is the same way they make every argument: "God said so."
Read my long-winded post, I believe I refute your "God said so" claim, as well as defending the ability of a non-religious person to argue for objective morals. The interpretation of morals does not change what the morals actually are.
Your example of the thief doesn't really help. In the thief's moral code, what if he genuinely believes that it's okay to steal? (for what it's worth, i think most thieves know what they're doing is wrong but their selfish need/want outweighs their guilt, but lets assume that isn't the case for this example). Who is to say that his moral is wrong and that the 'stealing is bad' moral that 99% of us hold is correct? Again, even this truth that appears to be absolute is not actually so. The only person who could possibly decide an absolute moral does not exist.
Morality does not bend to beliefs. It does not matter how okay the thief believed his own actions to be, they still caused harm and therefore the action of stealing was immoral. Was it the most convenient option for their own survival? Possibly, but that does not mean it was the only option and certainly does not mean it was right. Also realize I used "personal moral code" loosely, because it doesn't exist...it is only a perception. The truth is the greater moral code derived by reason (do "good", whatever "good" is)
More in reference to your earlier post, but I think you are going about this the wrong way. Instead of assuming there must be an existing moral law that defines good and bad, right and wrong, and, whilst believing this, cannot yet fully explain, argue or understand it. Instead don't ever assume something to be true unless you can prove to a reasonable degree of certainty that it is so.
Ok, it is provable. The ability to measure an action's benefits is possible given a standard which I outlined in my seven points. Sure, that is undergoing refinement but is evidence of a possibility, and is already at a reasonable degree of certainty. No one going through a state of depression following the murder of a loved one will tell you they are better for it, I don't care if that loved one was Osama. It is a measurable factor which at this point just needs refinement. I posted to perhaps get some furtherment in that regard. My biggest mistake in that post is not asserting myself, but that isn't something I like doing, I'm not perfect.
I think I understand you better now, it was my fault for not truly understanding your point, but as I see it.
1) Individual: How does it affect me/the individual 2) Social: How does it affect those around me? 3) Local: How does it affect my immediate surroundings? 4) Universal: How does this affect the grand scheme of things? 5) Physical: How does it affect health/possessions/etc 6) Emotional: How does it affect feelings/psychology/etc 7) Spiritual: How does it relate to the morals set forth by my religion (even atheistic views fall under this)
These ^^ are, at least in theory, objectively measureable. For a comparison we may not yet be able to measure with certainty the ammount of birds in flight at one one second on this planet. But, nonetheless, the answer is a theorectically measurable one to a degree of 100% certainty.
From there Objective Morality is based around these 7 aspects of our lives and the Objective Moral Law is based upon this, and once we can measure and compare these differing aspects with greater capacity or acuracy, we will be closer and closer to fully grasping and applying the Objective Morality that they entail.
(I'm taking alot of assumptions with this, you may not be arguing for this at all and if not I apologise)
You have caught on precisely to my point. I'm just a 22 year old biochemistry major, I don't have the answers exactly but they are there, we only need to explore the topic further. The more and more I look at it, though, the more I feel like Spiritual falls under Emotional for the purposes of my point, simply because in context it is a person's response to keeping or breaking with their religion's moral code. Thoughts?
On May 11 2011 21:14 looknohands119 wrote: C.S. Lewis does an excellent job of explaining the fundamental objective relationship between what we call reality and morality.
These then are the two points that I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in. (Lewis 1952, p. 21)
Lewis also portrays Universal Morality in his works of fiction. In The Chronicles of Narnia he describes Universal Morality as the "Deep magic" which everyone knew. (Lindskoog 2001b, p. 146)
In the second chapter of Mere Christianity Lewis recognizes that "many people find it difficult to understand what this Law of Human Nature [...] is". And he responds first to the idea "that the Moral Law is simply our herd instinct" and second to the idea "that the Moral Law is simply a social convention". In responding to the second idea Lewis notes that people often complain that one set of moral ideas is better than another, but that this actually argues for there existing some "Real Morality" to which they are comparing other moralities. Finally he notes that sometimes differences in moral codes are exaggerated by people who confuse differences in beliefs about morality with differences in beliefs about facts:
I have met people who exaggerate the differences, because they have not distinguished between differences of morality and differences of belief about facts. For example, one man said to me, "Three hundred years ago people in England were putting witches to death. Was that what you call the Rule of Human Nature or Right Conduct?" But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did — if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbors or drive them mad or bring bad weather, surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did. There is no difference of moral principle here: the difference is simply about matter of fact. It may be a great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches: there is no moral advance in not executing them when you do not think they are there. You would not call a man humane for ceasing to set mousetraps if he did so because he believed there were no mice in the house. (Lewis 1952, p. 26)
To call morality subjective is to misunderstand and misrepresent its nature on a very fundamental level, often with potentially terrible consequences for both the individual and those the individual interacts with, directly or indirectly. Arguing that morality is subjective, then, shows a very fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of objective reality and our subjective view of that objective reality. Although our perceptions of morality are never perfect, its firmly rooted in the former (reality, as opposed to our perception).
It seems there is a lot of misguided discussion going on here which conflates reality with our perception of that reality. These are two separate but intertwined concepts and it is important, if this discussion is to continue, that you either make a distinction between the two or articulate a substantially warranted argument for why they are one in the same. Kant argues specifically that the very fact that we have the ability to perceive reality, regardless of how imperfect our perception might be, logically dictates that there must be some objective reality, which is the same regardless of the point of view the individual sees it from, that everyone is observing.
The conclusions about morality, the existence of god, and the fundamental nature of reality he draws from it are as follows:
The first formulation (Formula of Universal Law) of the moral imperative "requires that the maxims be chosen as though they should hold as universal laws of nature" (436). This formulation in principle has as its supreme law the creed "Always act according to that maxim whose universality as a law you can at the same time will" and is the "only condition under which a will can never come into conflict with itself [....]"
The prevailing interpretation of his first formulation is called the "universalizability test." An agent's maxim, according to Kant, is his "subjective principle of human actions": that is, what the agent believes is his reason to act. The universalisability test has five steps:
1. Find the agent's maxim (i.e., an action paired with its motivation). Take for example the declaration "I will lie for personal benefit." Lying is the action; the motivation is to fulfill some sort of desire. Paired together, they form the maxim. 2. Imagine a possible world in which everyone in a similar position to the real-world agent followed that maxim. With no exception of one's self. This is in order for you to hold people to the same principle, that is required of yourself. 3. Decide whether any contradictions or irrationalities arise in the possible world as a result of following the maxim. 4. If a contradiction or irrationality arises, acting on that maxim is not allowed in the real world. 5. If there is no contradiction, then acting on that maxim is permissible, and in some instances required.
(For a modern parallel, see John Rawls' hypothetical situation, the original position.)
The second formulation (or Formula of the End in Itself) holds that "the rational being, as by its nature an end and thus as an end in itself, must serve in every maxim as the condition restricting all merely relative and arbitrary ends." The principle dictates that you "[a]ct with reference to every rational being (whether yourself or another) so that it is an end in itself in your maxim", meaning that the rational being is "the basis of all maxims of action" and "must be treated never as a mere means but as the supreme limiting condition in the use of all means, i.e., as an end at the same time."
The third formulation (Formula of Autonomy) is a synthesis of the first two and is the basis for the "complete determination of all maxims". It says "that all maxims which stem from autonomous legislation ought to harmonize with a possible realm of ends as with a realm of nature." In principle, "So act as if your maxims should serve at the same time as the universal law (of all rational beings)", meaning that we should so act that we may think of ourselves as "a member in the universal realm of ends", legislating universal laws through our maxims (that is, a code of conduct), in a "possible realm of ends." (See also Kingdom of Ends) None may elevate themselves above the universal law, therefore it is one's duty to follow the maxim(s).
Kant stated the practical necessity for a belief in God in his Critique of Practical Reason. As an idea of pure reason, "we do not have the slightest ground to assume in an absolute manner... the object of this idea...", but adds that the idea of God cannot be separated from the relation of happiness with morality as the "ideal of the supreme good." The foundation of this connection is an intelligible moral world, and "is necessary from the practical point of view;" compare Voltaire: "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."In the Jäsche Logic (1800) he wrote "One cannot provide objective reality for any theoretical idea, or prove it, except for the idea of freedom, because this is the condition of the moral law, whose reality is an axiom. The reality of the idea of God can only be proved by means of this idea, and hence only with a practical purpose, i.e., to act as though (als ob) there is a God, and hence only for this purpose" (93, trans. J. Michael Young, Lectures on Logic, p. 590-91).
Along with this idea over reason and God, Kant places thought over religion and nature, i.e. the idea of religion being natural or naturalistic. Kant saw reason as natural, and as some part of Christianity is based on reason and morality, as Kant points out this is major in the scriptures, it is inevitable that Christianity is 'natural'. However, it is not 'naturalistic' in the sense that the religion does include supernatural or transcendent belief. Aside from this, a key point is that Kant saw that the Bible should be seen as a source of natural morality no matter whether there is/was any truth behind the supernatural factor, meaning that it is not necessary to know whether the supernatural part of Christianity has any truth to abide by and use the core Christian moral code.
Kant articulates in Book Four some of his strongest criticisms of the organization and practices of Christianity that encourage what he sees as a religion of counterfeit service to God. Among the major targets of his criticism are external ritual, superstition and a hierarchical church order. He sees all of these as efforts to make oneself pleasing to God in ways other than conscientious adherence to the principle of moral rightness in the choice of one's actions. The severity of Kant's criticisms on these matters, along with his rejection of the possibility of theoretical proofs for the existence of God and his philosophical re-interpretation of some basic Christian doctrines, have provided the basis for interpretations that see Kant as thoroughly hostile to religion in general and Christianity in particular (e.g., Walsh 1967).
Kant had exposure to Islam as well and reflected about the role of reason therein.
Lol, it turned some of my citations into smileys......
On May 11 2011 20:32 XeliN wrote: I'm skeptical when people use things such as "I personally feel" or "I believe" as a justification for the existence of something.
That would be my criticism of the above two posts -*apart from the one right above who posted while i was typing like some kind of ninja *- . Believing in something doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true.
Truth doesn't equal facts. In cases of something like morality, what is true is what one believes, there's no line separating the two.
Would you argue that there is an absolute morality that is right and wrong and people who express their morality as though it were a belief are somehow incorrect?
The bolded part completely defeats your own argument, surely? If an individual's beliefs affect his morals, then they can (and history has proven will) be different to the morals of another individual, ergo, they are subjective.
I don't see how any non-religious person can argue for objective morals, and the only way a religious person can make that argument is the same way they make every argument: "God said so."
Read my long-winded post, I believe I refute your "God said so" claim, as well as defending the ability of a non-religious person to argue for objective morals. The interpretation of morals does not change what the morals actually are.
Your example of the thief doesn't really help. In the thief's moral code, what if he genuinely believes that it's okay to steal? (for what it's worth, i think most thieves know what they're doing is wrong but their selfish need/want outweighs their guilt, but lets assume that isn't the case for this example). Who is to say that his moral is wrong and that the 'stealing is bad' moral that 99% of us hold is correct? Again, even this truth that appears to be absolute is not actually so. The only person who could possibly decide an absolute moral does not exist.
Morality does not bend to beliefs. It does not matter how okay the thief believed his own actions to be, they still caused harm and therefore the action of stealing was immoral. Was it the most convenient option for their own survival? Possibly, but that does not mean it was the only option and certainly does not mean it was right. Also realize I used "personal moral code" loosely, because it doesn't exist...it is only a perception. The truth is the greater moral code derived by reason (do "good", whatever "good" is)
That's a nice, romantic notion, but where does this absolute moral code come from? Again, if it is 'common sense' or 'reason', that doesn't help the argument either; people reason differently. If an absolute moral code existed, why would anyone break it? Surely we would live in a eutopia where nobody needed to harm anyone else. The thief wouldn't need to steal in the first place. The only immoral people would be ones with birth defects because everyone else has the same in-built morals, no? And yet there are perfectly sane, functional people who perform immoral acts.
Actually, that last sentence is a whole other can of worms...
Speaking from the viewpoint I am familiar with, Christianity, there is an entity out there whose sole purpose is to distort mankind's perception of the moral code. His name is Lucifer. Interestingly enough this permitted two things, evil and free will. If we had this "eutopia" we could not have free-will, or if we did ever person would simply choose the moral course of action which defeats the purpose of free will.
I do believe this eutopia can, and does exist however, along with free-will. This is Heaven, but in order to get there and have free-will one must have experienced free-will as we know it on Earth such that upon entering Heaven they will know the consequences of their actions and desire only to make the moral decision. Entrance to Heaven is granted by a simple test, which I won't bother to explain here, but am sure you know what it is, most people in Western Society are aware. Having free-will is what sets humankind apart from the angels. Lucifer is evidence that free-will could not be handled in Heaven without first experiencing it here on Earth. We all take the fall and some of us ask for help back up.
Oh and Lucifer can and does walk through Heaven's gates (see Job for example), it is not a place only for the pure as some consider it. But I am wandering from the OP. Simply put, there is a reason why we don't all follow this perfect morality.
Yeah this is pretty off topic. It's interesting, however, that your idea that getting into heaven basically means giving up free will is contradictory to my understanding of "American values." But yes, very off topic now.
On May 11 2011 20:32 XeliN wrote: I'm skeptical when people use things such as "I personally feel" or "I believe" as a justification for the existence of something.
That would be my criticism of the above two posts -*apart from the one right above who posted while i was typing like some kind of ninja *- . Believing in something doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true.
Truth doesn't equal facts. In cases of something like morality, what is true is what one believes, there's no line separating the two.
Would you argue that there is an absolute morality that is right and wrong and people who express their morality as though it were a belief are somehow incorrect?
The bolded part completely defeats your own argument, surely? If an individual's beliefs affect his morals, then they can (and history has proven will) be different to the morals of another individual, ergo, they are subjective.
I don't see how any non-religious person can argue for objective morals, and the only way a religious person can make that argument is the same way they make every argument: "God said so."
Read my long-winded post, I believe I refute your "God said so" claim, as well as defending the ability of a non-religious person to argue for objective morals. The interpretation of morals does not change what the morals actually are.
Your example of the thief doesn't really help. In the thief's moral code, what if he genuinely believes that it's okay to steal? (for what it's worth, i think most thieves know what they're doing is wrong but their selfish need/want outweighs their guilt, but lets assume that isn't the case for this example). Who is to say that his moral is wrong and that the 'stealing is bad' moral that 99% of us hold is correct? Again, even this truth that appears to be absolute is not actually so. The only person who could possibly decide an absolute moral does not exist.
Morality does not bend to beliefs. It does not matter how okay the thief believed his own actions to be, they still caused harm and therefore the action of stealing was immoral. Was it the most convenient option for their own survival? Possibly, but that does not mean it was the only option and certainly does not mean it was right. Also realize I used "personal moral code" loosely, because it doesn't exist...it is only a perception. The truth is the greater moral code derived by reason (do "good", whatever "good" is)
That's a nice, romantic notion, but where does this absolute moral code come from? Again, if it is 'common sense' or 'reason', that doesn't help the argument either; people reason differently. If an absolute moral code existed, why would anyone break it? Surely we would live in a eutopia where nobody needed to harm anyone else. The thief wouldn't need to steal in the first place. The only immoral people would be ones with birth defects because everyone else has the same in-built morals, no? And yet there are perfectly sane, functional people who perform immoral acts.
Actually, that last sentence is a whole other can of worms...
I would define such an absolute moral code like what I'm championing (ie the fabric of sapient existence) to be more of a codified set of laws by which a sapient race must adhere to evolve into a state of universal understanding and would be the stepping off point in whether or not such a race would extinguish itself or go extinct.
Surely, a race that preys on its own children is doomed to ultimate failure. A race that preys on itself, that commits to the 'survival of the fittest' mindset, that gives itself over to its animalistic tendencies, will likely crumble under its own weight. Even with our technological advances cruising along as they have, our growth as a species is stunted by are lack of a capacity to recognize the greater necessities of sapient life extending beyond its animalism for the sake of self preservation as a collective entity. For every two steps we make forward as a race, we're taking one step back.
As it is, we're not going to last another five thousand years, IMO.
I feel like you're just trying to use 'morality' as another word for 'biological imperitive' or 'survival of the fittest' in that case. If that's true, then i agree with you to an extent. That explains why some 'morals' have maintained throughout the ages while others have disappeared or been invented. Killing your own is clearly bad for the species' survival and if this is what you mean by 'moral' then this is just a debate about linguistics and semantics.
Fack, I can't believe I said 'are' instead of 'our'. My phonics took a hysterically loose dump just then. Early morning is early.
Ahem. I do think a lot of branches of morality are kind of tied not so much to biological imperative or survival of the fittest, but rather are arguments against defying them. That said, I view mistreatment of sentient and sapient life to be a kind of psychological imperative. A race can only grow biologically so much before it hits a sort of zenith. We're already at the top of the food chain, how do we grow from here? We're still a race of apex predators that still keeps putting itself in a situation where it has to survive itself.
Maybe its our nature that's fucking us, I dunno. :p
Some posts are like little tins of condensed wrong.
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.
This is completely incorrect. Science is a methodology for helping you decide what to believe, not a focus for belief in and of itself. It's perfectly possible for the scientific method to detect the existence of a god or corroborate religious texts - the fact it doesn't is why I'm an atheist.
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.
I'm a scientist and an atheist and I think morality is objective - in fact, I think morality is more objective than those who believe morality is handed down from on high by a deity.
Members of both groups will state their views as "facts" and bombard one another with condescending remarks and snide comments.
Single key issues for each view: Objectivism: this allows people to impose their views on others, which can be oppressive Subjectivity: allows people to impose their own rules, possibly hurting others around them
although most of whats referred to as morals is highly subjective, since it differs from culture to culture and from time to time, eg sex before marriage, homosexuality
but stealing, lying, killing? those things are frowned upon in all cultures and at all times by all sane individuals, so i would argue they are objectively bad
On May 11 2011 21:48 101toss wrote: Single key issues for each view: Objectivism: this allows people to impose their views on others, which can be oppressive Subjectivity: allows people to impose their own rules, possibly hurting others around them
Note quite. While true about subjectivity, with real objectivity there cannot be an imposition of one's view because their validity does not come from the one who views them. Also, an objective morality would be enabling rather than oppressive, so that doesn't really hold. Refer back to my page 7 post, it is not about what the rules are (because mankind is notoriously bad at deducing what they are) but rather WHY the rules are there. Or rather, morality is reason, not rules.
The principle of Morals is objective, the implemented rules are subjective.
Once a life form becomes conscious with the basic formula: - Will to live - Can experience Empathy - Can follow basic logic
There is an automatic set of objective Morals which can be seen universal: - Do not end lifes, because i don't want to get mine ended - Do not harm others, because i don't want to get mines harmed which can be found in every culture on earth.
All other morals are inhereted from this two basic objective morals and can differ very much when compared about different cultures/persons.
So the implementation of this rules are very subjective and are heavily influenced by environmental causes.
Examples: - Slavery: Some people are looked down as animals or lower people, so the objective Morals don't apply to them - Death Penalty: If you are allowed to kill somebody who disobied the basic principle ist just an implementation issue, heavily influenced by things like religion.
People who actively disobey the basic objective principles are probably mentally ill [they are not following the basic formula of will to live + empathy + logic) and can't be incluced into the judgement of which morals are objective or not. Thats the same as if i wanted to calculate something on a broken calculator and try to interprete the results, it just doesnt work.
Those that say morality is subjective are pretty dangerous people.
Obviously morality is distorted by culture and religion. But if morality is subjective then so are human rights. It's dangerous relativism that is today only supported by anti science post-modernists, ignorant people and apologists for immoral behavior and violation of human and animal rights.
It is not an easy thing to figure out what this objective morality exactly is, because it is distorted and veiled, it still is objective. It doesn't matter what culture or religion you are from, humans are genetically extremely similar and have values hard wired into them. No one likes to suffer and no one likes to be a victim. So obviously morality has to me objective.
That morality is objective is also the majority view in science today. You have both genetics and neurology. And different cultures having similar moral laws is also a pretty obvious clue. Murder and theft are viewed by all cultures as immoral. Why is that if morality is subjective? It can't be explained. Torture is also considered immoral by all cultures.
Of course there are many people still willing to do immoral things. But that's a different issue.
Morality being objective being hard wired into human brains also explain the need for ingroup and outgroup that we share with great apes. Outgroups aren't human and therefore objective morality doesn't apply to them. That's the trick to get around it. And this trick was also needed throughout our evolutionary history.
On May 11 2011 21:48 101toss wrote: Single key issues for each view: Objectivism: this allows people to impose their views on others, which can be oppressive Subjectivity: allows people to impose their own rules, possibly hurting others around them
Both of these ideas are not only misconceptions but are a bit concerning.
there are no objective morals, there are only codes of conduct composed and imposed by the society and culture you live in / were formed by. morals, even aknoweldgeing a certain determinism, are a matter of choice for both individuals and societies, and are therefore completely subjective.
as for societies being different to the point where one is apparently almost the opposite of the other, the discussion is to be had on the level of civilization, which includes some arguments of, but is not limited to, moral codes.
conflict is however inevitable between individuals and opposing cultures, and while the former type of conflict is easily resolved, the second forms one of the basic reasons for there being governments to represent a people. and from here, we take this dicussion on and on to anything and everything basically.
I think it is immoral for people to be lazy slobs and not contribute to the community that they leech off of. You know, people capable of working or doing something productive or creative but don't.
I think imposing religious beliefs upon others or shunning others because of their different (or lack of) beliefs is very immoral.
Those are subjective. Somebody else with a different opinion might say that simply the fact that I think that way is immoral.
Objective ones are simply ones that more people can agree on. It doesn't seem right to call it morality. I think common sense would be a better label. Something like it's immoral to fart in a strangers face in public. Or take a dump in the street.
Moral is born from society. Society is born to maximize the security/benefit/etc of each individual. So, moral is for large parts "objective" (don't kill, don't steal if private property exist, etc...) while other, deeper question, are often gray and subjective. That's because the benefit aren't as clear for society, so debate is necessary, and society will "evolve" in the sense that they will include those new "morals" in their code. On the other hand, nihilistic or solipsist negate the society and the benefit of the whole at the start, so for them even the "objective" moral are subjective. Being nihlistic and/or solipsist or something else however, is more often than not a false phylosophy, since you "negate" the benefit of society only with words while you continue to live in it. In other words, as long as you live in the sistem, moral is objective and killing/hurting people is wrong. When you live as a wild beast, moral won't be objective for you, but you won't be "alive" either since you have no rights (no identity = no rights).
Well, it's far more than that, but the basic point is that moral has roots in something deeper than simply "education" or "background culture", it's something that was born as soon as society and intelligence was. Negating the objectivity of basic moral is just hypocritical and show you don't have the basic understanding of why we live in a society instead of living in caves.
Also, emphaty is an important evolutionary trait. Empathy was selected as a strong positive trait that improved society, you can argue all you want, but evolution don't lie.
Control control control. Lets control people! Hmm, but sir, how do we do that? I KNOW! Lets give them this moral code that says its right to do this and wrong to do that. Wow sir you are brilliant.
On May 11 2011 19:47 JesusOurSaviour wrote: Hmmm... Everyone's just stating their own opinion in response to OP's question, so I guess I'll state God's point of view in the most succinct manner.
What is right? Loving the Creator and loving mankind is right. What's wrong? Not loving God and fellow mankind. Why? God created you, in the image of Him he created you. He love, he created you to rule the world under his authority, to rule over all of the earth, over all animals. He created us to be fruitful and multiply, to enjoy the fruits he has provided for us, to work and to enjoy awesome things like relationships, marriage, family, children, jokes, music, art, science etc.
So who is the giver of morality? God. He isn't human and he doesn't get affected by human sin and failures. He is the judge who will judge justly unlike some of the junk that goes on in our courts (though law and order is essential to our societies).
Let's say we enter God's law court on judgement day. Will we be acquitted? Well it all comes down to whether you've obeyed his laws as he is the Creator of the universe and the giver of law. Love God and Love mankind - that is summary of God's will for us in this life.
What if I disagree with god? Say, for example, god happens to hate gay people. And I like them. I dunno if your god hates gays, pick another opinion I happen to disagree with if he doesn't.
Now, let's pretend you are right. So he made me? So what? So he can punish me for disagreeing with me, so what? That makes him the ultimate arbiter? I don't think so. I'm the only person who can decide if I agree with him.
Morality is, after all, internal. The only person who can change how you feel about your own actions and the actions of others, is yourself.
Your point is valid - indeed, each person's morality is his own. My morality is based off of what God has shown me so far from reading his Word, the bible. Yet - had I not read his Word, my set of morality would be significantly different. Each person's morality is dependent and formed according to his experiences.
So my point is that: God is real and he is the ultimate judge. His morality should be ours as well, but if you choose to reject him, then your morality will be of your own genesis and you become your own Boss.
But that's exactly what you're doing, too. You're forming your own moral code based on your understanding of the bible, which you have chosen from a large menu of alternatives. I assume you're filtering it substantially, too, unless you still think slavery is acceptable. Just like the authors of the New Testament rejigged morality when they bolted it onto the Old Testament in the first known example of root-kitting an OS. In other words, you've picked a moral code that appeals to you - that feels right to you. Just like everyone else. You can't spin that around by first believing in a god who agrees with you, and then saying it's actually you agreeing with god.
The moral differences between the old and new testaments prove my earlier point perfectly: if a god can change his mind about the moral codes we should follow, then those codes are not objective, merely imposed upon us by threat of torture.
On May 11 2011 22:02 Gheizen64 wrote: Moral is born from society. Society is born to maximize the security/benefit/etc of each individual. So, moral is for large parts "objective" (don't kill, don't steal if private property exist, etc...) while other, deeper question, are often gray and subjective. That's because the benefit aren't as clear for society, so debate is necessary, and society will "evolve" in the sense that they will include those new "morals" in their code. On the other hand, nihilistic or solipsist negate the society and the benefit of the whole at the start, so for them even the "objective" moral are subjective. Being nihlistic and/or solipsist or something else however, is more often than not a false phylosophy, since you "negate" the benefit of society only with words while you continue to live in it. In other words, as long as you live in the sistem, moral is objective and killing/hurting people is wrong. When you live as a wild beast, moral won't be objective for you, but you won't be "alive" either since you have no rights (no identity = no rights).
Well, it's far more than that, but the basic point is that moral has roots in something deeper than simply "education" or "background culture", it's something that was born as soon as society and intelligence was.
That's a pretty cool way to view it. I've always thought along this line but you expressed it pretty well lol.
My view of this is half and half. I believe morals for the most part are subjective as they can differ between cultures, societies, and even individual members of a society. Still. I feel like as humans we are all obligated to uphold the same basic moral code. Don't kill, don't steal, don't conduct actions with prejudice, etc I feel should be objective moral standards we should all abide by.
The difficulty with "subjective morality" is that it is not really morality. It is ethics.
The entire point of morality is that certain actions or thoughts can be right or wrong in and of themselves. If one accepts "subjective morality," then one loses the ability to really define any action or thought as right or wrong in and of itself; rather, one believes that the appropriateness of an action or thought is self-created, either by the individual or by the society. Standards of right and wrong created by humans actually already have a name - ethics - and they are distinct from the concept of morality, which is, by its very nature, objective. Thus, those who reject objective morality can at best claim that an action is inappropriate given the context, but they can never really say that an action is wrong.
That is ultimately why I cannot accept that there is not an objective morality, no matter how imperfect our understanding of it might be. I know that certain actions are wrong, not just contextually, but intrinsically. Even if the society in which I lived suddenly decided that it was ethically appropriate for me to cheat on my fiancee, it would still be wrong. Even if another society decided that it was ethically appropriate to butcher 800,000 unarmed civilians with machetes, it would still be wrong.
Interestingly enough, those who defend a "subjective" morality - or, as I would have it, purely ethical - worldview can actually end up being more imperious than those who defend objective morality. Take, for example, the question: Why was the Rwandan genocide wrong? If you believe in objective morality, then you believe that it was wrong because all humans, regardless of their race or background, deserve to be held to the same basic standards of behavior. If you believe in pure ethics, then you either have to accept that the genocide wasn't wrong (because it was endorsed by a society of individual human beings who have every right to develop their own ethical system and act in accordance with it), or you have to believe that it was wrong solely on the basis that you personally believe that it was wrong. Pure ethics ends up either having to reserve judgment on any action, no matter how horrible, taken by another, or judge another on the basis of ethics that one makes for oneself.
Thus, I can see no way out except to accept that there is an objective morality (in addition to many sets of subjective ethics). The alternative is utter moral chaos.
As social creatures who have depended on being relatively civil throughout our evolution, I do think we are hardwired a bit to have an aversion to immoral acts. Other animals are like this too. For instance the submissive display of a dog will keep another from attacking it. Consider also that a psychopath (one lacking in empathy or morality) has a neurological disorder from birth, we can say that normally people are born with a capacity for empathic reasoning, and therefore a kind of morality. I think moral codes and laws are to a certain extent a reinforcement of our natural (objective) morality. Of course with any nature/nurture debate it's likely going to fall somewhere in between, and there's enough social conditioning in our upbringing that our natural tendencies could be superseded by the views of the society in which we live.
So my answer is both. As is usually the case with these kinds of questions :/
It is subjective. It doesn't matter if it is programmed in our DNA - that does not make it objective. Nothing is objective anyway. Nothing. It is simply a concept for subjective reference.
Unless aliens or AI are brought into the picture, universal to just humans and universal in general are the same.
And yes, looking through all the posts people must be confusing ethics and morals. I was shocked assuming they all didn't confuse the two. But people probably did.
On May 11 2011 22:18 adun12345 wrote: Interestingly enough, those who defend a "subjective" morality - or, as I would have it, purely ethical - worldview can actually end up being more imperious than those who defend objective morality. Take, for example, the question: Why was the Rwandan genocide wrong? If you believe in objective morality, then you believe that it was wrong because all humans, regardless of their race or background, deserve to be held to the same basic standards of behavior. If you believe in pure ethics, then you either have to accept that the genocide wasn't wrong (because it was endorsed by a society of individual human beings who have every right to develop their own ethical system and act in accordance with it), or you have to believe that it was wrong solely on the basis that you personally believe that it was wrong. Pure ethics ends up either having to reserve judgment on any action, no matter how horrible, taken by another, or judge another on the basis of ethics that one makes for oneself.
Thus, I can see no way out except to accept that there is an objective morality (in addition to many sets of subjective ethics). The alternative is utter moral chaos.
You can't distinguish objective and subjective morality in this way. The bits I've bolded are exactly equivalent. In your example, the only difference between the moral objectivist and the moral subjectivist is that the objectivist is imagining the existence of some kind of external, 'official' standard to a) make themselves feel good for agreeing with it, and b) to dodge the burden of responsibility-for-consequences they would feel for urging their own morals upon others.
For instance, the historical Catholic stance on birth control. Catholic officials generally don't feel responsible for the health and overpopulation problems their evangelism has exacerbated because they believe their stance to reflect an external standard for which they have no responsibility. They're just the messengers.
There is a distinction between objective and subjective morality, but the one you describe is not it. And by the way, I agree there is such a thing as objective morality.
On May 11 2011 19:47 JesusOurSaviour wrote: Hmmm... Everyone's just stating their own opinion in response to OP's question, so I guess I'll state God's point of view in the most succinct manner.
What is right? Loving the Creator and loving mankind is right. What's wrong? Not loving God and fellow mankind. Why? God created you, in the image of Him he created you. He love, he created you to rule the world under his authority, to rule over all of the earth, over all animals. He created us to be fruitful and multiply, to enjoy the fruits he has provided for us, to work and to enjoy awesome things like relationships, marriage, family, children, jokes, music, art, science etc.
So who is the giver of morality? God. He isn't human and he doesn't get affected by human sin and failures. He is the judge who will judge justly unlike some of the junk that goes on in our courts (though law and order is essential to our societies).
Let's say we enter God's law court on judgement day. Will we be acquitted? Well it all comes down to whether you've obeyed his laws as he is the Creator of the universe and the giver of law. Love God and Love mankind - that is summary of God's will for us in this life.
What if I disagree with god? Say, for example, god happens to hate gay people. And I like them. I dunno if your god hates gays, pick another opinion I happen to disagree with if he doesn't.
Now, let's pretend you are right. So he made me? So what? So he can punish me for disagreeing with me, so what? That makes him the ultimate arbiter? I don't think so. I'm the only person who can decide if I agree with him.
Morality is, after all, internal. The only person who can change how you feel about your own actions and the actions of others, is yourself.
Your point is valid - indeed, each person's morality is his own. My morality is based off of what God has shown me so far from reading his Word, the bible. Yet - had I not read his Word, my set of morality would be significantly different. Each person's morality is dependent and formed according to his experiences.
So my point is that: God is real and he is the ultimate judge. His morality should be ours as well, but if you choose to reject him, then your morality will be of your own genesis and you become your own Boss.
But that's exactly what you're doing, too. You're forming your own moral code based on your understanding of the bible, which you have chosen from a large menu of alternatives. I assume you're filtering it substantially, too, unless you still think slavery is acceptable. Just like the authors of the New Testament rejigged morality when they bolted it onto the Old Testament in the first known example of root-kitting an OS. In other words, you've picked a moral code that appeals to you - that feels right to you. Just like everyone else. You can't spin that around by first believing in a god who agrees with you, and then saying it's actually you agreeing with god.
The moral differences between the old and new testaments prove my earlier point perfectly: if a god can change his mind about the moral codes we should follow, then those codes are not objective, merely imposed upon us by threat of torture.
On May 11 2011 19:47 JesusOurSaviour wrote: Hmmm... Everyone's just stating their own opinion in response to OP's question, so I guess I'll state God's point of view in the most succinct manner.
What is right? Loving the Creator and loving mankind is right. What's wrong? Not loving God and fellow mankind. Why? God created you, in the image of Him he created you. He love, he created you to rule the world under his authority, to rule over all of the earth, over all animals. He created us to be fruitful and multiply, to enjoy the fruits he has provided for us, to work and to enjoy awesome things like relationships, marriage, family, children, jokes, music, art, science etc.
So who is the giver of morality? God. He isn't human and he doesn't get affected by human sin and failures. He is the judge who will judge justly unlike some of the junk that goes on in our courts (though law and order is essential to our societies).
Let's say we enter God's law court on judgement day. Will we be acquitted? Well it all comes down to whether you've obeyed his laws as he is the Creator of the universe and the giver of law. Love God and Love mankind - that is summary of God's will for us in this life.
What if I disagree with god? Say, for example, god happens to hate gay people. And I like them. I dunno if your god hates gays, pick another opinion I happen to disagree with if he doesn't.
Now, let's pretend you are right. So he made me? So what? So he can punish me for disagreeing with me, so what? That makes him the ultimate arbiter? I don't think so. I'm the only person who can decide if I agree with him.
Morality is, after all, internal. The only person who can change how you feel about your own actions and the actions of others, is yourself.
Your point is valid - indeed, each person's morality is his own. My morality is based off of what God has shown me so far from reading his Word, the bible. Yet - had I not read his Word, my set of morality would be significantly different. Each person's morality is dependent and formed according to his experiences.
So my point is that: God is real and he is the ultimate judge. His morality should be ours as well, but if you choose to reject him, then your morality will be of your own genesis and you become your own Boss.
But that's exactly what you're doing, too. You're forming your own moral code based on your understanding of the bible, which you have chosen from a large menu of alternatives. I assume you're filtering it substantially, too, unless you still think slavery is acceptable. Just like the authors of the New Testament rejigged morality when they bolted it onto the Old Testament in the first known example of root-kitting an OS. In other words, you've picked a moral code that appeals to you - that feels right to you. Just like everyone else. You can't spin that around by first believing in a god who agrees with you, and then saying it's actually you agreeing with god.
The moral differences between the old and new testaments prove my earlier point perfectly: if a god can change his mind about the moral codes we should follow, then those codes are not objective, merely imposed upon us by threat of torture.
So Summarising what you've said: 1. I believed in a God which I liked, especially his morality which somehow I've filtered to suit my own
2. that the God of the Old and New Testaments are different Gods.
With regards to #1, My understanding of the bible is obviously dependent on how much I have read of the bible and my motivation for reading the bible. Motivation may be to satisfy my own desires, of affirming what I believe to be right, or it may be that I am reading to better understand the God whom I worship. The term Exegesis comes to mind hehe. I am going to honestly tell you that I read the bible to learn about God, to hear him speak to me. His Word is true living water that tastes so beautiful, and it teaches me so much. And God's word is challenging as you have mentioned - there are topics which seem to bamboozle me at first - why a virgin is told to marry her rapist in the case that she was raped in the wild but there was no witness? Slavery? etc etc the list goes on.
So then, how have I dealt with these seemingly contradictory issues? By ignoring them? By no means!! I have seeked to understand why God said what he said. Why God acted in the way he acted. God needs no excuses - he's happy for people to read his word and try to judge him to condemn him, although it's kind of futile to judge someone who is perfect, especially since we as humans are corrupt and foolish.
Next is #2. I thought the same and it rocked my faith to it's core for a while. This is something a very high % of Christians avoid talking about simply because they don't get it. Well I guess you've bumped into one who is willing to chat about it, so you are blessed. Fire away questions at me by PM-ing me if you think you know your bible and wish to ask questions regarding it, I am happy to answer your questions in PM.
Now to the point: Has God changed his moral codes? Short answer: No. Why? Because he's the same God. But what about all this violence and genocide vs Jesus' "Love your neighbour"?
But I say, is not God the creator of the universe? Is He not the judge, the one and only God who is able to judge justly? For He is not corrupted by sin as we are (read Genesis if you don't get it. Or similarly you can just check google news for how fallen we are). So then, if God in His Wrath, wished to judge the nations before the End, could He not? If God wishing to show the Israelites the consequences of disobedience, had destroyed sinful nations by using the Israelites, who are you to judge God? The problem with most people is that they don't have a God-centric view of the world. They have never understood that the world is centred around God. He created this world For himself. He created us so that we may have a relationship with Him. Does He sound selfish? No - because not only did He breathe life into us, but He loves us though we rebel against him all the time, and has even provided this wonderful earth for us. If you read the bible with an attitude of "This is all Bull sh*t. I just need to find something that is absurd in my own worldview, to show Christians that they are delusional and irrational", then I guess you will "be ever seeing but never perceiving, be ever hearing but never understanding"
There's no morality--only what we assign the term as becomes morality. In some cultures, it's acceptable to have female circumcision. The problem is that we think there is either subjective or objective morality because so much of the world is christian and from that one base we can conjecture on the question of morals when (in reality) morality is dynamic, but not aware enough in a collective that only recognizes one major faith.
It has been said before in this thread, but seeing as everybody is ignoring what everyone else said and just positing their own world view, I'll do the same
Evolution has culled out most of the animals who don't adhere to some basic rules. Humans are social animals (just as chimpansees and bonobos, but also cows, dogs and geese). In societies of animals, survival stems from the group and thus certain rules for group survival get encoded to ensure individual survival. For some, instinctive, reason, most humans abhor the idea of cannibalism (and you won't see dogs or chimpansees eating eachother either). Similarly, murder is only "allowed" in extreme cases, namely when it is deemed beneficial for the group to cull some extreme element. While memes such as these do not get inherited genetically, the infrastructure for being susceptible to precisely these memes is. We feel empathy. Non-empathetic people are labeled with some type of nasty disorder (psychopaths or sociopaths), indicating that there is selection pressure in favour of empathy (http://www.emory.edu/LIVING_LINKS/pdf_attachments/de%20Waal%20(2008).pdf).
My view of ethics is that they can be modeled as memes. Some memes spread very well and are almost universally accepted, because our genetic predisposition is to accept them (they are a good meme for survival). Others are accepted within a single society: sodomy is forbidden by abrahamic religions and as such shunned in modern western society. However, homosexuality was perfectly accepted in Greek (and Roman) civilization with no obvious detrimental effects. Similarly certain religious rules piggyback on the religion (another strong meme), whereas societies with different religions do not have that moral: women in islamic countries are required to cover their hair to protect them from the aggressions of horny men. In non-Islamic (although quite a few protestant communities agree with this Islamic norm) societies we feel horny men should control their lusts better and women can dress any way they please.
Thus morality cannot be seen as subjective, or objective, but rather as a mix: all (healthy) humans are hardcoded to be empathetic and as such more susceptible to certain rules than others. However, there are rules which are not clear-cut "good" or "bad" in this framework, in which case any person (or society) can make his own choice. This can lead to choices another society deems horrendously evil, but there is always some sort of justification within that society for making that choice. Whether it is a predominant religion's divine will or socio-economic motives, we need to remember that these same forces shape our own world view and thus our code of ethics.
Interestingly enough, those who defend a "subjective" morality - or, as I would have it, purely ethical - worldview can actually end up being more imperious than those who defend objective morality. Take, for example, the question: Why was the Rwandan genocide wrong? If you believe in objective morality, then you believe that it was wrong because all humans, regardless of their race or background, deserve to be held to the same basic standards of behavior. If you believe in pure ethics, then you either have to accept that the genocide wasn't wrong (because it was endorsed by a society of individual human beings who have every right to develop their own ethical system and act in accordance with it), or you have to believe that it was wrong solely on the basis that you personally believe that it was wrong. Pure ethics ends up either having to reserve judgment on any action, no matter how horrible, taken by another, or judge another on the basis of ethics that one makes for oneself.
Thus, I can see no way out except to accept that there is an objective morality (in addition to many sets of subjective ethics). The alternative is utter moral chaos.
You can't distinguish objective and subjective morality in this way. The bits I've bolded are exactly equivalent. In your example, the only difference between the moral objectivist and the moral subjectivist is that the objectivist is imagining the existence of some kind of external, 'official' standard to a) make themselves feel good for agreeing with it, and b) to dodge the burden of responsibility-for-consequences they would feel for urging their own morals upon others.
For instance, the historical Catholic stance on birth control. Catholic officials generally don't feel responsible for the health and overpopulation problems their evangelism has exacerbated because they believe their stance to reflect an external standard for which they have no responsibility. They're just the messengers.
There is a distinction between objective and subjective morality, but the one you describe is not it. And by the way, I agree there is such a thing as objective morality.
The only point I sought to make above is that it is internally inconsistent for an individual who believes in pure ethics (or "subjective morality," if you will) to criticize a person who believes in objective morality for being imperious. A person who believes in objective morality judges the actions of another on the basis that he and the other ought to be held to the same objective standard of behavior. Whether or not objective morality exists, in the mind of the proponent of objective morality his behavior is internally-consistent.
By comparison, a person who believes in pure ethics, if he opts to judge another at all, can only judge them on the basis of arbitrary standards that he believes that he himself generated. Whether or not objective morality exists, in order for the behavior of an advocate of pure ethics to be internally consistent, that person must either refrain from judging others at all (good luck with that) or accept that it is entirely acceptable to judge others based on arbitrary standards of behavior (in which case it makes no sense to critique proponents of objective morality for their judgments). All I have sought to do here is point out what I take to be a large internal inconsistency in the pure ethics or "subjective morality" argument.
This is obviously not in and of itself a proof for the existence of objective morality, but in my mind it is a good reason to question whether pure ethics is really a viable alternative.
On May 11 2011 22:18 adun12345 wrote: or you have to believe that it was wrong solely on the basis that you personally believe that it was wrong.
No. There is a third option without reverting to an "objective" morality: the predominant belief in your society is that it is wrong. In this case "your society" refers to the majority of the world. This is how we have an International Court of Justice and the Geneva Conventions, because the majority of the world population came together and set down a list of rules that should not be broken. However, if the majority view of the world population changes, there is a good chance we will readdress issues in International Law and other such treaties, just as countries update their internal laws as the time goes on (and individuals adjust their behaviour as they go through life: as a teenager I might have thought it acceptable to not pay a metro ticket, whereas now I frown on this behaviour).
For me, definately subjective. I think that a society as a whole has an objective morality, and then the finer details, nuances (sp?..) and then smaller issues come down to personal subjective points of view
As a society, hell, even as a species it is 'generally' considered that killing another human being is wrong, whether the reasoning be because it hinders the advancement and growth of humans, or that it causes suffering to families and loved ones, or whatever
But, if that person were to kill 2 other people, thats a completely subjective matter and should be decided on a personal level. To have a general sweeping objective morality to me means that your freedom is hindered somewhat, and Im a freedom kinda guy
But, as a freedom kinda guy, I also recognise and support the fact that other people have their freedom. I may compare and contrast my beliefs with someone elses and come to my understanding that one is 'better' than the other, but I genuinly do not understand why that is such a huge deal. By maturely picking holes in one anothers belief systems where logic and reasoning see fit, surely we either see an increase in strength or a falling apart of said belief system, meaning that we can advance as a society
On May 11 2011 22:18 adun12345 wrote: or you have to believe that it was wrong solely on the basis that you personally believe that it was wrong.
No. There is a third option without reverting to an "objective" morality: the predominant belief in your society is that it is wrong. In this case "your society" refers to the majority of the world. This is how we have an International Court of Justice and the Geneva Conventions, because the majority of the world population came together and set down a list of rules that should not be broken. However, if the majority view of the world population changes, there is a good chance we will readdress issues in International Law and other such treaties, just as countries update their internal laws as the time goes on (and individuals adjust their behaviour as they go through life: as a teenager I might have thought it acceptable to not pay a metro ticket, whereas now I frown on this behaviour).
This is admittedly an option, but it fails to explain why I, as a rational individual, ought to behave according to the rules of society. Suppose I and my compatriots want to butcher 800,000 unarmed people with machetes. We're concerned that, as the civil war in our country tips against us, that we need to strike first to ensure our security. In this scenario, I care more about my immediate needs than what the rest of the world thinks about my action. Can pure ethics provide any rationale for why I shouldn't do this? By what authority can the global community judge me?
More sympathetically, what if the majority decides for something with which you personally disagree? Suppose the majority of the world decided that slavery was an acceptable institution - would you be wrong for disagreeing with them? Individually-centric pure ethics would say of course not - you generate your own ethics, and damn anyone who says otherwise. However, community-centric ethics would say of course - you are magically beholden to conform your own personal behavior to the whims of the majority.
In short, although you are right that there is a third option, I fail to see how this option is more consistent, or more appealing.
If you can set aside any distaste for Christianity and religion for a moment, I'd like to recommend that you read the first three chapters of CS Lewis' "Mere Christianity". He puts forth the strongest case for objective morality I've ever read.
For those that suspect this is a Bible-thumping message in disguise; it's not. Lewis grounds his arguments in logic, history and individual experience. There's no mention of the Christian God at all in his arguments, since any discussion of God has relevance only after one admits to the existence of objective morality.
This might be an important contribution to the discussion.
"Does the Taliban have a point of view on physics that is worth considering? No. How is their ignorance any less obvious on the subject of human wellbeing?"
Watch it! Think about it! It might change your opinion.
On May 11 2011 22:09 Umpteen wrote: But that's exactly what you're doing, too. You're forming your own moral code based on your understanding of the bible, which you have chosen from a large menu of alternatives. I assume you're filtering it substantially, too, unless you still think slavery is acceptable. Just like the authors of the New Testament rejigged morality when they bolted it onto the Old Testament in the first known example of root-kitting an OS. In other words, you've picked a moral code that appeals to you - that feels right to you. Just like everyone else. You can't spin that around by first believing in a god who agrees with you, and then saying it's actually you agreeing with god.
The moral differences between the old and new testaments prove my earlier point perfectly: if a god can change his mind about the moral codes we should follow, then those codes are not objective, merely imposed upon us by threat of torture.
So Summarising what you've said: 1. I believed in a God which I liked, especially his morality which somehow I've filtered to suit my own
That's pretty much spot on. People believe in many different deities. To presume that you have perfect judgement and picked the right one (especially when I suspect you have not compared them all in equal detail) is not tenable. You've picked one with some attractive features, and have since - as you go on to describe - been working on 'understanding' (read: reinterpreting in ways you like) the parts you don't immediately find attractive.
2. that the God of the Old and New Testaments are different Gods.
That's wider of the mark. The old and new testament ascribe radically different morality to what is ostensibly the same god, and justify that paradigm shift via what is - on the face of it - a rather pointless charade of effigy-destruction. It's clever in a way, though: I mean, the Old Testament is predicated on people being made to suffer for the sins of others. God's very clear on that point, and god is never wrong. So how best to go about convincing those around you that a different system of morality is better, without ever implying that god was wrong or that they need to believe in a new god? Answer: you have god manifest himself and do all the necessary suffering (which panders to the prevailing Old Testament beliefs) while rewriting the rules.
With regards to #1, My understanding of the bible is obviously dependent on how much I have read of the bible and my motivation for reading the bible. Motivation may be to satisfy my own desires, of affirming what I believe to be right, or it may be that I am reading to better understand the God whom I worship. The term Exegesis comes to mind hehe. I am going to honestly tell you that I read the bible to learn about God, to hear him speak to me. His Word is true living water that tastes so beautiful, and it teaches me so much. And God's word is challenging as you have mentioned - there are topics which seem to bamboozle me at first - why a virgin is told to marry her rapist in the case that she was raped in the wild but there was no witness? Slavery? etc etc the list goes on.
So then, how have I dealt with these seemingly contradictory issues? By ignoring them? By no means!! I have seeked to understand why God said what he said. Why God acted in the way he acted. God needs no excuses - he's happy for people to read his word and try to judge him to condemn him, although it's kind of futile to judge someone who is perfect, especially since we as humans are corrupt and foolish.
Well, sure. You've just said the same as me, only using more words and again trying to spin things around so that it sounds like you agreeing with god and coming to know his mind, instead of you simply reinventing or reinterpreting the bible to suit yourself.
Next is #2. Now to the point: Has God changed his moral codes? Short answer: No. Why? Because he's the same God. But what about all this violence and genocide vs Jesus' "Love your neighbour"?
But I say, is not God the creator of the universe? Is He not the judge, the one and only God who is able to judge justly? For He is not corrupted by sin as we are (read Genesis if you don't get it. Or similarly you can just check google news for how fallen we are). So then, if God in His Wrath, wished to judge the nations before the End, could He not? If God wishing to show the Israelites the consequences of disobedience, had destroyed sinful nations by using the Israelites, who are you to judge God?
I'm not talking about hypocrisy (although that is a huge problem, one that is in no way diminished by your attempt at justification). I'm talking about the different moral codes we are expected to be bound by depending upon whether you read the old or new testament, and upon how you interpret them.
On May 11 2011 22:18 adun12345 wrote: or you have to believe that it was wrong solely on the basis that you personally believe that it was wrong.
No. There is a third option without reverting to an "objective" morality: the predominant belief in your society is that it is wrong. In this case "your society" refers to the majority of the world. This is how we have an International Court of Justice and the Geneva Conventions, because the majority of the world population came together and set down a list of rules that should not be broken. However, if the majority view of the world population changes, there is a good chance we will readdress issues in International Law and other such treaties, just as countries update their internal laws as the time goes on (and individuals adjust their behaviour as they go through life: as a teenager I might have thought it acceptable to not pay a metro ticket, whereas now I frown on this behaviour).
This is admittedly an option, but it fails to explain why I, as a rational individual, ought to behave according to the rules of society. Suppose I and my compatriots want to butcher 800,000 unarmed people with machetes. We're concerned that, as the civil war in our country tips against us, that we need to strike first to ensure our security. In this scenario, I care more about my immediate needs than what the rest of the world thinks about my action. Can pure ethics provide any rationale for why I shouldn't do this? By what authority can the global community judge me?
More sympathetically, what if the majority decides for something with which you personally disagree? Suppose the majority of the world decided that slavery was an acceptable institution - would you be wrong for disagreeing with them? Individually-centric pure ethics would say of course not - you generate your own ethics, and damn anyone who says otherwise. However, community-centric ethics would say of course - you are magically beholden to conform your own personal behavior to the whims of the majority.
In short, although you are right that there is a third option, I fail to see how this option is more consistent, or more appealing.
I think my earlier post makes sense of that. Your personal code of ethics can obviously differ significantly from the majority view (for instance, fundamental moslims in -lets say- china), although human evolution has hardcoded some ways of thinking into us and it would be extreme to break a rule given by this way of thinking.
Even so, there is nothing "wrong" with that, unless you break some code of ethics which has been turned into legal code, in which case you will suffer the consequences (if caught). The same for your example: if you decide it is ethically okay to slaughter 800,000 unarmed people with machetes (or jews with a gas chamber, tutsis with machine guns or kurds with mustard gas, to name some real examples) then you are welcome to do so, but don't be surprised when the large majority of people who don't share your code of ethics cry out in rage and subject you to a fitting punishment (try you for crimes against humanity most likely).
As for your other example: if the majority population decides to revert back to the idea that slavery is ethical you are welcome to disagree with it (just as Thomas More did, except as a form of punishment for criminals, in the 15th century), just don't expect to achieve anything or even be judged to have the moral highground (except perhaps in the eyes of a future civilization when slavery has been abolished once again).
Community-centered ethics are what rules and laws are built around. Person-centered ethics are subsequent rules you personally decide to live your life by. If these conflict significantly with community-centered ethics there is a large chance you will be a social outcast, or tried as a criminal. However there is no ethical system which is inherently right or wrong, which is what an objective morality states. The universe at large does not impose some set of morals which must be adhered to, however the underlying laws of the universe do impose some restrictions on what sets of morals lead to a viable society (if wholesale slaughter is seen as ethical, the society runs a large risk of extinguishing itself).
Objectivity is a pipe dream. It is impossible for a person to completely remove himself from his own choices and preferences whether subtle or obvious. Moral Objectivity is more akin to idealized goals wherein we as people attempt to mimic a set of arbitrary rules in order to be as close to "perfect" as we can be. But this mimicry (no matter the flawlessness of the mirroring) is inherently subjective in practice because we can never let go of who we are. Even the act of letting go of our biases is a personal choice we ourselves are making and hence is purely a subjective experience.
Morality is mostly subjective. It's decided by who's the biggest and strongest. One of the best cases is the Nuremberg Trials. We had Soviet judges judging on Nazis. Both governments were responsible for the deaths of millions and yet not a single person connected to the Soviet purges were ever persecuted in a court of law. Likewise, our firebombing of Dresden, Cologne, Tokyo and the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were plain war crimes. American WWII officers have stated as much. However, since we won the war, our own war crimes went unpunished while the loser's war crimes were persecuted.
Morality is simply the biggest person the block enforcing rules that are essentially made up on the fly.
There are multiple different options, and a few different questions Options... Strong Objective Morals Morals are Good/Evil, independent of anything else in this physical universe, stuff is Good merely because it is good. It has absolutely no dependence on what people actually are doing.
Evolutionarilly "Objective" Morals Morals are the rules that makes a society successful. (in this case morals are Subjective to the Environment a society finds itself in)
Biologically/Psychologically "Objective" Morals Morals are the rules that avoid pain/death/suffering some psychological state (in this case morals are subjective to the genetic code of human beings, and possibly their socialization, as well as environment)
Socially "Objective" Morals Morals are the ways in which a society actually behaves. (morals are Subjective based on which society you are in)
Personally "Objective" Morals Morals are what Individual people actually do. (Morals are subjective to the person, and possibly to particular times in the persons life)... basically what you do is what you do. [basically purely subjective]
Questions... 1. What IS good/evil 2. What do societies/people Believe is Good/Evil
Now if moralilty is more Subjective, those are the same question... but if morality is Objective then they are different questions. (You can't say that the shape of the Earth is subjective just because different societies have believed different things... You CAN say beliefs about the shape of the Earth are subjective, but that doesn't say anything about the actual shape of the Earth.)
I would believe that there are Strongly Objective Morals...although the way in which those morals are acted out Will be subjective to the situations that one is in. (which is sort of like a no duh, but needs to be stated, Most Moral systems say sometimes cutting someone is good, sometimes it is bad.. ie surgery v. murder)
On May 11 2011 22:18 adun12345 wrote: or you have to believe that it was wrong solely on the basis that you personally believe that it was wrong.
No. There is a third option without reverting to an "objective" morality: the predominant belief in your society is that it is wrong. In this case "your society" refers to the majority of the world. This is how we have an International Court of Justice and the Geneva Conventions, because the majority of the world population came together and set down a list of rules that should not be broken. However, if the majority view of the world population changes, there is a good chance we will readdress issues in International Law and other such treaties, just as countries update their internal laws as the time goes on (and individuals adjust their behaviour as they go through life: as a teenager I might have thought it acceptable to not pay a metro ticket, whereas now I frown on this behaviour).
This is admittedly an option, but it fails to explain why I, as a rational individual, ought to behave according to the rules of society. Suppose I and my compatriots want to butcher 800,000 unarmed people with machetes. We're concerned that, as the civil war in our country tips against us, that we need to strike first to ensure our security. In this scenario, I care more about my immediate needs than what the rest of the world thinks about my action. Can pure ethics provide any rationale for why I shouldn't do this? By what authority can the global community judge me?
More sympathetically, what if the majority decides for something with which you personally disagree? Suppose the majority of the world decided that slavery was an acceptable institution - would you be wrong for disagreeing with them? Individually-centric pure ethics would say of course not - you generate your own ethics, and damn anyone who says otherwise. However, community-centric ethics would say of course - you are magically beholden to conform your own personal behavior to the whims of the majority.
In short, although you are right that there is a third option, I fail to see how this option is more consistent, or more appealing.
I think my earlier post makes sense of that. Your personal code of ethics can obviously differ significantly from the majority view (for instance, fundamental moslims in -lets say- china), although human evolution has hardcoded some ways of thinking into us and it would be extreme to break a rule given by this way of thinking.
Even so, there is nothing "wrong" with that, unless you break some code of ethics which has been turned into legal code, in which case you will suffer the consequences (if caught). The same for your example: if you decide it is ethically okay to slaughter 800,000 unarmed people with machetes (or jews with a gas chamber, tutsis with machine guns or kurds with mustard gas, to name some real examples) then you are welcome to do so, but don't be surprised when the large majority of people who don't share your code of ethics cry out in rage and subject you to a fitting punishment (try you for crimes against humanity most likely).
As for your other example: if the majority population decides to revert back to the idea that slavery is ethical you are welcome to disagree with it (just as Thomas More did, except as a form of punishment for criminals, in the 15th century), just don't expect to achieve anything or even be judged to have the moral highground (except perhaps in the eyes of a future civilization when slavery has been abolished once again).
Community-centered ethics are what rules and laws are built around. Person-centered ethics are subsequent rules you personally decide to live your life by. If these conflict significantly with community-centered ethics there is a large chance you will be a social outcast, or tried as a criminal. However there is no ethical system which is inherently right or wrong, which is what an objective morality states. The universe at large does not impose some set of morals which must be adhered to, however the underlying laws of the universe do impose some restrictions on what sets of morals lead to a viable society (if wholesale slaughter is seen as ethical, the society runs a large risk of extinguishing itself).
I understand the fact that societies form laws that accord with their ethical principles (and, I would hope, also reflect fundamental moral principles) to judge others. I also understand the utilitarian argument that one should do right in order to avoid punishment. Taken by itself, this argument inevitably leads to the position that there is no right or wrong, only what one can and cannot do.
All of that is besides my real question, though: by what right does society impose its ethical norms upon the individual? The very difference between a law and an ethical standard is that a law only has a negative aspect - obey or be punished - while an ethical standard also has a positive aspect ("it is good to act ethically"). If one seeks to depend entirely on the negative aspect, then one is no longer actually discussing pure ethics - rather, one has moved over into the realm of "legalism," in which the law is the ultimate and final arbiter of all.
The difficulty I still have with pure ethics is from whence the positive aspect of communal ethics emerges (it is good to act ethically). From an objective morality standpoint, I support the statement "it is good to act ethically" in so far as the ethics in question adhere to my understanding of the general objective moral principles, because it is good to act morally (and thus, ethically). From a pure ethics standpoint, I cannot see how one can say "it is good to act ethically." Why is this the case? What positive argument is there to be made for this position (distinct from the negative argument of, "because otherwise you will be punished")?
If punishment is the only reason for me to act ethically, then my incentive is not actually to act ethically, but to find ways to do what I want without being punished. Is anyone actually ready to say that murdering 800,000 people would not be wrong as long as I escaped punishment?
On May 11 2011 22:18 adun12345 wrote: or you have to believe that it was wrong solely on the basis that you personally believe that it was wrong.
No. There is a third option without reverting to an "objective" morality: the predominant belief in your society is that it is wrong. In this case "your society" refers to the majority of the world. This is how we have an International Court of Justice and the Geneva Conventions, because the majority of the world population came together and set down a list of rules that should not be broken. However, if the majority view of the world population changes, there is a good chance we will readdress issues in International Law and other such treaties, just as countries update their internal laws as the time goes on (and individuals adjust their behaviour as they go through life: as a teenager I might have thought it acceptable to not pay a metro ticket, whereas now I frown on this behaviour).
This is admittedly an option, but it fails to explain why I, as a rational individual, ought to behave according to the rules of society. Suppose I and my compatriots want to butcher 800,000 unarmed people with machetes. We're concerned that, as the civil war in our country tips against us, that we need to strike first to ensure our security. In this scenario, I care more about my immediate needs than what the rest of the world thinks about my action. Can pure ethics provide any rationale for why I shouldn't do this? By what authority can the global community judge me?
More sympathetically, what if the majority decides for something with which you personally disagree? Suppose the majority of the world decided that slavery was an acceptable institution - would you be wrong for disagreeing with them? Individually-centric pure ethics would say of course not - you generate your own ethics, and damn anyone who says otherwise. However, community-centric ethics would say of course - you are magically beholden to conform your own personal behavior to the whims of the majority.
In short, although you are right that there is a third option, I fail to see how this option is more consistent, or more appealing.
I think my earlier post makes sense of that. Your personal code of ethics can obviously differ significantly from the majority view (for instance, fundamental moslims in -lets say- china), although human evolution has hardcoded some ways of thinking into us and it would be extreme to break a rule given by this way of thinking.
Even so, there is nothing "wrong" with that, unless you break some code of ethics which has been turned into legal code, in which case you will suffer the consequences (if caught). The same for your example: if you decide it is ethically okay to slaughter 800,000 unarmed people with machetes (or jews with a gas chamber, tutsis with machine guns or kurds with mustard gas, to name some real examples) then you are welcome to do so, but don't be surprised when the large majority of people who don't share your code of ethics cry out in rage and subject you to a fitting punishment (try you for crimes against humanity most likely).
As for your other example: if the majority population decides to revert back to the idea that slavery is ethical you are welcome to disagree with it (just as Thomas More did, except as a form of punishment for criminals, in the 15th century), just don't expect to achieve anything or even be judged to have the moral highground (except perhaps in the eyes of a future civilization when slavery has been abolished once again).
Community-centered ethics are what rules and laws are built around. Person-centered ethics are subsequent rules you personally decide to live your life by. If these conflict significantly with community-centered ethics there is a large chance you will be a social outcast, or tried as a criminal. However there is no ethical system which is inherently right or wrong, which is what an objective morality states. The universe at large does not impose some set of morals which must be adhered to, however the underlying laws of the universe do impose some restrictions on what sets of morals lead to a viable society (if wholesale slaughter is seen as ethical, the society runs a large risk of extinguishing itself).
I understand the fact that societies form laws that accord with their ethical principles (and, I would hope, also reflect fundamental moral principles) to judge others. I also understand the utilitarian argument that one should do right in order to avoid punishment. Taken by itself, this argument inevitably leads to the position that there is no right or wrong, only what one can and cannot do.
All of that is besides my real question, though: by what right does society impose its ethical norms upon the individual? The very difference between a law and an ethical standard is that a law only has a negative aspect - obey or be punished - while an ethical standard also has a positive aspect ("it is good to act ethically"). If one seeks to depend entirely on the negative aspect, then one is no longer actually discussing pure ethics - rather, one has moved over into the realm of "legalism," in which the law is the ultimate and final arbiter of all.
The difficulty I still have with pure ethics is from whence the positive aspect of communal ethics emerges (it is good to act ethically). From an objective morality standpoint, I support the statement "it is good to act ethically" in so far as the ethics in question adhere to my understanding of the general objective moral principles, because it is good to act morally (and thus, ethically). From a pure ethics standpoint, I cannot see how one can say "it is good to act ethically." Why is this the case? What positive argument is there to be made for this position (distinct from the negative argument of, "because otherwise you will be punished")?
If punishment is the only reason for me to act ethically, then my incentive is not actually to act ethically, but to find ways to do what I want without being punished. Is anyone actually ready to say that murdering 800,000 people would not be wrong as long as I escaped punishment?
Here, I can't claim to be able to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, but I will claim that objective morality. (admittedly I am coming from a religious standpoint.... but I would assert that it would still be wrong even if one could somehow escape divine punishment... in the sense that it would violate the purpose you were built for... ie like something that doesn't work is wrong.)
Might makes Right. What's the single most powerful integrated force on the planet? The US military? That's my best guess. Regardless, whatever that strongest force is, it's the most moral thing on the planet too!
I guess mine would be under suggestive. I think that most people have a relatively similar set of morals, most murderers would probably think they do bad things, however there are some outliers who see that there is nothing wrong with killing people, and some that think they should kill people and that it is a good thing to do. I think as a whole a lot of people need to die because we can't seem to live a balanced life with the current amount and on a personal level I don't want to be the person to do it, luckily we have a lot of natural disasters happening right now.
On May 11 2011 22:18 adun12345 wrote: or you have to believe that it was wrong solely on the basis that you personally believe that it was wrong.
No. There is a third option without reverting to an "objective" morality: the predominant belief in your society is that it is wrong. In this case "your society" refers to the majority of the world. This is how we have an International Court of Justice and the Geneva Conventions, because the majority of the world population came together and set down a list of rules that should not be broken. However, if the majority view of the world population changes, there is a good chance we will readdress issues in International Law and other such treaties, just as countries update their internal laws as the time goes on (and individuals adjust their behaviour as they go through life: as a teenager I might have thought it acceptable to not pay a metro ticket, whereas now I frown on this behaviour).
This is admittedly an option, but it fails to explain why I, as a rational individual, ought to behave according to the rules of society. Suppose I and my compatriots want to butcher 800,000 unarmed people with machetes. We're concerned that, as the civil war in our country tips against us, that we need to strike first to ensure our security. In this scenario, I care more about my immediate needs than what the rest of the world thinks about my action. Can pure ethics provide any rationale for why I shouldn't do this? By what authority can the global community judge me?
More sympathetically, what if the majority decides for something with which you personally disagree? Suppose the majority of the world decided that slavery was an acceptable institution - would you be wrong for disagreeing with them? Individually-centric pure ethics would say of course not - you generate your own ethics, and damn anyone who says otherwise. However, community-centric ethics would say of course - you are magically beholden to conform your own personal behavior to the whims of the majority.
In short, although you are right that there is a third option, I fail to see how this option is more consistent, or more appealing.
I think my earlier post makes sense of that. Your personal code of ethics can obviously differ significantly from the majority view (for instance, fundamental moslims in -lets say- china), although human evolution has hardcoded some ways of thinking into us and it would be extreme to break a rule given by this way of thinking.
Even so, there is nothing "wrong" with that, unless you break some code of ethics which has been turned into legal code, in which case you will suffer the consequences (if caught). The same for your example: if you decide it is ethically okay to slaughter 800,000 unarmed people with machetes (or jews with a gas chamber, tutsis with machine guns or kurds with mustard gas, to name some real examples) then you are welcome to do so, but don't be surprised when the large majority of people who don't share your code of ethics cry out in rage and subject you to a fitting punishment (try you for crimes against humanity most likely).
As for your other example: if the majority population decides to revert back to the idea that slavery is ethical you are welcome to disagree with it (just as Thomas More did, except as a form of punishment for criminals, in the 15th century), just don't expect to achieve anything or even be judged to have the moral highground (except perhaps in the eyes of a future civilization when slavery has been abolished once again).
Community-centered ethics are what rules and laws are built around. Person-centered ethics are subsequent rules you personally decide to live your life by. If these conflict significantly with community-centered ethics there is a large chance you will be a social outcast, or tried as a criminal. However there is no ethical system which is inherently right or wrong, which is what an objective morality states. The universe at large does not impose some set of morals which must be adhered to, however the underlying laws of the universe do impose some restrictions on what sets of morals lead to a viable society (if wholesale slaughter is seen as ethical, the society runs a large risk of extinguishing itself).
I understand the fact that societies form laws that accord with their ethical principles (and, I would hope, also reflect fundamental moral principles) to judge others. I also understand the utilitarian argument that one should do right in order to avoid punishment. Taken by itself, this argument inevitably leads to the position that there is no right or wrong, only what one can and cannot do.
All of that is besides my real question, though: by what right does society impose its ethical norms upon the individual? The very difference between a law and an ethical standard is that a law only has a negative aspect - obey or be punished - while an ethical standard also has a positive aspect ("it is good to act ethically"). If one seeks to depend entirely on the negative aspect, then one is no longer actually discussing pure ethics - rather, one has moved over into the realm of "legalism," in which the law is the ultimate and final arbiter of all.
The difficulty I still have with pure ethics is from whence the positive aspect of communal ethics emerges (it is good to act ethically). From an objective morality standpoint, I support the statement "it is good to act ethically" in so far as the ethics in question adhere to my understanding of the general objective moral principles, because it is good to act morally (and thus, ethically). From a pure ethics standpoint, I cannot see how one can say "it is good to act ethically." Why is this the case? What positive argument is there to be made for this position (distinct from the negative argument of, "because otherwise you will be punished")?
If punishment is the only reason for me to act ethically, then my incentive is not actually to act ethically, but to find ways to do what I want without being punished. Is anyone actually ready to say that murdering 800,000 people would not be wrong as long as I escaped punishment?
Here, I can't claim to be able to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, but I will claim that objective morality. (admittedly I am coming from a religious standpoint.... but I would assert that it would still be wrong even if one could somehow escape divine punishment... in the sense that it would violate the purpose you were built for... ie like something that doesn't work is wrong.)
This is my point entirely - objective morality has no difficulty explaining the positive aspect of ethics. It is good to act ethically (where ethics are the standards society sets) in so far as those ethics accord with broader moral principles because it is good to act morally, and it is good to act morally by definition. This explanation satisfies me, but I realize that it is not accepted by many.
The difficulty is that I can't think of another reason why it is good to act ethically. Certainly, it might be less than optimal to act unethically if acting so causes one to be punished, but that only holds true so long as one is actually punished. Otherwise, it seems, anything goes.
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.
This is completely incorrect. Science is a methodology for helping you decide what to believe, not a focus for belief in and of itself. It's perfectly possible for the scientific method to detect the existence of a god or corroborate religious texts - the fact it doesn't is why I'm an atheist.
The scientific method is hard coded around the conceited assumption that everything can be recorded, measured and explained by the human brain and its ingenious little contraptions.
When a dressed up monkey is absolutely convinced that something it cannot register is in fact not there I daresay it's making a rather quantum leap of faith :p
"All things are subject to interpretation, whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth."
I think this sums up my thoughts on morality.
But on the topic of "successful societies", people have brought up this concept as a founding principle of objective morality. There is some difficulty in achieving an objective concept of societal success however and I don't think anyone would argue this with me. That said I would like to add some stupid and boring finding of academic philosophy to this discussion if you would allow me.
It pertains to means-ends relations. You can't just assign objective value to the ends. In our case "successful societies" without also considering the means to this end as they will inevitably enter in the total moral outcome.
What if, to create a successful society, we needed to routinely select a few children and deny their human rights for 23 years as we groom them into extremely efficient and loyal leaders of business and government. What if we needed to kill off every person as soon as they were 65 years of age. These are moral concerns and they are not properly accounted for in the theory.
In conclusion, any morality based exclusively on the attainment of a "successful society" is inherently incomplete and unclear.
The morality of individual people is subjective,but morality tends towards objectivity as you increase the sample size of people above 1.
When you are talking about the morality of a society it's mostly about the objective fact of what makes evolutionary sense. Morals after all are basically just partly-written, partly-unwritten codes that a society needs people to follow to a certain degree of exactitude in order to function and not break down.
On May 11 2011 22:18 adun12345 wrote: or you have to believe that it was wrong solely on the basis that you personally believe that it was wrong.
No. There is a third option without reverting to an "objective" morality: the predominant belief in your society is that it is wrong. In this case "your society" refers to the majority of the world. This is how we have an International Court of Justice and the Geneva Conventions, because the majority of the world population came together and set down a list of rules that should not be broken. However, if the majority view of the world population changes, there is a good chance we will readdress issues in International Law and other such treaties, just as countries update their internal laws as the time goes on (and individuals adjust their behaviour as they go through life: as a teenager I might have thought it acceptable to not pay a metro ticket, whereas now I frown on this behaviour).
This is admittedly an option, but it fails to explain why I, as a rational individual, ought to behave according to the rules of society. Can pure ethics provide any rationale for why I shouldn't do this? By what authority can the global community judge me?
More sympathetically, what if the majority decides for something with which you personally disagree? Suppose the majority of the world decided that slavery was an acceptable institution - would you be wrong for disagreeing with them? Individually-centric pure ethics would say of course not - you generate your own ethics, and damn anyone who says otherwise. However, community-centric ethics would say of course - you are magically beholden to conform your own personal behavior to the whims of the majority.
In short, although you are right that there is a third option, I fail to see how this option is more consistent, or more appealing.
I think my earlier post makes sense of that. Your personal code of ethics can obviously differ significantly from the majority view (for instance, fundamental moslims in -lets say- china), although human evolution has hardcoded some ways of thinking into us and it would be extreme to break a rule given by this way of thinking.
Even so, there is nothing "wrong" with that, unless you break some code of ethics which has been turned into legal code, in which case you will suffer the consequences (if caught). The same for your example: if you decide it is ethically okay to slaughter 800,000 unarmed people with machetes (or jews with a gas chamber, tutsis with machine guns or kurds with mustard gas, to name some real examples) then you are welcome to do so, but don't be surprised when the large majority of people who don't share your code of ethics cry out in rage and subject you to a fitting punishment (try you for crimes against humanity most likely).
As for your other example: if the majority population decides to revert back to the idea that slavery is ethical you are welcome to disagree with it (just as Thomas More did, except as a form of punishment for criminals, in the 15th century), just don't expect to achieve anything or even be judged to have the moral highground (except perhaps in the eyes of a future civilization when slavery has been abolished once again).
Community-centered ethics are what rules and laws are built around. Person-centered ethics are subsequent rules you personally decide to live your life by. If these conflict significantly with community-centered ethics there is a large chance you will be a social outcast, or tried as a criminal. However there is no ethical system which is inherently right or wrong, which is what an objective morality states. The universe at large does not impose some set of morals which must be adhered to, however the underlying laws of the universe do impose some restrictions on what sets of morals lead to a viable society (if wholesale slaughter is seen as ethical, the society runs a large risk of extinguishing itself).
All of that is besides my real question, though: by what right does society impose its ethical norms upon the individual? The very difference between a law and an ethical standard is that a law only has a negative aspect - obey or be punished - while an ethical standard also has a positive aspect ("it is good to act ethically"). If one seeks to depend entirely on the negative aspect, then one is no longer actually discussing pure ethics - rather, one has moved over into the realm of "legalism," in which the law is the ultimate and final arbiter of all.
The difficulty I still have with pure ethics is from whence the positive aspect of communal ethics emerges (it is good to act ethically). From an objective morality standpoint, I support the statement "it is good to act ethically" in so far as the ethics in question adhere to my understanding of the general objective moral principles, because it is good to act morally (and thus, ethically). From a pure ethics standpoint, I cannot see how one can say "it is good to act ethically." Why is this the case? What positive argument is there to be made for this position (distinct from the negative argument of, "because otherwise you will be punished")?
I have just watched the TED talk by Sam Harris posted earlier. I somewhat agree with him, but not so much with his examples. I think a good moral system (more on this later) is more to be grounded in evolution and the sociology of a society, whereas his idea is that it is a system for maximizing human happiness. However, there is a fundamental flaw in this: I have seen a lot of poverty when traveling in Africa, yet these people were extremely friendly, hospitable and above all happy. Brainscans aside, I believe people can find happiness in the most apalling conditions (and similarly, others find misery in the most ideal situations) and thus maximizing individual happiness seems like a bad benchmark for deciding whether a code of ethics is "good" or "bad". As the interviewer after Sam Harris' talk mentioned: women wearing burkas in Afghanistan are often genuinely satisfied by the fact that they have to wear a burka. Now you can refer to their deluded belief system, but who are we to say (as Sam Harris did) that their belief system is deluded?
For that reason I feel that the only "judge" of a code of ethics is: 1. our personal code of ethics (and thus majority rules) 2. time (if a code of ethics of a society is sufficiently bad, that society will dwindle under its weight)
Our personal code of ethics is partially inspired by our biology. We feel empathy, which instills in us a want for others not to experience what we would not to experience ourselves. For most this results in rules such as: 1. do not kill (because we don't want to die) 2. do not steal (because we don't want to be stolen from) 3. do not rape (because we don't want to be raped) 4. do not oppress (because we don't want to be oppressed)
Thus resulting in strong disapproval of people who slaughter 800,000 civilians with machetes, people who condone slavery, etc. Note that I am not speaking about an individual who knows it is wrong to kill his opponents, but, in his thirst to maintain power does so anyway, but people who feel genuinely morally justified in their homicidal tendencies. If a majority of your society has convinced itself that jews are not really people, gas chambers are a possible result. Similarly for black people (or just people who were beaten in war) and slavery. That in modern times we look back on history and judge these as gross aberrations and lack of ethics is simply because you and I do empathize with jews and blacks. However, the same still continues, with Osama bin Laden justifying wholescale slaughter of civilians in the twin towers in a similar manner and equally radical bible thumping protestants declaiming the Islam as a dangerous and inferior religion and thus worthy of eradication. I judge both viewpoints as wrong (or even evil) because I do feel empathy towards americans, respectively moslims, but have to acknowledge that there is no universal code that makes me right and them wrong.
Morality is dependent on human emotion. That alone should prove it is subjective. And by the way... just because everyone agrees on a subjective morality does not make it objective either.
On May 11 2011 22:18 adun12345 wrote: or you have to believe that it was wrong solely on the basis that you personally believe that it was wrong.
No. There is a third option without reverting to an "objective" morality: the predominant belief in your society is that it is wrong. In this case "your society" refers to the majority of the world. This is how we have an International Court of Justice and the Geneva Conventions, because the majority of the world population came together and set down a list of rules that should not be broken. However, if the majority view of the world population changes, there is a good chance we will readdress issues in International Law and other such treaties, just as countries update their internal laws as the time goes on (and individuals adjust their behaviour as they go through life: as a teenager I might have thought it acceptable to not pay a metro ticket, whereas now I frown on this behaviour).
This is admittedly an option, but it fails to explain why I, as a rational individual, ought to behave according to the rules of society. Suppose I and my compatriots want to butcher 800,000 unarmed people with machetes. We're concerned that, as the civil war in our country tips against us, that we need to strike first to ensure our security. In this scenario, I care more about my immediate needs than what the rest of the world thinks about my action. Can pure ethics provide any rationale for why I shouldn't do this? By what authority can the global community judge me?
More sympathetically, what if the majority decides for something with which you personally disagree? Suppose the majority of the world decided that slavery was an acceptable institution - would you be wrong for disagreeing with them? Individually-centric pure ethics would say of course not - you generate your own ethics, and damn anyone who says otherwise. However, community-centric ethics would say of course - you are magically beholden to conform your own personal behavior to the whims of the majority.
In short, although you are right that there is a third option, I fail to see how this option is more consistent, or more appealing.
I think my earlier post makes sense of that. Your personal code of ethics can obviously differ significantly from the majority view (for instance, fundamental moslims in -lets say- china), although human evolution has hardcoded some ways of thinking into us and it would be extreme to break a rule given by this way of thinking.
Even so, there is nothing "wrong" with that, unless you break some code of ethics which has been turned into legal code, in which case you will suffer the consequences (if caught). The same for your example: if you decide it is ethically okay to slaughter 800,000 unarmed people with machetes (or jews with a gas chamber, tutsis with machine guns or kurds with mustard gas, to name some real examples) then you are welcome to do so, but don't be surprised when the large majority of people who don't share your code of ethics cry out in rage and subject you to a fitting punishment (try you for crimes against humanity most likely).
As for your other example: if the majority population decides to revert back to the idea that slavery is ethical you are welcome to disagree with it (just as Thomas More did, except as a form of punishment for criminals, in the 15th century), just don't expect to achieve anything or even be judged to have the moral highground (except perhaps in the eyes of a future civilization when slavery has been abolished once again).
Community-centered ethics are what rules and laws are built around. Person-centered ethics are subsequent rules you personally decide to live your life by. If these conflict significantly with community-centered ethics there is a large chance you will be a social outcast, or tried as a criminal. However there is no ethical system which is inherently right or wrong, which is what an objective morality states. The universe at large does not impose some set of morals which must be adhered to, however the underlying laws of the universe do impose some restrictions on what sets of morals lead to a viable society (if wholesale slaughter is seen as ethical, the society runs a large risk of extinguishing itself).
I understand the fact that societies form laws that accord with their ethical principles (and, I would hope, also reflect fundamental moral principles) to judge others. I also understand the utilitarian argument that one should do right in order to avoid punishment. Taken by itself, this argument inevitably leads to the position that there is no right or wrong, only what one can and cannot do.
All of that is besides my real question, though: by what right does society impose its ethical norms upon the individual? The very difference between a law and an ethical standard is that a law only has a negative aspect - obey or be punished - while an ethical standard also has a positive aspect ("it is good to act ethically"). If one seeks to depend entirely on the negative aspect, then one is no longer actually discussing pure ethics - rather, one has moved over into the realm of "legalism," in which the law is the ultimate and final arbiter of all.
The difficulty I still have with pure ethics is from whence the positive aspect of communal ethics emerges (it is good to act ethically). From an objective morality standpoint, I support the statement "it is good to act ethically" in so far as the ethics in question adhere to my understanding of the general objective moral principles, because it is good to act morally (and thus, ethically). From a pure ethics standpoint, I cannot see how one can say "it is good to act ethically." Why is this the case? What positive argument is there to be made for this position (distinct from the negative argument of, "because otherwise you will be punished")?
If punishment is the only reason for me to act ethically, then my incentive is not actually to act ethically, but to find ways to do what I want without being punished. Is anyone actually ready to say that murdering 800,000 people would not be wrong as long as I escaped punishment?
Here, I can't claim to be able to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, but I will claim that objective morality. (admittedly I am coming from a religious standpoint.... but I would assert that it would still be wrong even if one could somehow escape divine punishment... in the sense that it would violate the purpose you were built for... ie like something that doesn't work is wrong.)
This is my point entirely - objective morality has no difficulty explaining the positive aspect of ethics. It is good to act ethically (where ethics are the standards society sets) in so far as those ethics accord with broader moral principles because it is good to act morally, and it is good to act morally by definition. This explanation satisfies me, but I realize that it is not accepted by many.
The difficulty is that I can't think of another reason why it is good to act ethically. Certainly, it might be less than optimal to act unethically if acting so causes one to be punished, but that only holds true so long as one is actually punished. Otherwise, it seems, anything goes.
Well with subjective morality ie evolutionarilly success type morality, that isn't a problem.
Because "anything goes" is not the issue. Lets say you 1. did not believe in objective reality 2. found a way you could torture a child to death without getting ANY punishment from society whatsoever.
99+% of the people reading this post would not do it... why Because Punishment is not the only mechanism society has for controling your behavior. You have been programmed, genetically and psychologically to not do that.
Now it IS possible to reprogram psychologically (either yourself or others). That happened in the Holocaust to some degree. The system of rewards+punishments wasn't the only thing that shifted, the programming that society provided changed. People that would risk their life for a fellow German Jewish soldier in WWI, became willing to kill them. (now the reprogramming wasn't complete, but if society had maintained that course it might have been.)
So under subjective morality "anything goes" but that doesn't mean anything can happen.
Ie you can't say, "This law/society is evil so I will work against it" you can say "I will work against this law/society because I can do anything I want and I want it changed"
So the abolitionist is 'self-consistent' under either 'objective morality' or 'subjective morality'.
On May 12 2011 00:27 adun12345 wrote: The difficulty is that I can't think of another reason why it is good to act ethically. Certainly, it might be less than optimal to act unethically if acting so causes one to be punished, but that only holds true so long as one is actually punished. Otherwise, it seems, anything goes.
Some part of it is built into us biologically. I can highly recommend Richard Dawkin's work as an illuminating read on where concepts such as altruism can come from, if not from a higher power. One clue is that we feel genuine pleasure from helping somebody in the street who we have no selfish reason to help. Our brain's reward system kicks in to give us a selfish reason for doing a "good deed". This alone should give us an indication that (societies of) humans feeling pleasure from helping other humans somehow had a leg up over (societies of) non-altruistic humans in the battle for survival. A possible reason for this is given in "The Selfish Gene", which, although quite old now, still rings true (although the end on memetics is pure speculation).
On May 11 2011 22:18 adun12345 wrote: or you have to believe that it was wrong solely on the basis that you personally believe that it was wrong.
No. There is a third option without reverting to an "objective" morality: the predominant belief in your society is that it is wrong. In this case "your society" refers to the majority of the world. This is how we have an International Court of Justice and the Geneva Conventions, because the majority of the world population came together and set down a list of rules that should not be broken. However, if the majority view of the world population changes, there is a good chance we will readdress issues in International Law and other such treaties, just as countries update their internal laws as the time goes on (and individuals adjust their behaviour as they go through life: as a teenager I might have thought it acceptable to not pay a metro ticket, whereas now I frown on this behaviour).
This is admittedly an option, but it fails to explain why I, as a rational individual, ought to behave according to the rules of society. Can pure ethics provide any rationale for why I shouldn't do this? By what authority can the global community judge me?
More sympathetically, what if the majority decides for something with which you personally disagree? Suppose the majority of the world decided that slavery was an acceptable institution - would you be wrong for disagreeing with them? Individually-centric pure ethics would say of course not - you generate your own ethics, and damn anyone who says otherwise. However, community-centric ethics would say of course - you are magically beholden to conform your own personal behavior to the whims of the majority.
In short, although you are right that there is a third option, I fail to see how this option is more consistent, or more appealing.
I think my earlier post makes sense of that. Your personal code of ethics can obviously differ significantly from the majority view (for instance, fundamental moslims in -lets say- china), although human evolution has hardcoded some ways of thinking into us and it would be extreme to break a rule given by this way of thinking.
Even so, there is nothing "wrong" with that, unless you break some code of ethics which has been turned into legal code, in which case you will suffer the consequences (if caught). The same for your example: if you decide it is ethically okay to slaughter 800,000 unarmed people with machetes (or jews with a gas chamber, tutsis with machine guns or kurds with mustard gas, to name some real examples) then you are welcome to do so, but don't be surprised when the large majority of people who don't share your code of ethics cry out in rage and subject you to a fitting punishment (try you for crimes against humanity most likely).
As for your other example: if the majority population decides to revert back to the idea that slavery is ethical you are welcome to disagree with it (just as Thomas More did, except as a form of punishment for criminals, in the 15th century), just don't expect to achieve anything or even be judged to have the moral highground (except perhaps in the eyes of a future civilization when slavery has been abolished once again).
Community-centered ethics are what rules and laws are built around. Person-centered ethics are subsequent rules you personally decide to live your life by. If these conflict significantly with community-centered ethics there is a large chance you will be a social outcast, or tried as a criminal. However there is no ethical system which is inherently right or wrong, which is what an objective morality states. The universe at large does not impose some set of morals which must be adhered to, however the underlying laws of the universe do impose some restrictions on what sets of morals lead to a viable society (if wholesale slaughter is seen as ethical, the society runs a large risk of extinguishing itself).
All of that is besides my real question, though: by what right does society impose its ethical norms upon the individual? The very difference between a law and an ethical standard is that a law only has a negative aspect - obey or be punished - while an ethical standard also has a positive aspect ("it is good to act ethically"). If one seeks to depend entirely on the negative aspect, then one is no longer actually discussing pure ethics - rather, one has moved over into the realm of "legalism," in which the law is the ultimate and final arbiter of all.
The difficulty I still have with pure ethics is from whence the positive aspect of communal ethics emerges (it is good to act ethically). From an objective morality standpoint, I support the statement "it is good to act ethically" in so far as the ethics in question adhere to my understanding of the general objective moral principles, because it is good to act morally (and thus, ethically). From a pure ethics standpoint, I cannot see how one can say "it is good to act ethically." Why is this the case? What positive argument is there to be made for this position (distinct from the negative argument of, "because otherwise you will be punished")?
I have just watched the TED talk by Sam Harris posted earlier. I somewhat agree with him, but not so much with his examples. I think a good moral system (more on this later) is more to be grounded in evolution and the sociology of a society, whereas his idea is that it is a system for maximizing human happiness. However, there is a fundamental flaw in this: I have seen a lot of poverty when traveling in Africa, yet these people were extremely friendly, hospitable and above all happy. Brainscans aside, I believe people can find happiness in the most apalling conditions (and similarly, others find misery in the most ideal situations) and thus maximizing individual happiness seems like a bad benchmark for deciding whether a code of ethics is "good" or "bad". As the interviewer after Sam Harris' talk mentioned: women wearing burkas in Afghanistan are often genuinely satisfied by the fact that they have to wear a burka. Now you can refer to their deluded belief system, but who are we to say (as Sam Harris did) that their belief system is deluded?
You misinterpret and misrepresent the views of harris here. Harris advocates a system which minimizes suffering and maximizes human well being. Which he argues is the only thing we can possibly value if we are to value anything. I suggest reading the Moral Landscape by Harris before you engage with these ideas in this way.
On May 12 2011 01:08 Zeri wrote: You misinterpret and misrepresent the views of harris here. Harris advocates a system which minimizes suffering and maximizes human well being. Which he argues is the only thing we can possibly value if we are to value anything. I suggest reading the Moral Landscape by Harris before you engage with these ideas in this way.
The problem is you need to define human well being.
And that ends up as a circular type argument... instead of just saying "I will do this because I believe it is good" it becomes "I will do this because it increases what I believe to be human well being which I believe to be good"
Now if you say human well being consists of X, Y, and Z. all you are saying is that you believe X, Y, and Z to be Good. ie Subjective morality... maybe one you can get a lot of people to agree with, but that is still completely subjective.
I don't really think morality as a whole is quantifiable into objective OR subjective, rather different aspects of overall morality are grouped into each respectively. For example, nobody wants to be killed, therefore it'd be hypocritical to your own survival instinct to kill another.
At the same time, take the PETA movement for example. To them, eating any sort of meat is basically sinful, and they don't respect anyone who allows large corporations to continue to mass produce meat in the way that they do, while others own their own ranch and humanely slaughter their own cattle to either sell or eat themselves.
On May 12 2011 01:08 Zeri wrote: You misinterpret and misrepresent the views of harris here. Harris advocates a system which minimizes suffering and maximizes human well being. Which he argues is the only thing we can possibly value if we are to value anything. I suggest reading the Moral Landscape by Harris before you engage with these ideas in this way.
The problem is you need to define human well being.
And that ends up as a circular type argument... instead of just saying "I will do this because I believe it is good" it becomes "I will do this because it increases what I believe to be human well being which I believe to be good"
Now if you say human well being consists of X, Y, and Z. all you are saying is that you believe X, Y, and Z to be Good. ie Subjective morality... maybe one you can get a lot of people to agree with, but that is still completely subjective.
Read the book, seriously. Its a great read and I won't have to restate all of Harris's arguments. Harris defines 'bad' objectively as the worst possible misery for everyone. After this distinction, the argument is no longer circular.
The major problem is the subjectivity of reality itself. As Constructivist Epistemology and Social Constructionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_epistemology) state, it is impossible for a human to have an objective view on reality.
However, this also gave born to an interesting view on ethics, by reducing the "ethical imperative" of constructivism to "Act always so as to increase the number of choices". This actually makes a lot of sense, since it always means that preserving is better than destroying or letting something to be destroyed. Because, for the example of environment/nature, it gives us more options to interact with it when it is intact and not destroyed.
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.
On May 12 2011 01:08 Zeri wrote: You misinterpret and misrepresent the views of harris here. Harris advocates a system which minimizes suffering and maximizes human well being. Which he argues is the only thing we can possibly value if we are to value anything. I suggest reading the Moral Landscape by Harris before you engage with these ideas in this way.
The problem is you need to define human well being.
And that ends up as a circular type argument... instead of just saying "I will do this because I believe it is good" it becomes "I will do this because it increases what I believe to be human well being which I believe to be good"
Now if you say human well being consists of X, Y, and Z. all you are saying is that you believe X, Y, and Z to be Good. ie Subjective morality... maybe one you can get a lot of people to agree with, but that is still completely subjective.
Read the book, seriously. Its a great read and I won't have to restate all of Harris's arguments. Harris defines 'bad' objectively as the worst possible misery for everyone. After this distinction, the argument is no longer circular.
Misery, in and of itself, is subjective, as happiness (and I would argue that wellbeing and happiness are generally interchangeable and this was definitely so in my argument against his statements). If millions of afghani women are happy wearing a burka, who are we to say that that is due to a misguided belief system and their happiness is thus not genuine happiness! (note that I am not saying millions of afghani women are happy wearing a burka, in fact I would be quite surprised if this were the case after listening to some of the advocates for women's rights in afghanistan)
However, this simple fact brings the whole house down: if misery is not objective, how can you claim to build an objective moral code that minimizes misery (or maximizes well being, whichever you prefer)?
That is, in addition to a second problem: lets say I am a genocidal sociopath and derive pleasure from murdering people. I set about murdering everybody on the planet and, miraculously, succeed. Now social well-being is maximized as I have fulfilled my life goal and am supremely happy. I spend the rest of my life frolicking around and disecting the occasional bunny. Misery has obviously been minimized (and, in case I still feel any misery, will be further minimized when I die), but is a world with 1 genocidal maniac in it truly an optimal state for society?
On May 11 2011 22:18 adun12345 wrote: or you have to believe that it was wrong solely on the basis that you personally believe that it was wrong.
No. There is a third option without reverting to an "objective" morality: the predominant belief in your society is that it is wrong. In this case "your society" refers to the majority of the world. This is how we have an International Court of Justice and the Geneva Conventions, because the majority of the world population came together and set down a list of rules that should not be broken. However, if the majority view of the world population changes, there is a good chance we will readdress issues in International Law and other such treaties, just as countries update their internal laws as the time goes on (and individuals adjust their behaviour as they go through life: as a teenager I might have thought it acceptable to not pay a metro ticket, whereas now I frown on this behaviour).
This is admittedly an option, but it fails to explain why I, as a rational individual, ought to behave according to the rules of society. Can pure ethics provide any rationale for why I shouldn't do this? By what authority can the global community judge me?
More sympathetically, what if the majority decides for something with which you personally disagree? Suppose the majority of the world decided that slavery was an acceptable institution - would you be wrong for disagreeing with them? Individually-centric pure ethics would say of course not - you generate your own ethics, and damn anyone who says otherwise. However, community-centric ethics would say of course - you are magically beholden to conform your own personal behavior to the whims of the majority.
In short, although you are right that there is a third option, I fail to see how this option is more consistent, or more appealing.
I think my earlier post makes sense of that. Your personal code of ethics can obviously differ significantly from the majority view (for instance, fundamental moslims in -lets say- china), although human evolution has hardcoded some ways of thinking into us and it would be extreme to break a rule given by this way of thinking.
Even so, there is nothing "wrong" with that, unless you break some code of ethics which has been turned into legal code, in which case you will suffer the consequences (if caught). The same for your example: if you decide it is ethically okay to slaughter 800,000 unarmed people with machetes (or jews with a gas chamber, tutsis with machine guns or kurds with mustard gas, to name some real examples) then you are welcome to do so, but don't be surprised when the large majority of people who don't share your code of ethics cry out in rage and subject you to a fitting punishment (try you for crimes against humanity most likely).
As for your other example: if the majority population decides to revert back to the idea that slavery is ethical you are welcome to disagree with it (just as Thomas More did, except as a form of punishment for criminals, in the 15th century), just don't expect to achieve anything or even be judged to have the moral highground (except perhaps in the eyes of a future civilization when slavery has been abolished once again).
Community-centered ethics are what rules and laws are built around. Person-centered ethics are subsequent rules you personally decide to live your life by. If these conflict significantly with community-centered ethics there is a large chance you will be a social outcast, or tried as a criminal. However there is no ethical system which is inherently right or wrong, which is what an objective morality states. The universe at large does not impose some set of morals which must be adhered to, however the underlying laws of the universe do impose some restrictions on what sets of morals lead to a viable society (if wholesale slaughter is seen as ethical, the society runs a large risk of extinguishing itself).
All of that is besides my real question, though: by what right does society impose its ethical norms upon the individual? The very difference between a law and an ethical standard is that a law only has a negative aspect - obey or be punished - while an ethical standard also has a positive aspect ("it is good to act ethically"). If one seeks to depend entirely on the negative aspect, then one is no longer actually discussing pure ethics - rather, one has moved over into the realm of "legalism," in which the law is the ultimate and final arbiter of all.
The difficulty I still have with pure ethics is from whence the positive aspect of communal ethics emerges (it is good to act ethically). From an objective morality standpoint, I support the statement "it is good to act ethically" in so far as the ethics in question adhere to my understanding of the general objective moral principles, because it is good to act morally (and thus, ethically). From a pure ethics standpoint, I cannot see how one can say "it is good to act ethically." Why is this the case? What positive argument is there to be made for this position (distinct from the negative argument of, "because otherwise you will be punished")?
I have just watched the TED talk by Sam Harris posted earlier. I somewhat agree with him, but not so much with his examples. I think a good moral system (more on this later) is more to be grounded in evolution and the sociology of a society, whereas his idea is that it is a system for maximizing human happiness. However, there is a fundamental flaw in this: I have seen a lot of poverty when traveling in Africa, yet these people were extremely friendly, hospitable and above all happy. Brainscans aside, I believe people can find happiness in the most apalling conditions (and similarly, others find misery in the most ideal situations) and thus maximizing individual happiness seems like a bad benchmark for deciding whether a code of ethics is "good" or "bad". As the interviewer after Sam Harris' talk mentioned: women wearing burkas in Afghanistan are often genuinely satisfied by the fact that they have to wear a burka. Now you can refer to their deluded belief system, but who are we to say (as Sam Harris did) that their belief system is deluded?
For that reason I feel that the only "judge" of a code of ethics is: 1. our personal code of ethics (and thus majority rules) 2. time (if a code of ethics of a society is sufficiently bad, that society will dwindle under its weight)
Our personal code of ethics is partially inspired by our biology. We feel empathy, which instills in us a want for others not to experience what we would not to experience ourselves. For most this results in rules such as: 1. do not kill (because we don't want to die) 2. do not steal (because we don't want to be stolen from) 3. do not rape (because we don't want to be raped) 4. do not oppress (because we don't want to be oppressed)
Thus resulting in strong disapproval of people who slaughter 800,000 civilians with machetes, people who condone slavery, etc. Note that I am not speaking about an individual who knows it is wrong to kill his opponents, but, in his thirst to maintain power does so anyway, but people who feel genuinely morally justified in their homicidal tendencies. If a majority of your society has convinced itself that jews are not really people, gas chambers are a possible result. Similarly for black people (or just people who were beaten in war) and slavery. That in modern times we look back on history and judge these as gross aberrations and lack of ethics is simply because you and I do[\i] empathize with jews and blacks. However, the same still continues, with Osama bin Laden justifying wholescale slaughter of civilians in the twin towers in a similar manner and equally radical bible thumping protestants declaiming the Islam as a dangerous and inferior religion and thus worthy of eradication. I judge both viewpoints as wrong (or even evil) because I do feel empathy towards americans, respectively moslims, but have to acknowledge that there is no universal code that makes me right and them wrong.
All of which is perfectly fine, in as far as it goes. However, to simply say "I believe that al Qaeda is wrong, but I recognize that there is no universal objective code that makes me right and them wrong" still does not answer the basic question: do we as a society have a right to force individuals who believe in al Qaeda's ethical code to abide by our ethical code?
I don't want to immediately discount the answer "no," but I would also like to point out that we as a society nonetheless have taken action to enforce our ethical standards on members of al Qaeda, just as we have with many other divergent viewpoints. The question here is, is our attempt to enforce our ethical views on others at all justified? It seems to me that the viewpoint above will forever be limited to only judging one's own personal behavior, or to arbitrarily attempting to enforce one's own viewpoints on others [i]even though one knows that these viewpoints are entirely subjective.
Some part of it is built into us biologically. I can highly recommend Richard Dawkin's work as an illuminating read on where concepts such as altruism can come from, if not from a higher power. One clue is that we feel genuine pleasure from helping somebody in the street who we have no selfish reason to help. Our brain's reward system kicks in to give us a selfish reason for doing a "good deed". This alone should give us an indication that (societies of) humans feeling pleasure from helping other humans somehow had a leg up over (societies of) non-altruistic humans in the battle for survival. A possible reason for this is given in "The Selfish Gene", which, although quite old now, still rings true (although the end on memetics is pure speculation).
As an aside, the great difficulty I have with Dawkin's work is that he takes the above example (the brain rewards us for altruism) and therefore concludes that there is no God (I just can't fathom the logic of "Chemicals in the brain reward us for altruism, therefore there is no God;" I always feel like there are a couple of steps missing in that logic) - although his science is generally sound, his philosophy is simply abysmal (and his conflating of philosophy and science rather unforgivable, both from a scientific and philosophical standpoint).
However, a full discussion of my opinions on the soundness of Dawkin's work would take us wildly off-topic, so instead let's focus on the specific question of brain chemistry. For the question of morality, it would seem to me that this example provides perhaps more evidence for objective morality than it does for pure ethics. The premise is that all human begins are genetically hard-wired to respond to certain thoughts or actions in certain ways through the common evolutionary experiences of our ancestors. If we accept that judgments of "right" and "wrong" have a certain objective basis in human brain chemistry, then that would seem to support the concept that there are certain objective standards by which human behavior can be judged right or wrong that exist beyond either the the rational, creative effort of the individual consciousness or the quasi-democratic zeitgeist of society.
One might further induce the broader origins of this brain-chemical level reaction by suggesting that it reflects the will of a higher power, but this induction is not really necessary to suggest that there are certain standards of behavior (vague though they might be) shared by all human beings that exist beyond the ethical realm of reason and society.
I don't know where I stand on the issue, probably lean closer to subjective morals. Things we consider inhumane and immoral in one place are commonly accepted, even encouraged in others. Putting that stance aside, I have an issue with the OP. How can a murder be considered moral by anyone? The very definition of murder, at least as far as some dictionaries go, is the unjustified killing of another. How can you consider something moral if it is by definition unjustified? Maybe "killing" would be a more appropriate term.
Just to clarify, an objective morality (one which is hardwired from birth or subsequent development) does not preclude immoral behavior (obviously). It merely means we have a natural aversion to certain acts or injustices. If there is any such aversion from birth, then morality is partially objective, meaning we have an intrinsic sense in some instances of what is right and what is wrong. Of course this hardwiring could be irrational, and could have a lot of holes that need to be covered by the laws and ethics of society, but that does not mean it doesn't exist.
As way of just answering your question, I believe in Objective Morality, but also because I believe in a higher Moral Authority, a "law-giver" if you will.
However, if I did not believe in this, I guess I would still believe in objective morality in some sense, as to me, the only logically consistent alternative would be complete nihilism, or that nothing is wrong or right, because in the end, we're all dead anyway. Which is pretty absolute/objective I guess.
On May 12 2011 01:42 sambour wrote: Just to clarify, an objective morality (one which is hardwired from birth or subsequent development) does not preclude immoral behavior (obviously). It merely means we have a natural aversion to certain acts or injustices. If there is any such aversion from birth, then morality is partially objective, meaning we have an intrinsic sense in some instances of what is right and what is wrong. Of course this hardwiring could be irrational, and could have a lot of holes that need to be covered by the laws and ethics of society, but that does not mean it doesn't exist.
Except even the wiring in our brains is independent and unique for each person. We aren't all clones of each other. Therefore we won't have identical aversions. But really this argument is flawed because most aversions are conditioned by society.
EDIT: And yet ANOTHER way this argument is flawed is that emotional aversions are not the proper basis for morality. You should have an aversion to amputating a leg for instance, but sometimes it has been necessary to save a life.
Reciprocal moral behaviour might be evolutionarily based, but that doesn't make it objectively moral. For instance if I help my criminal friend escape out of prison and he then reciprocally helps me to murder someone neither of those two acts can be argued to be objectively moral even though it is reciprocal behaviour. Ultimately there is no human-independent standard of morality, that would make morality objective. Reason cannot offer a solution without dubitable assumptions. Nevertheless, moral objectivism has to be adopted to some extent in order for a successful society and legal system to exist. Pragmaticism is sometimes more important than truth on a social level. However, as for individuals, realising there are no true objective moral standards can be liberating.
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.
the examples are perfect, but there's another layer to the problem. morals are arbitrary and depend entirely on the society wich values them (economics and politics indeed), but they are also enforced, which gives them an objective component: if you helped a slave to escape his "master" in the XIX century, you would have been punished by the law of the time. same thing happens now, if you share mp3s and movies you may face legal consequences for it. this means that, althoug we can perfectly see how arbitrary morals are, they aren't exactly just illusions, because they have effects on the real world. from a philosophical point of view they can be viewed as arbitrary sentences, but not from a practical one. so, to answer the question, they are both: subjective and objective. subjective because there doesn't seem to be a way to find the one and only Absolut Standard of Desired Human Behavior, but objective because they are one of a kind of simbolic constructs with real effects on the world.
On May 11 2011 22:18 adun12345 wrote: or you have to believe that it was wrong solely on the basis that you personally believe that it was wrong.
No. There is a third option without reverting to an "objective" morality: the predominant belief in your society is that it is wrong. In this case "your society" refers to the majority of the world. This is how we have an International Court of Justice and the Geneva Conventions, because the majority of the world population came together and set down a list of rules that should not be broken. However, if the majority view of the world population changes, there is a good chance we will readdress issues in International Law and other such treaties, just as countries update their internal laws as the time goes on (and individuals adjust their behaviour as they go through life: as a teenager I might have thought it acceptable to not pay a metro ticket, whereas now I frown on this behaviour).
This is admittedly an option, but it fails to explain why I, as a rational individual, ought to behave according to the rules of society. Can pure ethics provide any rationale for why I shouldn't do this? By what authority can the global community judge me?
More sympathetically, what if the majority decides for something with which you personally disagree? Suppose the majority of the world decided that slavery was an acceptable institution - would you be wrong for disagreeing with them? Individually-centric pure ethics would say of course not - you generate your own ethics, and damn anyone who says otherwise. However, community-centric ethics would say of course - you are magically beholden to conform your own personal behavior to the whims of the majority.
In short, although you are right that there is a third option, I fail to see how this option is more consistent, or more appealing.
I think my earlier post makes sense of that. Your personal code of ethics can obviously differ significantly from the majority view (for instance, fundamental moslims in -lets say- china), although human evolution has hardcoded some ways of thinking into us and it would be extreme to break a rule given by this way of thinking.
Even so, there is nothing "wrong" with that, unless you break some code of ethics which has been turned into legal code, in which case you will suffer the consequences (if caught). The same for your example: if you decide it is ethically okay to slaughter 800,000 unarmed people with machetes (or jews with a gas chamber, tutsis with machine guns or kurds with mustard gas, to name some real examples) then you are welcome to do so, but don't be surprised when the large majority of people who don't share your code of ethics cry out in rage and subject you to a fitting punishment (try you for crimes against humanity most likely).
As for your other example: if the majority population decides to revert back to the idea that slavery is ethical you are welcome to disagree with it (just as Thomas More did, except as a form of punishment for criminals, in the 15th century), just don't expect to achieve anything or even be judged to have the moral highground (except perhaps in the eyes of a future civilization when slavery has been abolished once again).
Community-centered ethics are what rules and laws are built around. Person-centered ethics are subsequent rules you personally decide to live your life by. If these conflict significantly with community-centered ethics there is a large chance you will be a social outcast, or tried as a criminal. However there is no ethical system which is inherently right or wrong, which is what an objective morality states. The universe at large does not impose some set of morals which must be adhered to, however the underlying laws of the universe do impose some restrictions on what sets of morals lead to a viable society (if wholesale slaughter is seen as ethical, the society runs a large risk of extinguishing itself).
All of that is besides my real question, though: by what right does society impose its ethical norms upon the individual? The very difference between a law and an ethical standard is that a law only has a negative aspect - obey or be punished - while an ethical standard also has a positive aspect ("it is good to act ethically"). If one seeks to depend entirely on the negative aspect, then one is no longer actually discussing pure ethics - rather, one has moved over into the realm of "legalism," in which the law is the ultimate and final arbiter of all.
The difficulty I still have with pure ethics is from whence the positive aspect of communal ethics emerges (it is good to act ethically). From an objective morality standpoint, I support the statement "it is good to act ethically" in so far as the ethics in question adhere to my understanding of the general objective moral principles, because it is good to act morally (and thus, ethically). From a pure ethics standpoint, I cannot see how one can say "it is good to act ethically." Why is this the case? What positive argument is there to be made for this position (distinct from the negative argument of, "because otherwise you will be punished")?
I have just watched the TED talk by Sam Harris posted earlier. I somewhat agree with him, but not so much with his examples. I think a good moral system (more on this later) is more to be grounded in evolution and the sociology of a society, whereas his idea is that it is a system for maximizing human happiness. However, there is a fundamental flaw in this: I have seen a lot of poverty when traveling in Africa, yet these people were extremely friendly, hospitable and above all happy. Brainscans aside, I believe people can find happiness in the most apalling conditions (and similarly, others find misery in the most ideal situations) and thus maximizing individual happiness seems like a bad benchmark for deciding whether a code of ethics is "good" or "bad". As the interviewer after Sam Harris' talk mentioned: women wearing burkas in Afghanistan are often genuinely satisfied by the fact that they have to wear a burka. Now you can refer to their deluded belief system, but who are we to say (as Sam Harris did) that their belief system is deluded?
For that reason I feel that the only "judge" of a code of ethics is: 1. our personal code of ethics (and thus majority rules) 2. time (if a code of ethics of a society is sufficiently bad, that society will dwindle under its weight)
Our personal code of ethics is partially inspired by our biology. We feel empathy, which instills in us a want for others not to experience what we would not to experience ourselves. For most this results in rules such as: 1. do not kill (because we don't want to die) 2. do not steal (because we don't want to be stolen from) 3. do not rape (because we don't want to be raped) 4. do not oppress (because we don't want to be oppressed)
Thus resulting in strong disapproval of people who slaughter 800,000 civilians with machetes, people who condone slavery, etc. Note that I am not speaking about an individual who knows it is wrong to kill his opponents, but, in his thirst to maintain power does so anyway, but people who feel genuinely morally justified in their homicidal tendencies. If a majority of your society has convinced itself that jews are not really people, gas chambers are a possible result. Similarly for black people (or just people who were beaten in war) and slavery. That in modern times we look back on history and judge these as gross aberrations and lack of ethics is simply because you and I do[\i] empathize with jews and blacks. However, the same still continues, with Osama bin Laden justifying wholescale slaughter of civilians in the twin towers in a similar manner and equally radical bible thumping protestants declaiming the Islam as a dangerous and inferior religion and thus worthy of eradication. I judge both viewpoints as wrong (or even evil) because I do feel empathy towards americans, respectively moslims, but have to acknowledge that there is no universal code that makes me right and them wrong.
All of which is perfectly fine, in as far as it goes. However, to simply say "I believe that al Qaeda is wrong, but I recognize that there is no universal objective code that makes me right and them wrong" still does not answer the basic question: do we as a society have a right to force individuals who believe in al Qaeda's ethical code to abide by our ethical code?
I don't want to immediately discount the answer "no," but I would also like to point out that we as a society nonetheless have taken action to enforce our ethical standards on members of al Qaeda, just as we have with many other divergent viewpoints. The question here is, is our attempt to enforce our ethical views on others at all justified? It seems to me that the viewpoint above will forever be limited to only judging one's own personal behavior, or to arbitrarily attempting to enforce one's own viewpoints on others [i]even though one knows that these viewpoints are entirely subjective.
Well, there's the question of tribalism to consider here as well. We as "western" society want to protect our "western" way of life. Whether or not this is morally justifiable is kinda beside the point, even though there will be many people saying that we are not just protecting our lifestyle, but also a higher moral standard or some such bollocks Whether we are morally justified in attempting to spread our code of ethics to the rest of the planet is thus irrelevant (if not deeply flawed in the very asking): it is a very good tactic for protecting our code of ethics from destruction (by proponents of other codes of ethics, such as al Quaeda's).
Some part of it is built into us biologically. I can highly recommend Richard Dawkin's work as an illuminating read on where concepts such as altruism can come from, if not from a higher power. One clue is that we feel genuine pleasure from helping somebody in the street who we have no selfish reason to help. Our brain's reward system kicks in to give us a selfish reason for doing a "good deed". This alone should give us an indication that (societies of) humans feeling pleasure from helping other humans somehow had a leg up over (societies of) non-altruistic humans in the battle for survival. A possible reason for this is given in "The Selfish Gene", which, although quite old now, still rings true (although the end on memetics is pure speculation).
As an aside, the great difficulty I have with Dawkin's work is that he takes the above example (the brain rewards us for altruism) and therefore concludes that there is no God (I just can't fathom the logic of "Chemicals in the brain reward us for altruism, therefore there is no God;" I always feel like there are a couple of steps missing in that logic) - although his science is generally sound, his philosophy is simply abysmal (and his conflating of philosophy and science rather unforgivable, both from a scientific and philosophical standpoint).
Agreed. Despite being an atheist I would've preferred if he hadn't tried to mix and merge. However, the science part says that we are capable of explaining altruism without a higher power, which is the interesting part!
However, a full discussion of my opinions on the soundness of Dawkin's work would take us wildly off-topic, so instead let's focus on the specific question of brain chemistry. For the question of morality, it would seem to me that this example provides perhaps more evidence for objective morality than it does for pure ethics. The premise is that all human begins are genetically hard-wired to respond to certain thoughts or actions in certain ways through the common evolutionary experiences of our ancestors. If we accept that judgments of "right" and "wrong" have a certain objective basis in human brain chemistry, then that would seem to support the concept that there are certain objective standards by which human behavior can be judged right or wrong that exist beyond either the the rational, creative effort of the individual consciousness or the quasi-democratic zeitgeist of society.
One might further induce the broader origins of this brain-chemical level reaction by suggesting that it reflects the will of a higher power, but this induction is not really necessary to suggest that there are certain standards of behavior (vague though they might be) shared by all human beings that exist beyond the ethical realm of reason and society.
Well, there are some rules which are biologically programmed into us (and others which are socially programmed into us). However, this is hardly a definition of an objective moral code. Female praying mantises have it biologically hardcoded to eat their mates after sex: is this an objective moral code of praying mantises? If so, then moral code is species dependent. What if we evolve over a couple of thousand years into two species: a ruler human and a slave human (see plenty of distopian scifi books for similar examples, including the seminal brave new world (huxley) and the time machine (wells)): would slavery be morally justified by biology then? If we accept that "right" and "wrong" have a bias in human brain chemistry, then we have not decided it's objective, just species-wide. However, biological programming can also be overcome, just as social programming can. In the end a personal code of ethics is an amalgamy of biological, social and personal influences. That's why many people (and societies) consider it morally wrong to cheat on your husband/wife, despite there being a biological drive to do so. Following your instincts is thus not always considered ethical!
If they learned the content of the Sam Harris video and the result of the Chomsky vs Foucault debate in school, maybe we would live in a better world.
How can we have a moral and successful society if people believe any system of morals is equal to any other system you can conceive of? Because that is what subjective morality means.
There are good answers and bad answers, people. Just because it isn't all crisp clear to us yet doesn't mean it is subjective.
Someone's daughter gets raped. One response and one that is commonly seen in more primitive societies, is for the father/brothers to kill her out of shame. You think that is a perfectly fine response? Do you think that in their society the answer is different than in ours? Obviously, in our society that solution doesn't result in anything anyone would consider 'good'. But does it in theirs? No. Even in their society this is a damaging act. So why isn't it objectively immoral? You tell me why.
I think the moral challenge we all face isn't knowing what is right and wrong. It's doing the right thing when you don't want to.
One of the drawbacks of believing in objective ethics is that by consequence you will think that everyone who disagrees with you is either ignorant or immoral. And once you sufficiently lose respect for other people you will stop thinking of them as people. Not respecting other people is a major reason some of the most terrible actions are done in this world.
On May 12 2011 01:59 Acrofales wrote: Agreed. Despite being an atheist I would've preferred if he hadn't tried to mix and merge. However, the science part says that we are capable of explaining altruism without a higher power, which is the interesting part!
The problem with this interpretation of altruism is that it isn't altruism anymore. You give someone a cookie because eating it yourself wouldn't make you as happy as giving it to someone else. It is, in it's essence, a reduction of altruism to self-interest.
(Which is why so many millionaires start foundations in their own name. 'Look at me, I'm a good person!')
Simple fact is that humans are a social species. We're hardwired to do these things, and analyzing it takes away the beauty of empathic acts.
Really, I think it is dangerous to suggest that empathy is less beautiful if you understand it is a chemical or neurological process. Does chocolate taste less good because you know the molecule structure of the active ingredients?
With morality this is a dangerous idea because some day we will know it's all just brain chemistry and exactly how it works. Is empathy in the future less 'beautiful' than it is now? You suggest we have less reason to be moral in the future because it's just brain chemistry and not something either magical or mysterious.
On May 12 2011 02:09 Suisen wrote: Ooh god, I am shocked by the responses so far.
If they learned the content of the Sam Harris video and the result of the Chomsky vs Foucault debate in school, maybe we would live in a better world.
How can we have a moral and successful society if people believe any system of morals is equal to any other system you can conceive of? Because that is what subjective morality means.
There are good answers and bad answers, people. Just because it isn't all crisp clear to us yet doesn't mean it is subjective.
Except there are no good or bad answers... Only "your" answers and "my" answers. That's the whole point of this discussion. Just because you feel your morality should be the criteria for everyone on the planet doesn't make it so.
People use simplistic arguments about things like rape, because damn near everyone agrees with them. The real arguments are found in issues people disagree on, like morality towards animals to insects, the death penalty, euthanasia and so on...
Someone's daughter gets raped. One response and one that is commonly seen in more primitive societies, is for the father/brothers to kill her out of shame. You think that is a perfectly fine response? Do you think that in their society the answer is different than in ours? Obviously, in our society that solution doesn't result in anything anyone would consider 'good'. But does it in theirs? No. Even in their society this is a damaging act. So why isn't it objectively immoral? You tell me why.
Because "objectivity" means more than a consensus of subjective individuals.
You can't explain why everyone considers rape to be wrong. I can.
You think raping and not raping a person have equally fine results? You think you can't measure the suffering inflicted and the damage done to the fiber of a society if everyone just goes out and rape?
You think every society is equally pleasant to live in? You think the pleasantness of a society has nothing to do with the morality it has? The answer has nothing to do with subjective notions. The Taliban may believe it will benefit society to kill a girl that was raped. That does nothing. Now doing measurements in society is hard to do. But you can still measure the result of the action they take. And it is either good or bad for society. And what is good or bad for a society is also objective. A society where people can get along and live in harmony is always superior to one where you have the odds to be killed on sight 'just because'. This is not just an opinion or a subjective notion. It's not an issue of just humans accidentally all agreeing. It's a reality.
I think it can be shown scientifically humans have moral principles hardwired into them. Humans have universal values. That's why we have universal human rights. Arabs and Chinese have the same intrinsic urge for freedom and democracy as westerners have. Societies can suppress this but that's a different issue.
I think it can be shown that some societies are more successful than others because of how they operate. I think the ethnics of a society have an effect on this. Therefore, it is clear to show moral questions have very good answers and very bad answers. Surely you will accept that objectively bad answers can be given. There may be grey and debatable answers and the good answer may not be obvious. But still those are signs that morality is objective.
And it's not just genes and humans. If there are aliens their society will run into the same problems and their morality will share elements with ours.
I really believe everyone here that believes morality has somehow to be subjective is the victim of anti religious radical postmodernists.
On May 12 2011 02:30 Suisen wrote: You can't explain why everyone considers rape to be wrong. I can.
You think raping and not raping a person have equally fine results? You think you can't measure the suffering inflicted and the damage done to the fiber of a society if everyone just goes out and rape?
You think every society is equally pleasant to live in? You think the pleasantness of a society has nothing to do with the morality it has?
I think it can be shown scientifically humans have moral principles hardwired into them. Humans have universal values. That's why we have universal human rights. Arabs and Chinese have the same intrinsic urge for freedom and democracy as westerners have. Societies can suppress this but that's a different issue.
I think it can be shown that some societies are more successful than others because of how they operate. I think the ethnics of a society have an effect on this. Therefore, it is clear to show moral questions have very good answers and very bad answers. Surely you will accept that objectively bad answers can be given. There may be grey and debatable answers and the good answer may not be obvious. But still those are signs that morality is objective.
And it's not just genes and humans. If there are aliens their society will run into the same problems and their morality will share elements with ours.
The fact that people do commit rape already disproves your statement that humans have universal values.
And you can't simply replace the word "immoral" with the word "damaging" or harmful to society. Is amputating a leg damaging? Yes. But sometimes our logic demands it in order to save a life. You can use the same logic to advocate policies that are clearly beneficial to society, but are generally not considered moral.
None of this is black or white, and it never will be.
On May 12 2011 02:18 Suisen wrote: Analyzing things takes away the 'beauty'?
Really, I think it is dangerous to suggest that empathy is less beautiful if you understand it is a chemical or neurological process. Does chocolate taste less good because you know the molecule structure of the active ingredients?
With morality this is a dangerous idea because some day we will know it's all just brain chemistry and exactly how it works. Is empathy in the future less 'beautiful' than it is now? You suggest we have less reason to be moral in the future because it's just brain chemistry and not something either magical or mysterious.
That in itself is a subjective question because different societies and individuals have varying opinions. Since every human exists within a societal context, should individuals be held to possibly non-existent "cosmic standards" "societal standards" or their own "personal standards." Shouldn't we ask if it is subjective, or subjective to each individual person/society? Then ask if that allows each person to judge other groups based on their own customized morality? Or should we truly believe that everyone can set their own standards.
It goes both ways. We do not judge weed smokers in Copenhagen, but we do in America. Whereas we judge all murderers in all societies, regardless of if its socially acceptable (like in primitive societies). While this makes perfect sense, there is a disparity in terms of what we deem as a subjective evil and an objective evil. Which implies a cosmic morality.
Many rapists know rape is wrong. Those that don't may be mentally ill or inable to apply their sense of objective morality properly. Just because objective morality exists doesn't mean all humans have a unfailing perfect moral compass they can't disobey.
Morality is probably similar to language. Humans have the innate ability to grasp morality but it all depends on giving the right outside impulses to have it develop in a healthy way.
Subjective morality again is an extremely radical and dangerous idea. I think it is akin to religion in that is is a form of barbarism. It's a product of primitive societies. If you accept morality is subjective you can throw our universal human rights into the trash bin. It is the road back to the hell we lived in during prehistory. In fact, I don't even believe you truly believe in subjective morality. It would be impossible to function. I think it's somehow a refusal to accept 'objective morality' in the context of a debate. Either due to confusion or for some other reason. In your heart and mind you already operate knowing morality is objective.
I never said it was black and white or that it is obvious. It's not simply replacing 'immora' for 'damaging'. Learn about the golden and silver rule, how every culture independently figured them out, etc. As for amputating a leg, that's a stupid analogy I won't even try to refute. It if saves a life, how is it damaging?
On May 12 2011 01:08 Zeri wrote: You misinterpret and misrepresent the views of harris here. Harris advocates a system which minimizes suffering and maximizes human well being. Which he argues is the only thing we can possibly value if we are to value anything. I suggest reading the Moral Landscape by Harris before you engage with these ideas in this way.
The problem is you need to define human well being.
And that ends up as a circular type argument... instead of just saying "I will do this because I believe it is good" it becomes "I will do this because it increases what I believe to be human well being which I believe to be good"
Now if you say human well being consists of X, Y, and Z. all you are saying is that you believe X, Y, and Z to be Good. ie Subjective morality... maybe one you can get a lot of people to agree with, but that is still completely subjective.
Read the book, seriously. Its a great read and I won't have to restate all of Harris's arguments. Harris defines 'bad' objectively as the worst possible misery for everyone. After this distinction, the argument is no longer circular.
Misery, in and of itself, is subjective, as happiness (and I would argue that wellbeing and happiness are generally interchangeable and this was definitely so in my argument against his statements). If millions of afghani women are happy wearing a burka, who are we to say that that is due to a misguided belief system and their happiness is thus not genuine happiness! (note that I am not saying millions of afghani women are happy wearing a burka, in fact I would be quite surprised if this were the case after listening to some of the advocates for women's rights in afghanistan)
However, this simple fact brings the whole house down: if misery is not objective, how can you claim to build an objective moral code that minimizes misery (or maximizes well being, whichever you prefer)?
That is, in addition to a second problem: lets say I am a genocidal sociopath and derive pleasure from murdering people. I set about murdering everybody on the planet and, miraculously, succeed. Now social well-being is maximized as I have fulfilled my life goal and am supremely happy. I spend the rest of my life frolicking around and disecting the occasional bunny. Misery has obviously been minimized (and, in case I still feel any misery, will be further minimized when I die), but is a world with 1 genocidal maniac in it truly an optimal state for society?
Just because someone's individual experience of an emotion is subjective does not mean there is nothing we can say objectively about what was experienced. That is to say, there are objective facts to be learned about subjective experience (in the original clip linked with Harris and Dawkins Harris gets asked a question about this directly at the end).
About delusion...Harris spends many, many pages tackling the problem of delusional people, I'm not going to repeatedly tell you to read the book too much more but the short answer is that sociopaths and people who are clearly deluded simply have malfunctioning brains and they simply don't count, and as our growing understanding of the brain continues, there are already many facts (objectivity) that define people as sociopaths or delusional so we can objectively exclude them. Also, you are taking a far to individualistic approach to this argument, in your sociopath example, the well being of people in general is severely lowered. One deluded person feeling ecstasy in causing suffering is not a counter example to Harris's argument.
Really, I think it is dangerous to suggest that empathy is less beautiful if you understand it is a chemical or neurological process. Does chocolate taste less good because you know the molecule structure of the active ingredients?
With morality this is a dangerous idea because some day we will know it's all just brain chemistry and exactly how it works. Is empathy in the future less 'beautiful' than it is now? You suggest we have less reason to be moral in the future because it's just brain chemistry and not something either magical or mysterious.
I understand the scientific need to understand brain processes, and I definately agree that there is beauty to find in even the most miniscule details, but I have a problem with reducing everything down to a chemical process because it (in essence) invalidates any form of personal identity we have.
If truly everything is a result of chemicals interacting in my brain, every decision I have ever made and every decision I am ever going to make are set in stone already. They are just another equation; depending on factors I have no control over, based on thousands of years of evolution, my gene pool, etc. There is no more responsability, no more spontaneous action, no more human 'soul' (or however you want to call it).
We might get to a point where science can explain everything, but for now let me enjoy my illusion of free will ;p.
On May 12 2011 02:09 Suisen wrote: Ooh god, I am shocked by the responses so far.
If they learned the content of the Sam Harris video and the result of the Chomsky vs Foucault debate in school, maybe we would live in a better world.
How can we have a moral and successful society if people believe any system of morals is equal to any other system you can conceive of? Because that is what subjective morality means.
There are good answers and bad answers, people. Just because it isn't all crisp clear to us yet doesn't mean it is subjective.
Except there are no good or bad answers... Only "your" answers and "my" answers. That's the whole point of this discussion. Just because you feel your morality should be the criteria for everyone on the planet doesn't make it so.
People use simplistic arguments about things like rape, because damn near everyone agrees with them. The real arguments are found in issues people disagree on, like morality towards animals to insects, the death penalty, euthanasia and so on...
Someone's daughter gets raped. One response and one that is commonly seen in more primitive societies, is for the father/brothers to kill her out of shame. You think that is a perfectly fine response? Do you think that in their society the answer is different than in ours? Obviously, in our society that solution doesn't result in anything anyone would consider 'good'. But does it in theirs? No. Even in their society this is a damaging act. So why isn't it objectively immoral? You tell me why.
Because "objectivity" means more than a consensus of subjective individuals.
Your initial assertion shows that good and bad are not even defined in a way that is relevant to our existence. If you truly believe there are zero truths to be known about morality then you have to accept the fact that my answer to the question of morality is 'lamp' and that answer is equally valid to anything anyone could possibly say. (Upon any level of analysis it becomes painfully obvious that this is not true). Furthermore, good and bad by definition have to apply to our existence in a relevant way and once you define them, then you acknowledge that there are facts to be known about morality.
On May 11 2011 22:18 adun12345 wrote: or you have to believe that it was wrong solely on the basis that you personally believe that it was wrong.
No. There is a third option without reverting to an "objective" morality: the predominant belief in your society is that it is wrong. In this case "your society" refers to the majority of the world. This is how we have an International Court of Justice and the Geneva Conventions, because the majority of the world population came together and set down a list of rules that should not be broken. However, if the majority view of the world population changes, there is a good chance we will readdress issues in International Law and other such treaties, just as countries update their internal laws as the time goes on (and individuals adjust their behaviour as they go through life: as a teenager I might have thought it acceptable to not pay a metro ticket, whereas now I frown on this behaviour).
This is admittedly an option, but it fails to explain why I, as a rational individual, ought to behave according to the rules of society. Can pure ethics provide any rationale for why I shouldn't do this? By what authority can the global community judge me?
More sympathetically, what if the majority decides for something with which you personally disagree? Suppose the majority of the world decided that slavery was an acceptable institution - would you be wrong for disagreeing with them? Individually-centric pure ethics would say of course not - you generate your own ethics, and damn anyone who says otherwise. However, community-centric ethics would say of course - you are magically beholden to conform your own personal behavior to the whims of the majority.
In short, although you are right that there is a third option, I fail to see how this option is more consistent, or more appealing.
I think my earlier post makes sense of that. Your personal code of ethics can obviously differ significantly from the majority view (for instance, fundamental moslims in -lets say- china), although human evolution has hardcoded some ways of thinking into us and it would be extreme to break a rule given by this way of thinking.
Even so, there is nothing "wrong" with that, unless you break some code of ethics which has been turned into legal code, in which case you will suffer the consequences (if caught). The same for your example: if you decide it is ethically okay to slaughter 800,000 unarmed people with machetes (or jews with a gas chamber, tutsis with machine guns or kurds with mustard gas, to name some real examples) then you are welcome to do so, but don't be surprised when the large majority of people who don't share your code of ethics cry out in rage and subject you to a fitting punishment (try you for crimes against humanity most likely).
As for your other example: if the majority population decides to revert back to the idea that slavery is ethical you are welcome to disagree with it (just as Thomas More did, except as a form of punishment for criminals, in the 15th century), just don't expect to achieve anything or even be judged to have the moral highground (except perhaps in the eyes of a future civilization when slavery has been abolished once again).
Community-centered ethics are what rules and laws are built around. Person-centered ethics are subsequent rules you personally decide to live your life by. If these conflict significantly with community-centered ethics there is a large chance you will be a social outcast, or tried as a criminal. However there is no ethical system which is inherently right or wrong, which is what an objective morality states. The universe at large does not impose some set of morals which must be adhered to, however the underlying laws of the universe do impose some restrictions on what sets of morals lead to a viable society (if wholesale slaughter is seen as ethical, the society runs a large risk of extinguishing itself).
All of that is besides my real question, though: by what right does society impose its ethical norms upon the individual? The very difference between a law and an ethical standard is that a law only has a negative aspect - obey or be punished - while an ethical standard also has a positive aspect ("it is good to act ethically"). If one seeks to depend entirely on the negative aspect, then one is no longer actually discussing pure ethics - rather, one has moved over into the realm of "legalism," in which the law is the ultimate and final arbiter of all.
The difficulty I still have with pure ethics is from whence the positive aspect of communal ethics emerges (it is good to act ethically). From an objective morality standpoint, I support the statement "it is good to act ethically" in so far as the ethics in question adhere to my understanding of the general objective moral principles, because it is good to act morally (and thus, ethically). From a pure ethics standpoint, I cannot see how one can say "it is good to act ethically." Why is this the case? What positive argument is there to be made for this position (distinct from the negative argument of, "because otherwise you will be punished")?
I have just watched the TED talk by Sam Harris posted earlier. I somewhat agree with him, but not so much with his examples. I think a good moral system (more on this later) is more to be grounded in evolution and the sociology of a society, whereas his idea is that it is a system for maximizing human happiness. However, there is a fundamental flaw in this: I have seen a lot of poverty when traveling in Africa, yet these people were extremely friendly, hospitable and above all happy. Brainscans aside, I believe people can find happiness in the most apalling conditions (and similarly, others find misery in the most ideal situations) and thus maximizing individual happiness seems like a bad benchmark for deciding whether a code of ethics is "good" or "bad". As the interviewer after Sam Harris' talk mentioned: women wearing burkas in Afghanistan are often genuinely satisfied by the fact that they have to wear a burka. Now you can refer to their deluded belief system, but who are we to say (as Sam Harris did) that their belief system is deluded?
For that reason I feel that the only "judge" of a code of ethics is: 1. our personal code of ethics (and thus majority rules) 2. time (if a code of ethics of a society is sufficiently bad, that society will dwindle under its weight)
Our personal code of ethics is partially inspired by our biology. We feel empathy, which instills in us a want for others not to experience what we would not to experience ourselves. For most this results in rules such as: 1. do not kill (because we don't want to die) 2. do not steal (because we don't want to be stolen from) 3. do not rape (because we don't want to be raped) 4. do not oppress (because we don't want to be oppressed)
Thus resulting in strong disapproval of people who slaughter 800,000 civilians with machetes, people who condone slavery, etc. Note that I am not speaking about an individual who knows it is wrong to kill his opponents, but, in his thirst to maintain power does so anyway, but people who feel genuinely morally justified in their homicidal tendencies. If a majority of your society has convinced itself that jews are not really people, gas chambers are a possible result. Similarly for black people (or just people who were beaten in war) and slavery. That in modern times we look back on history and judge these as gross aberrations and lack of ethics is simply because you and I do[\i] empathize with jews and blacks. However, the same still continues, with Osama bin Laden justifying wholescale slaughter of civilians in the twin towers in a similar manner and equally radical bible thumping protestants declaiming the Islam as a dangerous and inferior religion and thus worthy of eradication. I judge both viewpoints as wrong (or even evil) because I do feel empathy towards americans, respectively moslims, but have to acknowledge that there is no universal code that makes me right and them wrong.
All of which is perfectly fine, in as far as it goes. However, to simply say "I believe that al Qaeda is wrong, but I recognize that there is no universal objective code that makes me right and them wrong" still does not answer the basic question: do we as a society have a right to force individuals who believe in al Qaeda's ethical code to abide by our ethical code?
I don't want to immediately discount the answer "no," but I would also like to point out that we as a society nonetheless have taken action to enforce our ethical standards on members of al Qaeda, just as we have with many other divergent viewpoints. The question here is, is our attempt to enforce our ethical views on others at all justified? It seems to me that the viewpoint above will forever be limited to only judging one's own personal behavior, or to arbitrarily attempting to enforce one's own viewpoints on others [i]even though one knows that these viewpoints are entirely subjective.
Well, there's the question of tribalism to consider here as well. We as "western" society want to protect our "western" way of life. Whether or not this is morally justifiable is kinda beside the point, even though there will be many people saying that we are not just protecting our lifestyle, but also a higher moral standard or some such bollocks Whether we are morally justified in attempting to spread our code of ethics to the rest of the planet is thus irrelevant (if not deeply flawed in the very asking): it is a very good tactic for protecting our code of ethics from destruction (by proponents of other codes of ethics, such as al Quaeda's).
Some part of it is built into us biologically. I can highly recommend Richard Dawkin's work as an illuminating read on where concepts such as altruism can come from, if not from a higher power. One clue is that we feel genuine pleasure from helping somebody in the street who we have no selfish reason to help. Our brain's reward system kicks in to give us a selfish reason for doing a "good deed". This alone should give us an indication that (societies of) humans feeling pleasure from helping other humans somehow had a leg up over (societies of) non-altruistic humans in the battle for survival. A possible reason for this is given in "The Selfish Gene", which, although quite old now, still rings true (although the end on memetics is pure speculation).
As an aside, the great difficulty I have with Dawkin's work is that he takes the above example (the brain rewards us for altruism) and therefore concludes that there is no God (I just can't fathom the logic of "Chemicals in the brain reward us for altruism, therefore there is no God;" I always feel like there are a couple of steps missing in that logic) - although his science is generally sound, his philosophy is simply abysmal (and his conflating of philosophy and science rather unforgivable, both from a scientific and philosophical standpoint).
Agreed. Despite being an atheist I would've preferred if he hadn't tried to mix and merge. However, the science part says that we are capable of explaining altruism without a higher power, which is the interesting part!
However, a full discussion of my opinions on the soundness of Dawkin's work would take us wildly off-topic, so instead let's focus on the specific question of brain chemistry. For the question of morality, it would seem to me that this example provides perhaps more evidence for objective morality than it does for pure ethics. The premise is that all human begins are genetically hard-wired to respond to certain thoughts or actions in certain ways through the common evolutionary experiences of our ancestors. If we accept that judgments of "right" and "wrong" have a certain objective basis in human brain chemistry, then that would seem to support the concept that there are certain objective standards by which human behavior can be judged right or wrong that exist beyond either the the rational, creative effort of the individual consciousness or the quasi-democratic zeitgeist of society.
One might further induce the broader origins of this brain-chemical level reaction by suggesting that it reflects the will of a higher power, but this induction is not really necessary to suggest that there are certain standards of behavior (vague though they might be) shared by all human beings that exist beyond the ethical realm of reason and society.
Well, there are some rules which are biologically programmed into us (and others which are socially programmed into us). However, this is hardly a definition of an objective moral code. Female praying mantises have it biologically hardcoded to eat their mates after sex: is this an objective moral code of praying mantises? If so, then moral code is species dependent. What if we evolve over a couple of thousand years into two species: a ruler human and a slave human (see plenty of distopian scifi books for similar examples, including the seminal brave new world (huxley) and the time machine (wells)): would slavery be morally justified by biology then? If we accept that "right" and "wrong" have a bias in human brain chemistry, then we have not decided it's objective, just species-wide. However, biological programming can also be overcome, just as social programming can. In the end a personal code of ethics is an amalgamy of biological, social and personal influences. That's why many people (and societies) consider it morally wrong to cheat on your husband/wife, despite there being a biological drive to do so. Following your instincts is thus not always considered ethical!
Once again, I'm not entirely convinced by the argument that the only reason we impose our ethical system on al Qaeda is because it is convenient for the survival of our ethical system (although that is, admittedly, an advantage). On these grounds, the only reason my society would ever intervene anywhere is because of a direct threat to my ethical structure - that is, an individual who wanted to force their ethics onto me.
That fails to provide any justification for, say, intervening in Rwanda in 1994 - their society, their rules. And yet, that is not how most people here would react. Instead, I believe most would claim that the genocide in Rwanda was wrong, and that action should have been taken to save innocent lives. And my question is: how does one reconcile the proposition of pure ethics (in that individuals or societies develop their own subjective ethical systems) with the position that international action against the genocide in Rwanda would have been correct? As far as I can tell, either one must admit that there is no good reason to intervene and impose one's ethics on another group, or one must claim that, by some extra-ethical standards, one's own ethics are superior to those of the genocidaires.
Maybe those rules are genetically-dictated by the brain chemistry that emerged from our shared evolutionary experiences. Maybe those rules are the result of a natural law written on our souls at the moment of creation by an all-mighty God. Maybe the only rule is survival (a grim possibility, but a possibility nonetheless). But without some rules, without some standard by which we can evaluate ethical systems against each other, we have absolutely no way of judging the worth of one thought or action against another. Without that basis, without the ability to judge thoughts and actions, either implicitly or explicitly, against objective standards, I fail to see how any society can survive.
On May 12 2011 02:09 Suisen wrote: Ooh god, I am shocked by the responses so far.
If they learned the content of the Sam Harris video and the result of the Chomsky vs Foucault debate in school, maybe we would live in a better world.
How can we have a moral and successful society if people believe any system of morals is equal to any other system you can conceive of? Because that is what subjective morality means.
There are good answers and bad answers, people. Just because it isn't all crisp clear to us yet doesn't mean it is subjective.
Except there are no good or bad answers... Only "your" answers and "my" answers. That's the whole point of this discussion. Just because you feel your morality should be the criteria for everyone on the planet doesn't make it so.
People use simplistic arguments about things like rape, because damn near everyone agrees with them. The real arguments are found in issues people disagree on, like morality towards animals to insects, the death penalty, euthanasia and so on...
Someone's daughter gets raped. One response and one that is commonly seen in more primitive societies, is for the father/brothers to kill her out of shame. You think that is a perfectly fine response? Do you think that in their society the answer is different than in ours? Obviously, in our society that solution doesn't result in anything anyone would consider 'good'. But does it in theirs? No. Even in their society this is a damaging act. So why isn't it objectively immoral? You tell me why.
Because "objectivity" means more than a consensus of subjective individuals.
Your initial assertion shows that good and bad are not even defined in a way that is relevant to our existence. If you truly believe there are zero truths to be known about morality then you have to accept the fact that my answer to the question of morality is 'lamp' and that answer is equally valid to anything anyone could possibly say. Furthermore, good and bad by definition have to apply to our existence in a relevant way and once you define them, then you acknowledge that there are facts to be known about morality.
Actually, once you define "good" and "bad" you are not acknowledging facts about morality, only facts about our definitions of the word, because objective morality does not exist. Strictly defining it is impossible since morality is dependent upon subjective human emotions. But even if we could strictly define it, it would only be making the defined criteria objective.
On May 12 2011 02:09 Suisen wrote: Ooh god, I am shocked by the responses so far.
If they learned the content of the Sam Harris video and the result of the Chomsky vs Foucault debate in school, maybe we would live in a better world.
How can we have a moral and successful society if people believe any system of morals is equal to any other system you can conceive of? Because that is what subjective morality means.
There are good answers and bad answers, people. Just because it isn't all crisp clear to us yet doesn't mean it is subjective.
Someone's daughter gets raped. One response and one that is commonly seen in more primitive societies, is for the father/brothers to kill her out of shame. You think that is a perfectly fine response? Do you think that in their society the answer is different than in ours? Obviously, in our society that solution doesn't result in anything anyone would consider 'good'. But does it in theirs? No. Even in their society this is a damaging act. So why isn't it objectively immoral? You tell me why.
Do you mean the rape or the killing of the daughter?
In their society it can be considered a less damaging act to kill the daughter than let her live (even as in some of ours we apply that logic to the rapist, or the terminally ill.)
Avoiding misery is something that we as humans are biologically programmed to do, and as such seems good and objective. But humans are only biologically programmed to avoid their Own misery. The misery of others causes misery in us, but that means we can either 1. reduce the misery of others 2. isolate ourselves from those who are miserable
Both work, and both are therefore "moral" in the view of preventing misery in self (the bio programmed view). Different societies will then have to choose the most effective course in particular instances (help the miserable, or isolate the miserable)
Indeed the "ruler human" and "slave human" with appropriate evolution could also reduce misery.. If the slaves and rulers were programmed to be appropriately happy with their roles, and carried them out with the skills so as to increase human happiness/well being. (ie the rulers+slaves were effective)
Stop bringing up that Sam Harris talk, it's just silly. You're completely misunderstanding what he's saying. You can shorten his whole talk to 2 sentences:
- If we define the word "morality" as this one single idea I have (that avoiding suffering is moral). - Then my specific definition of the word is objective and practical
That's cool. But that's only your own definition of morality. And clearly not everyone else's :O It's not universal. That's only your own opinion. Sam Harris is smart enough to understand this. He is NOT advocating morals are universal. All he's saying is that IF we all agree to morals being the same thing, then maybe science can quantify it and study it.
Again, Sam Harris is NOT arguing that morals are universal. Stop misinterpretating him.
On May 12 2011 03:00 VIB wrote: Stop bringing up that Sam Harris talk, it's just silly. You're completely misunderstanding what he's saying. You can shorten his whole talk to 2 sentences:
- If we define the word "morality" as this one single idea I have (that avoiding suffering is moral). - Then my specific definition of the word is objective and practical
That's cool. But that's only your own definition of morality. And clearly not everyone else's :O It's not universal. That's only your own opinion. Sam Harris is smart enough to understand this. He is NOT advocating morals are universal. All he's saying is that IF we all agree to morals being the same thing, then maybe science can quantify it and study it.
Again, Sam Harris is NOT arguing that morals are universal. Stop misinterpretating him.
In the past I've disagreed with 99% of the things you have said. This post is part of that 1%
It's an important point to make. Morals are not universal. Even empathetic emotions are not universal. No matter how you cut it, morality is subjective.
On May 12 2011 02:09 Suisen wrote: Ooh god, I am shocked by the responses so far.
If they learned the content of the Sam Harris video and the result of the Chomsky vs Foucault debate in school, maybe we would live in a better world.
How can we have a moral and successful society if people believe any system of morals is equal to any other system you can conceive of? Because that is what subjective morality means.
There are good answers and bad answers, people. Just because it isn't all crisp clear to us yet doesn't mean it is subjective.
Except there are no good or bad answers... Only "your" answers and "my" answers. That's the whole point of this discussion. Just because you feel your morality should be the criteria for everyone on the planet doesn't make it so.
People use simplistic arguments about things like rape, because damn near everyone agrees with them. The real arguments are found in issues people disagree on, like morality towards animals to insects, the death penalty, euthanasia and so on...
Someone's daughter gets raped. One response and one that is commonly seen in more primitive societies, is for the father/brothers to kill her out of shame. You think that is a perfectly fine response? Do you think that in their society the answer is different than in ours? Obviously, in our society that solution doesn't result in anything anyone would consider 'good'. But does it in theirs? No. Even in their society this is a damaging act. So why isn't it objectively immoral? You tell me why.
Because "objectivity" means more than a consensus of subjective individuals.
Your initial assertion shows that good and bad are not even defined in a way that is relevant to our existence. If you truly believe there are zero truths to be known about morality then you have to accept the fact that my answer to the question of morality is 'lamp' and that answer is equally valid to anything anyone could possibly say. Furthermore, good and bad by definition have to apply to our existence in a relevant way and once you define them, then you acknowledge that there are facts to be known about morality.
Actually, once you define "good" and "bad" you are not acknowledging facts about morality, only facts about our definitions of the word, because objective morality does not exist. Strictly defining it is impossible since morality is dependent upon subjective human emotions. But even if we could strictly define it, it would only be making the defined criteria objective.
If good and bad are defined in relation to our existence (as Sam Harris defines bad as 'the worst possible suffering for everyone') then every possible change in that experience can be related the 'bad' and therefore there can be facts learned about them. And a move towards 'bad' compared to a move towards 'good' is objectively bad.
On May 12 2011 02:09 Suisen wrote: Ooh god, I am shocked by the responses so far.
If they learned the content of the Sam Harris video and the result of the Chomsky vs Foucault debate in school, maybe we would live in a better world.
How can we have a moral and successful society if people believe any system of morals is equal to any other system you can conceive of? Because that is what subjective morality means.
There are good answers and bad answers, people. Just because it isn't all crisp clear to us yet doesn't mean it is subjective.
Except there are no good or bad answers... Only "your" answers and "my" answers. That's the whole point of this discussion. Just because you feel your morality should be the criteria for everyone on the planet doesn't make it so.
People use simplistic arguments about things like rape, because damn near everyone agrees with them. The real arguments are found in issues people disagree on, like morality towards animals to insects, the death penalty, euthanasia and so on...
Someone's daughter gets raped. One response and one that is commonly seen in more primitive societies, is for the father/brothers to kill her out of shame. You think that is a perfectly fine response? Do you think that in their society the answer is different than in ours? Obviously, in our society that solution doesn't result in anything anyone would consider 'good'. But does it in theirs? No. Even in their society this is a damaging act. So why isn't it objectively immoral? You tell me why.
Because "objectivity" means more than a consensus of subjective individuals.
Your initial assertion shows that good and bad are not even defined in a way that is relevant to our existence. If you truly believe there are zero truths to be known about morality then you have to accept the fact that my answer to the question of morality is 'lamp' and that answer is equally valid to anything anyone could possibly say. Furthermore, good and bad by definition have to apply to our existence in a relevant way and once you define them, then you acknowledge that there are facts to be known about morality.
Actually, once you define "good" and "bad" you are not acknowledging facts about morality, only facts about our definitions of the word, because objective morality does not exist. Strictly defining it is impossible since morality is dependent upon subjective human emotions. But even if we could strictly define it, it would only be making the defined criteria objective.
If good and bad are defined in relation to our existence (as Sam Harris defines bad as 'the worst possible suffering for everyone') then every possible change in that experience can be related the 'bad' and therefore there can be facts learned about them. And a move towards 'bad' compared to a move towards 'good' is objectively bad.
But then those aren't facts learned about "Morality" they are facts learned about Suffering. Incredibly useful since many people 1. do believe that morality is about suffering. 2. are very motivated to avoid suffering.
But it doesn't answer the question... It just helps develop one of the possible answers.
On May 12 2011 03:00 VIB wrote: Stop bringing up that Sam Harris talk, it's just silly. You're completely misunderstanding what he's saying. You can shorten his whole talk to 2 sentences:
- If we define the word "morality" as this one single idea I have (that avoiding suffering is moral). - Then my specific definition of the word is objective and practical
That's cool. But that's only your own definition of morality. And clearly not everyone else's :O It's not universal. That's only your own opinion. Sam Harris is smart enough to understand this. He is NOT advocating morals are universal. All he's saying is that IF we all agree to morals being the same thing, then maybe science can quantify it and study it.
Again, Sam Harris is NOT arguing that morals are universal. Stop misinterpretating him.
You are missing one crucial point from Harris. Harris states many, many times (not in that specific talk, but in others and his book) that his definition of morality (avoiding suffering) is the only thing we can value. So don't be mistaken. Sam is genuinely arguing that morality is universal and objective.
Sorry my english first. but i want to say of morality that it is not outside to human. It is not standard to everyone, or to divine. It is a choice. And effects of conditions which human grow. So it is useless when discussing how to define morality. Read Kant, he is already cleared this topic. It is very limit to discuss things as only A or B. My words is, People agree, and that is morality. If poeple suddenly agree rape and killing is ok, then that is new morality.
On May 12 2011 02:09 Suisen wrote: Ooh god, I am shocked by the responses so far.
If they learned the content of the Sam Harris video and the result of the Chomsky vs Foucault debate in school, maybe we would live in a better world.
How can we have a moral and successful society if people believe any system of morals is equal to any other system you can conceive of? Because that is what subjective morality means.
There are good answers and bad answers, people. Just because it isn't all crisp clear to us yet doesn't mean it is subjective.
Except there are no good or bad answers... Only "your" answers and "my" answers. That's the whole point of this discussion. Just because you feel your morality should be the criteria for everyone on the planet doesn't make it so.
People use simplistic arguments about things like rape, because damn near everyone agrees with them. The real arguments are found in issues people disagree on, like morality towards animals to insects, the death penalty, euthanasia and so on...
Someone's daughter gets raped. One response and one that is commonly seen in more primitive societies, is for the father/brothers to kill her out of shame. You think that is a perfectly fine response? Do you think that in their society the answer is different than in ours? Obviously, in our society that solution doesn't result in anything anyone would consider 'good'. But does it in theirs? No. Even in their society this is a damaging act. So why isn't it objectively immoral? You tell me why.
Because "objectivity" means more than a consensus of subjective individuals.
Your initial assertion shows that good and bad are not even defined in a way that is relevant to our existence. If you truly believe there are zero truths to be known about morality then you have to accept the fact that my answer to the question of morality is 'lamp' and that answer is equally valid to anything anyone could possibly say. Furthermore, good and bad by definition have to apply to our existence in a relevant way and once you define them, then you acknowledge that there are facts to be known about morality.
Actually, once you define "good" and "bad" you are not acknowledging facts about morality, only facts about our definitions of the word, because objective morality does not exist. Strictly defining it is impossible since morality is dependent upon subjective human emotions. But even if we could strictly define it, it would only be making the defined criteria objective.
If good and bad are defined in relation to our existence (as Sam Harris defines bad as 'the worst possible suffering for everyone') then every possible change in that experience can be related the 'bad' and therefore there can be facts learned about them. And a move towards 'bad' compared to a move towards 'good' is objectively bad.
So we define bad as "the worst possible suffering for everyone." I've got news for you, this isn't some scientific breakthrough. It's called basic utilitarianism.
How do you define this suffering? How do you compare the suffering of one person at the cost of the suffering of another? Can their emotional responses be scientifically measured and quantified?
And does "everyone" include future generations as well? Suppose we go out and shoot every person with aids we can track down. In the long run such a policy would certainly move us towards "less suffering for everyone," and is therefore moral. Right?
And of course intentions have no place in this philosophy. If someone attempts to cause harm to people and then inadvertently causes good, is the person now behaving morally?
On May 12 2011 02:09 Suisen wrote: Ooh god, I am shocked by the responses so far.
If they learned the content of the Sam Harris video and the result of the Chomsky vs Foucault debate in school, maybe we would live in a better world.
How can we have a moral and successful society if people believe any system of morals is equal to any other system you can conceive of? Because that is what subjective morality means.
There are good answers and bad answers, people. Just because it isn't all crisp clear to us yet doesn't mean it is subjective.
Except there are no good or bad answers... Only "your" answers and "my" answers. That's the whole point of this discussion. Just because you feel your morality should be the criteria for everyone on the planet doesn't make it so.
People use simplistic arguments about things like rape, because damn near everyone agrees with them. The real arguments are found in issues people disagree on, like morality towards animals to insects, the death penalty, euthanasia and so on...
Someone's daughter gets raped. One response and one that is commonly seen in more primitive societies, is for the father/brothers to kill her out of shame. You think that is a perfectly fine response? Do you think that in their society the answer is different than in ours? Obviously, in our society that solution doesn't result in anything anyone would consider 'good'. But does it in theirs? No. Even in their society this is a damaging act. So why isn't it objectively immoral? You tell me why.
Because "objectivity" means more than a consensus of subjective individuals.
Your initial assertion shows that good and bad are not even defined in a way that is relevant to our existence. If you truly believe there are zero truths to be known about morality then you have to accept the fact that my answer to the question of morality is 'lamp' and that answer is equally valid to anything anyone could possibly say. Furthermore, good and bad by definition have to apply to our existence in a relevant way and once you define them, then you acknowledge that there are facts to be known about morality.
Actually, once you define "good" and "bad" you are not acknowledging facts about morality, only facts about our definitions of the word, because objective morality does not exist. Strictly defining it is impossible since morality is dependent upon subjective human emotions. But even if we could strictly define it, it would only be making the defined criteria objective.
If good and bad are defined in relation to our existence (as Sam Harris defines bad as 'the worst possible suffering for everyone') then every possible change in that experience can be related the 'bad' and therefore there can be facts learned about them. And a move towards 'bad' compared to a move towards 'good' is objectively bad.
But then those aren't facts learned about "Morality" they are facts learned about Suffering. Incredibly useful since many people 1. do believe that morality is about suffering. 2. are very motivated to avoid suffering.
But it doesn't answer the question... It just helps develop one of the possible answers.
As Harris would argue, there is no definition of Morality that is not reduce-able to a claim about conscious experience and its changes. And we understand these things through facts.
On May 12 2011 03:00 VIB wrote: Stop bringing up that Sam Harris talk, it's just silly. You're completely misunderstanding what he's saying. You can shorten his whole talk to 2 sentences:
- If we define the word "morality" as this one single idea I have (that avoiding suffering is moral). - Then my specific definition of the word is objective and practical
That's cool. But that's only your own definition of morality. And clearly not everyone else's :O It's not universal. That's only your own opinion. Sam Harris is smart enough to understand this. He is NOT advocating morals are universal. All he's saying is that IF we all agree to morals being the same thing, then maybe science can quantify it and study it.
Again, Sam Harris is NOT arguing that morals are universal. Stop misinterpretating him.
You are missing one crucial point from Harris. Harris states many, many times (not in that specific talk, but in others and his book) that his definition of morality (avoiding suffering) is the only thing we can value. So don't be mistaken. Sam is genuinely arguing that morality is universal and objective.
How does
a) his definition of morality (avoiding suffering) is the only thing we can value
implies into
b) morality is universal and objective
???
His definition is practical for studying. But it's still HIS DEFINITION! If there are diferent definitions it's not universal!
On May 12 2011 02:09 Suisen wrote: Ooh god, I am shocked by the responses so far.
If they learned the content of the Sam Harris video and the result of the Chomsky vs Foucault debate in school, maybe we would live in a better world.
How can we have a moral and successful society if people believe any system of morals is equal to any other system you can conceive of? Because that is what subjective morality means.
There are good answers and bad answers, people. Just because it isn't all crisp clear to us yet doesn't mean it is subjective.
Except there are no good or bad answers... Only "your" answers and "my" answers. That's the whole point of this discussion. Just because you feel your morality should be the criteria for everyone on the planet doesn't make it so.
People use simplistic arguments about things like rape, because damn near everyone agrees with them. The real arguments are found in issues people disagree on, like morality towards animals to insects, the death penalty, euthanasia and so on...
Someone's daughter gets raped. One response and one that is commonly seen in more primitive societies, is for the father/brothers to kill her out of shame. You think that is a perfectly fine response? Do you think that in their society the answer is different than in ours? Obviously, in our society that solution doesn't result in anything anyone would consider 'good'. But does it in theirs? No. Even in their society this is a damaging act. So why isn't it objectively immoral? You tell me why.
Because "objectivity" means more than a consensus of subjective individuals.
Your initial assertion shows that good and bad are not even defined in a way that is relevant to our existence. If you truly believe there are zero truths to be known about morality then you have to accept the fact that my answer to the question of morality is 'lamp' and that answer is equally valid to anything anyone could possibly say. Furthermore, good and bad by definition have to apply to our existence in a relevant way and once you define them, then you acknowledge that there are facts to be known about morality.
Actually, once you define "good" and "bad" you are not acknowledging facts about morality, only facts about our definitions of the word, because objective morality does not exist. Strictly defining it is impossible since morality is dependent upon subjective human emotions. But even if we could strictly define it, it would only be making the defined criteria objective.
If good and bad are defined in relation to our existence (as Sam Harris defines bad as 'the worst possible suffering for everyone') then every possible change in that experience can be related the 'bad' and therefore there can be facts learned about them. And a move towards 'bad' compared to a move towards 'good' is objectively bad.
So we define bad as "the worst possible suffering for everyone." I've got news for you, this isn't some scientific breakthrough. It's called basic utilitarianism.
How do you define this suffering? How do you compare the suffering of one person at the cost of the suffering of another? Can their emotional responses be scientifically measured and quantified?
And does "everyone" include future generations as well? Suppose we go out and shoot every person with aids we can track down. In the long run such a policy would certainly move us towards "less suffering for everyone," and is therefore moral. Right?
And of course intentions have no place in this philosophy. If someone attempts to cause harm to people and then inadvertently causes good, is the person now behaving morally?
I'm just retyping the views of Harris because I think they are worth noting in this discussion. Harris answers that question directly (almost word for word) in the original talk posted with him and Dawkins. Its at around minute 35. In his view, a purely utilitarian argument doesn't provide enough foresight as to what counts as a consequence. Clearly killing everyone with aids is a bad idea, (their loved ones would be devastated, anyone showing symptoms of aids would live in constant fear etc, etc.) Harris's points do not advocate strict utilitarianism in the classic sense.
On May 12 2011 03:00 VIB wrote: Stop bringing up that Sam Harris talk, it's just silly. You're completely misunderstanding what he's saying. You can shorten his whole talk to 2 sentences:
- If we define the word "morality" as this one single idea I have (that avoiding suffering is moral). - Then my specific definition of the word is objective and practical
That's cool. But that's only your own definition of morality. And clearly not everyone else's :O It's not universal. That's only your own opinion. Sam Harris is smart enough to understand this. He is NOT advocating morals are universal. All he's saying is that IF we all agree to morals being the same thing, then maybe science can quantify it and study it.
Again, Sam Harris is NOT arguing that morals are universal. Stop misinterpretating him.
You are missing one crucial point from Harris. Harris states many, many times (not in that specific talk, but in others and his book) that his definition of morality (avoiding suffering) is the only thing we can value. So don't be mistaken. Sam is genuinely arguing that morality is universal and objective.
How does
a) his definition of morality (avoiding suffering) is the only thing we can value
implies into
b) morality is universal and objective
???
His definition is practical for studying. But it's still HIS DEFINITION! If there are diferent definitions it's not universal!
Well hes asserting that IF there EXISTS a definition, then it HAS to be his, otherwise it does NOT have a definition. This is different than morality having a DIFFERENT definition.
On May 12 2011 03:00 VIB wrote: Stop bringing up that Sam Harris talk, it's just silly. You're completely misunderstanding what he's saying. You can shorten his whole talk to 2 sentences:
- If we define the word "morality" as this one single idea I have (that avoiding suffering is moral). - Then my specific definition of the word is objective and practical
That's cool. But that's only your own definition of morality. And clearly not everyone else's :O It's not universal. That's only your own opinion. Sam Harris is smart enough to understand this. He is NOT advocating morals are universal. All he's saying is that IF we all agree to morals being the same thing, then maybe science can quantify it and study it.
Again, Sam Harris is NOT arguing that morals are universal. Stop misinterpretating him.
You are missing one crucial point from Harris. Harris states many, many times (not in that specific talk, but in others and his book) that his definition of morality (avoiding suffering) is the only thing we can value. So don't be mistaken. Sam is genuinely arguing that morality is universal and objective.
How does
a) his definition of morality (avoiding suffering) is the only thing we can value
implies into
b) morality is universal and objective
???
His definition is practical for studying. But it's still HIS DEFINITION! If there are diferent definitions it's not universal!
Well hes asserting that IF there EXISTS a definition, then it HAS to be his, otherwise it does NOT have a definition. This is different than morality having a DIFFERENT definition.
That's semantics. The whole point is there is no definition. Morality doesn't exist. Men made it up.
On May 12 2011 03:00 VIB wrote: Stop bringing up that Sam Harris talk, it's just silly. You're completely misunderstanding what he's saying. You can shorten his whole talk to 2 sentences:
- If we define the word "morality" as this one single idea I have (that avoiding suffering is moral). - Then my specific definition of the word is objective and practical
That's cool. But that's only your own definition of morality. And clearly not everyone else's :O It's not universal. That's only your own opinion. Sam Harris is smart enough to understand this. He is NOT advocating morals are universal. All he's saying is that IF we all agree to morals being the same thing, then maybe science can quantify it and study it.
Again, Sam Harris is NOT arguing that morals are universal. Stop misinterpretating him.
You are missing one crucial point from Harris. Harris states many, many times (not in that specific talk, but in others and his book) that his definition of morality (avoiding suffering) is the only thing we can value. So don't be mistaken. Sam is genuinely arguing that morality is universal and objective.
How does
a) his definition of morality (avoiding suffering) is the only thing we can value
implies into
b) morality is universal and objective
???
His definition is practical for studying. But it's still HIS DEFINITION! If there are diferent definitions it's not universal!
Well hes asserting that IF there EXISTS a definition, then it HAS to be his, otherwise it does NOT have a definition. This is different than morality having a DIFFERENT definition.
That's semantics. The whole point is there is no definition. Morality doesn't exist. Men made it up.
Its made up in the same sense that our idea of 'health' is made up. Yes, we used what knowledge we have to come up with a working definition of 'healthy' but in 100 years we could learn that we were completely and absolutely wrong about our own health. Does this mean that all definitions and all possible notions of what everyone considers health are equally valid? No.
EDIT - I feel like we agree on 99% of this. Your view on Harris is spot on, modulo his emphasis why his definition is better, and why it has to be better than others.
I think morality is both subjective and objective, although I think those definitions of subjective and objective are poorly formed.
Morality is subjective in the sense that the unique circumstances of each person determine what values, moral principles, and duties are relevant to guiding that persons actions (so morality cannot be universally codified). I also think that each persons moral beliefs are subjective, because beliefs are subjective.
Morality is objective, since some moral beliefs are wrong (Its better to be cowardly than courageous) and some are right (Intelligence is preferable to dullness).
I think the objectivity of morality is easier to recognize if we set aside interpersonal cases of moral disagreement and focus on moral disagreement we've had with ourselves (cases where we've deliberated about some moral belief, then changed our minds). When we decide we were wrong about some moral belief, we often recognize there's a reason we were wrong. Our past moral beliefs weren't wrong merely because we changed our minds. They were wrong for some reason, and that reason exists whether or not we recognize it.
An example: I used to think it was appropriate to make fun of a friend for a particular shortcoming. I thought it was up to him to change his flaw or toughen up. But then I realized I was being harsh and insensitive and decided to stop. Making fun of my friend was wrong when I was doing it, even though I believed it was right.
I think the definition of objective is poorly formed because facts can be true even if not universally true. Facts can be true for brief periods of time or only in certain places (facts about speed or the best NA SC2 player).
I think the definition of subjective is poorly formed because it conflates morality and moral beliefs. The fact that we change our minds about morality suggests that the two are distinct.
On May 12 2011 02:09 Suisen wrote: Ooh god, I am shocked by the responses so far.
If they learned the content of the Sam Harris video and the result of the Chomsky vs Foucault debate in school, maybe we would live in a better world.
How can we have a moral and successful society if people believe any system of morals is equal to any other system you can conceive of? Because that is what subjective morality means.
There are good answers and bad answers, people. Just because it isn't all crisp clear to us yet doesn't mean it is subjective.
Except there are no good or bad answers... Only "your" answers and "my" answers. That's the whole point of this discussion. Just because you feel your morality should be the criteria for everyone on the planet doesn't make it so.
People use simplistic arguments about things like rape, because damn near everyone agrees with them. The real arguments are found in issues people disagree on, like morality towards animals to insects, the death penalty, euthanasia and so on...
Someone's daughter gets raped. One response and one that is commonly seen in more primitive societies, is for the father/brothers to kill her out of shame. You think that is a perfectly fine response? Do you think that in their society the answer is different than in ours? Obviously, in our society that solution doesn't result in anything anyone would consider 'good'. But does it in theirs? No. Even in their society this is a damaging act. So why isn't it objectively immoral? You tell me why.
Because "objectivity" means more than a consensus of subjective individuals.
Your initial assertion shows that good and bad are not even defined in a way that is relevant to our existence. If you truly believe there are zero truths to be known about morality then you have to accept the fact that my answer to the question of morality is 'lamp' and that answer is equally valid to anything anyone could possibly say. Furthermore, good and bad by definition have to apply to our existence in a relevant way and once you define them, then you acknowledge that there are facts to be known about morality.
Actually, once you define "good" and "bad" you are not acknowledging facts about morality, only facts about our definitions of the word, because objective morality does not exist. Strictly defining it is impossible since morality is dependent upon subjective human emotions. But even if we could strictly define it, it would only be making the defined criteria objective.
If good and bad are defined in relation to our existence (as Sam Harris defines bad as 'the worst possible suffering for everyone') then every possible change in that experience can be related the 'bad' and therefore there can be facts learned about them. And a move towards 'bad' compared to a move towards 'good' is objectively bad.
So we define bad as "the worst possible suffering for everyone." I've got news for you, this isn't some scientific breakthrough. It's called basic utilitarianism.
How do you define this suffering? How do you compare the suffering of one person at the cost of the suffering of another? Can their emotional responses be scientifically measured and quantified?
And does "everyone" include future generations as well? Suppose we go out and shoot every person with aids we can track down. In the long run such a policy would certainly move us towards "less suffering for everyone," and is therefore moral. Right?
And of course intentions have no place in this philosophy. If someone attempts to cause harm to people and then inadvertently causes good, is the person now behaving morally?
I'm just retyping the views of Harris because I think they are worth noting in this discussion. Harris answers that question directly (almost word for word) in the original talk posted with him and Dawkins. Its at around minute 35. In his view, a purely utilitarian argument doesn't provide enough foresight as to what counts as a consequence. Clearly killing everyone with aids is a bad idea, (their loved ones would be devastated, anyone showing symptoms of aids would live in constant fear etc, etc.) Harris's points do not advocate strict utilitarianism in the classic sense.
And what if i say that i do not care if everyone with aids would be killed. I do not know anyone with aids so why would i care? And then there is no more aids in the world, Jay!
On May 12 2011 02:09 Suisen wrote: Ooh god, I am shocked by the responses so far.
If they learned the content of the Sam Harris video and the result of the Chomsky vs Foucault debate in school, maybe we would live in a better world.
How can we have a moral and successful society if people believe any system of morals is equal to any other system you can conceive of? Because that is what subjective morality means.
There are good answers and bad answers, people. Just because it isn't all crisp clear to us yet doesn't mean it is subjective.
Except there are no good or bad answers... Only "your" answers and "my" answers. That's the whole point of this discussion. Just because you feel your morality should be the criteria for everyone on the planet doesn't make it so.
People use simplistic arguments about things like rape, because damn near everyone agrees with them. The real arguments are found in issues people disagree on, like morality towards animals to insects, the death penalty, euthanasia and so on...
Someone's daughter gets raped. One response and one that is commonly seen in more primitive societies, is for the father/brothers to kill her out of shame. You think that is a perfectly fine response? Do you think that in their society the answer is different than in ours? Obviously, in our society that solution doesn't result in anything anyone would consider 'good'. But does it in theirs? No. Even in their society this is a damaging act. So why isn't it objectively immoral? You tell me why.
Because "objectivity" means more than a consensus of subjective individuals.
Your initial assertion shows that good and bad are not even defined in a way that is relevant to our existence. If you truly believe there are zero truths to be known about morality then you have to accept the fact that my answer to the question of morality is 'lamp' and that answer is equally valid to anything anyone could possibly say. Furthermore, good and bad by definition have to apply to our existence in a relevant way and once you define them, then you acknowledge that there are facts to be known about morality.
Actually, once you define "good" and "bad" you are not acknowledging facts about morality, only facts about our definitions of the word, because objective morality does not exist. Strictly defining it is impossible since morality is dependent upon subjective human emotions. But even if we could strictly define it, it would only be making the defined criteria objective.
If good and bad are defined in relation to our existence (as Sam Harris defines bad as 'the worst possible suffering for everyone') then every possible change in that experience can be related the 'bad' and therefore there can be facts learned about them. And a move towards 'bad' compared to a move towards 'good' is objectively bad.
So we define bad as "the worst possible suffering for everyone." I've got news for you, this isn't some scientific breakthrough. It's called basic utilitarianism.
How do you define this suffering? How do you compare the suffering of one person at the cost of the suffering of another? Can their emotional responses be scientifically measured and quantified?
And does "everyone" include future generations as well? Suppose we go out and shoot every person with aids we can track down. In the long run such a policy would certainly move us towards "less suffering for everyone," and is therefore moral. Right?
And of course intentions have no place in this philosophy. If someone attempts to cause harm to people and then inadvertently causes good, is the person now behaving morally?
I'm just retyping the views of Harris because I think they are worth noting in this discussion. Harris answers that question directly (almost word for word) in the original talk posted with him and Dawkins. Its at around minute 35. In his view, a purely utilitarian argument doesn't provide enough foresight as to what counts as a consequence. Clearly killing everyone with aids is a bad idea, (their loved ones would be devastated, anyone showing symptoms of aids would live in constant fear etc, etc.) Harris's points do not advocate strict utilitarianism in the classic sense.
And what if i say that i do not care if everyone with aids would be killed. I do not know anyone with aids so why would i care? And then there is no more aids in the world, Jay!
Well, its about human well being on the global scale, not just you. Furthermore, if you truly are only looking out for your own immediate joy, why are you doing anything except having lots and lots of sex, eating, taking ecstasy nonstop etc, etc?? Its because we know that there is greater happiness out there. To quote harris "the only way to be wisely selfish in this world is to genuinely care for others"
On May 12 2011 03:00 VIB wrote: Stop bringing up that Sam Harris talk, it's just silly. You're completely misunderstanding what he's saying. You can shorten his whole talk to 2 sentences:
- If we define the word "morality" as this one single idea I have (that avoiding suffering is moral). - Then my specific definition of the word is objective and practical
That's cool. But that's only your own definition of morality. And clearly not everyone else's :O It's not universal. That's only your own opinion. Sam Harris is smart enough to understand this. He is NOT advocating morals are universal. All he's saying is that IF we all agree to morals being the same thing, then maybe science can quantify it and study it.
Again, Sam Harris is NOT arguing that morals are universal. Stop misinterpretating him.
You are missing one crucial point from Harris. Harris states many, many times (not in that specific talk, but in others and his book) that his definition of morality (avoiding suffering) is the only thing we can value. So don't be mistaken. Sam is genuinely arguing that morality is universal and objective.
How does
a) his definition of morality (avoiding suffering) is the only thing we can value
implies into
b) morality is universal and objective
???
His definition is practical for studying. But it's still HIS DEFINITION! If there are diferent definitions it's not universal!
Well hes asserting that IF there EXISTS a definition, then it HAS to be his, otherwise it does NOT have a definition. This is different than morality having a DIFFERENT definition.
That's semantics. The whole point is there is no definition. Morality doesn't exist. Men made it up.
Its made up in the same sense that our idea of 'health' is made up. Yes, we used what knowledge we have to come up with a working definition of 'healthy' but in 100 years we could learn that we were completely and absolutely wrong about our own health. Does this mean that all definitions and all possible notions of what everyone considers health are equally valid? No.
EDIT - I feel like we agree on 99% of this. Your view on Harris is spot on, modulo his emphasis why his definition is better, and why it has to be better than others.
There's a practical use for naming things. But that doesn't mean what we named is that what we named. It doesn't mean it exist Something can be wrong, and still have a good practical scientific use. We know today that newton's movement laws are wrong. But we still use it to calculate how to build buildings. It has a practical use. The building is standing up, even tho you used something that doesn't exist to get there.
I'm saying morals doesn't exist. It's definition is not universal. People will disagree to a common universal moral. It's not universal. I'm not saying that there isn't a practical use for trying to find a scientific definition for morality (what Harris is doing). Maybe it does have a practical use. I'm not convinced, but it's plausible that there might be one
On May 11 2011 22:18 adun12345 wrote: or you have to believe that it was wrong solely on the basis that you personally believe that it was wrong.
No. There is a third option without reverting to an "objective" morality: the predominant belief in your society is that it is wrong. In this case "your society" refers to the majority of the world. This is how we have an International Court of Justice and the Geneva Conventions, because the majority of the world population came together and set down a list of rules that should not be broken. However, if the majority view of the world population changes, there is a good chance we will readdress issues in International Law and other such treaties, just as countries update their internal laws as the time goes on (and individuals adjust their behaviour as they go through life: as a teenager I might have thought it acceptable to not pay a metro ticket, whereas now I frown on this behaviour).
This is admittedly an option, but it fails to explain why I, as a rational individual, ought to behave according to the rules of society. Can pure ethics provide any rationale for why I shouldn't do this? By what authority can the global community judge me?
More sympathetically, what if the majority decides for something with which you personally disagree? Suppose the majority of the world decided that slavery was an acceptable institution - would you be wrong for disagreeing with them? Individually-centric pure ethics would say of course not - you generate your own ethics, and damn anyone who says otherwise. However, community-centric ethics would say of course - you are magically beholden to conform your own personal behavior to the whims of the majority.
In short, although you are right that there is a third option, I fail to see how this option is more consistent, or more appealing.
I think my earlier post makes sense of that. Your personal code of ethics can obviously differ significantly from the majority view (for instance, fundamental moslims in -lets say- china), although human evolution has hardcoded some ways of thinking into us and it would be extreme to break a rule given by this way of thinking.
Even so, there is nothing "wrong" with that, unless you break some code of ethics which has been turned into legal code, in which case you will suffer the consequences (if caught). The same for your example: if you decide it is ethically okay to slaughter 800,000 unarmed people with machetes (or jews with a gas chamber, tutsis with machine guns or kurds with mustard gas, to name some real examples) then you are welcome to do so, but don't be surprised when the large majority of people who don't share your code of ethics cry out in rage and subject you to a fitting punishment (try you for crimes against humanity most likely).
As for your other example: if the majority population decides to revert back to the idea that slavery is ethical you are welcome to disagree with it (just as Thomas More did, except as a form of punishment for criminals, in the 15th century), just don't expect to achieve anything or even be judged to have the moral highground (except perhaps in the eyes of a future civilization when slavery has been abolished once again).
Community-centered ethics are what rules and laws are built around. Person-centered ethics are subsequent rules you personally decide to live your life by. If these conflict significantly with community-centered ethics there is a large chance you will be a social outcast, or tried as a criminal. However there is no ethical system which is inherently right or wrong, which is what an objective morality states. The universe at large does not impose some set of morals which must be adhered to, however the underlying laws of the universe do impose some restrictions on what sets of morals lead to a viable society (if wholesale slaughter is seen as ethical, the society runs a large risk of extinguishing itself).
All of that is besides my real question, though: by what right does society impose its ethical norms upon the individual? The very difference between a law and an ethical standard is that a law only has a negative aspect - obey or be punished - while an ethical standard also has a positive aspect ("it is good to act ethically"). If one seeks to depend entirely on the negative aspect, then one is no longer actually discussing pure ethics - rather, one has moved over into the realm of "legalism," in which the law is the ultimate and final arbiter of all.
The difficulty I still have with pure ethics is from whence the positive aspect of communal ethics emerges (it is good to act ethically). From an objective morality standpoint, I support the statement "it is good to act ethically" in so far as the ethics in question adhere to my understanding of the general objective moral principles, because it is good to act morally (and thus, ethically). From a pure ethics standpoint, I cannot see how one can say "it is good to act ethically." Why is this the case? What positive argument is there to be made for this position (distinct from the negative argument of, "because otherwise you will be punished")?
I have just watched the TED talk by Sam Harris posted earlier. I somewhat agree with him, but not so much with his examples. I think a good moral system (more on this later) is more to be grounded in evolution and the sociology of a society, whereas his idea is that it is a system for maximizing human happiness. However, there is a fundamental flaw in this: I have seen a lot of poverty when traveling in Africa, yet these people were extremely friendly, hospitable and above all happy. Brainscans aside, I believe people can find happiness in the most apalling conditions (and similarly, others find misery in the most ideal situations) and thus maximizing individual happiness seems like a bad benchmark for deciding whether a code of ethics is "good" or "bad". As the interviewer after Sam Harris' talk mentioned: women wearing burkas in Afghanistan are often genuinely satisfied by the fact that they have to wear a burka. Now you can refer to their deluded belief system, but who are we to say (as Sam Harris did) that their belief system is deluded?
For that reason I feel that the only "judge" of a code of ethics is: 1. our personal code of ethics (and thus majority rules) 2. time (if a code of ethics of a society is sufficiently bad, that society will dwindle under its weight)
Our personal code of ethics is partially inspired by our biology. We feel empathy, which instills in us a want for others not to experience what we would not to experience ourselves. For most this results in rules such as: 1. do not kill (because we don't want to die) 2. do not steal (because we don't want to be stolen from) 3. do not rape (because we don't want to be raped) 4. do not oppress (because we don't want to be oppressed)
Thus resulting in strong disapproval of people who slaughter 800,000 civilians with machetes, people who condone slavery, etc. Note that I am not speaking about an individual who knows it is wrong to kill his opponents, but, in his thirst to maintain power does so anyway, but people who feel genuinely morally justified in their homicidal tendencies. If a majority of your society has convinced itself that jews are not really people, gas chambers are a possible result. Similarly for black people (or just people who were beaten in war) and slavery. That in modern times we look back on history and judge these as gross aberrations and lack of ethics is simply because you and I do[\i] empathize with jews and blacks. However, the same still continues, with Osama bin Laden justifying wholescale slaughter of civilians in the twin towers in a similar manner and equally radical bible thumping protestants declaiming the Islam as a dangerous and inferior religion and thus worthy of eradication. I judge both viewpoints as wrong (or even evil) because I do feel empathy towards americans, respectively moslims, but have to acknowledge that there is no universal code that makes me right and them wrong.
All of which is perfectly fine, in as far as it goes. However, to simply say "I believe that al Qaeda is wrong, but I recognize that there is no universal objective code that makes me right and them wrong" still does not answer the basic question: do we as a society have a right to force individuals who believe in al Qaeda's ethical code to abide by our ethical code?
I don't want to immediately discount the answer "no," but I would also like to point out that we as a society nonetheless have taken action to enforce our ethical standards on members of al Qaeda, just as we have with many other divergent viewpoints. The question here is, is our attempt to enforce our ethical views on others at all justified? It seems to me that the viewpoint above will forever be limited to only judging one's own personal behavior, or to arbitrarily attempting to enforce one's own viewpoints on others [i]even though one knows that these viewpoints are entirely subjective.
Well, there's the question of tribalism to consider here as well. We as "western" society want to protect our "western" way of life. Whether or not this is morally justifiable is kinda beside the point, even though there will be many people saying that we are not just protecting our lifestyle, but also a higher moral standard or some such bollocks Whether we are morally justified in attempting to spread our code of ethics to the rest of the planet is thus irrelevant (if not deeply flawed in the very asking): it is a very good tactic for protecting our code of ethics from destruction (by proponents of other codes of ethics, such as al Quaeda's).
Some part of it is built into us biologically. I can highly recommend Richard Dawkin's work as an illuminating read on where concepts such as altruism can come from, if not from a higher power. One clue is that we feel genuine pleasure from helping somebody in the street who we have no selfish reason to help. Our brain's reward system kicks in to give us a selfish reason for doing a "good deed". This alone should give us an indication that (societies of) humans feeling pleasure from helping other humans somehow had a leg up over (societies of) non-altruistic humans in the battle for survival. A possible reason for this is given in "The Selfish Gene", which, although quite old now, still rings true (although the end on memetics is pure speculation).
As an aside, the great difficulty I have with Dawkin's work is that he takes the above example (the brain rewards us for altruism) and therefore concludes that there is no God (I just can't fathom the logic of "Chemicals in the brain reward us for altruism, therefore there is no God;" I always feel like there are a couple of steps missing in that logic) - although his science is generally sound, his philosophy is simply abysmal (and his conflating of philosophy and science rather unforgivable, both from a scientific and philosophical standpoint).
Agreed. Despite being an atheist I would've preferred if he hadn't tried to mix and merge. However, the science part says that we are capable of explaining altruism without a higher power, which is the interesting part!
However, a full discussion of my opinions on the soundness of Dawkin's work would take us wildly off-topic, so instead let's focus on the specific question of brain chemistry. For the question of morality, it would seem to me that this example provides perhaps more evidence for objective morality than it does for pure ethics. The premise is that all human begins are genetically hard-wired to respond to certain thoughts or actions in certain ways through the common evolutionary experiences of our ancestors. If we accept that judgments of "right" and "wrong" have a certain objective basis in human brain chemistry, then that would seem to support the concept that there are certain objective standards by which human behavior can be judged right or wrong that exist beyond either the the rational, creative effort of the individual consciousness or the quasi-democratic zeitgeist of society.
One might further induce the broader origins of this brain-chemical level reaction by suggesting that it reflects the will of a higher power, but this induction is not really necessary to suggest that there are certain standards of behavior (vague though they might be) shared by all human beings that exist beyond the ethical realm of reason and society.
Well, there are some rules which are biologically programmed into us (and others which are socially programmed into us). However, this is hardly a definition of an objective moral code. Female praying mantises have it biologically hardcoded to eat their mates after sex: is this an objective moral code of praying mantises? If so, then moral code is species dependent. What if we evolve over a couple of thousand years into two species: a ruler human and a slave human (see plenty of distopian scifi books for similar examples, including the seminal brave new world (huxley) and the time machine (wells)): would slavery be morally justified by biology then? If we accept that "right" and "wrong" have a bias in human brain chemistry, then we have not decided it's objective, just species-wide. However, biological programming can also be overcome, just as social programming can. In the end a personal code of ethics is an amalgamy of biological, social and personal influences. That's why many people (and societies) consider it morally wrong to cheat on your husband/wife, despite there being a biological drive to do so. Following your instincts is thus not always considered ethical!
Once again, I'm not entirely convinced by the argument that the only reason we impose our ethical system on al Qaeda is because it is convenient for the survival of our ethical system (although that is, admittedly, an advantage). On these grounds, the only reason my society would ever intervene anywhere is because of a direct threat to my ethical structure - that is, an individual who wanted to force their ethics onto me.
That fails to provide any justification for, say, intervening in Rwanda in 1994 - their society, their rules. And yet, that is not how most people here would react. Instead, I believe most would claim that the genocide in Rwanda was wrong, and that action should have been taken to save innocent lives. And my question is: how does one reconcile the proposition of pure ethics (in that individuals or societies develop their own subjective ethical systems) with the position that international action against the genocide in Rwanda would have been correct? As far as I can tell, either one must admit that there is no good reason to intervene and impose one's ethics on another group, or one must claim that, by some extra-ethical standards, one's own ethics are superior to those of the genocidaires.
Maybe those rules are genetically-dictated by the brain chemistry that emerged from our shared evolutionary experiences. Maybe those rules are the result of a natural law written on our souls at the moment of creation by an all-mighty God. Maybe the only rule is survival (a grim possibility, but a possibility nonetheless). But without some rules, without some standard by which we can evaluate ethical systems against each other, we have absolutely no way of judging the worth of one thought or action against another. Without that basis, without the ability to judge thoughts and actions, either implicitly or explicitly, against objective standards, I fail to see how any society can survive.
Heh, our little slowchat here in the middle of the thread is far more interesting than the thread at large
Your second paragraph sounds a lot like what Zeri is quoting Sam Harris about. I would firstly argue that where morality comes from is essential to the discussion. An objective morality imposed by a higher being would have a right and wrong answer to any ethical question, namely, the answer given by the divine being. Any ambiguous question of morality (such as philosophers are really good at dreaming up) would thus have a correct answer and our task is to find out what it is. We have <insert divine scripture here> to guide us in this quest, but often it's still just guess work and common sense.
However, if with "objective morality" you mean morality as defined by Sam Harris, it is fluid and defined by making the "least bad choice". As such, we should tally up the "human suffering" (however you want to measure that) from each choice and the choice that results in the least suffering is the right choice. This can change over time (for instance, abortion of babies with genetical defects might be good now, but as medical science improves we could cure genetical defects and abortion would be bad) and is thus not really objective: there is no universal morality.
Personally I believe in the third option you give: there is no objective morality, but morality IS genetically encoded to some extent, because it has helped humans, as a species (or maybe just societies of humans and it's group selection rather than gene selection), evolve. That is why an aversion for slaughter, rape, theft and some other things are fairly universal. However, opinions on abortion, euthanasia or capital punishment are so diverse throughout the world: they have had no (evolutionary) effect on the survival of a society. Just as haircolour is so diverse throughout the human species: if there was an advantage in being blonde, a lot more people would be (and not just artificially ).
On May 12 2011 03:59 Barrin wrote: Sam Harris knows what he's talking about, and I've fundamentally agreed with the concept that "morality" is just "avoiding suffering" ever since I came to that conclusion on my own like 10 years ago.
That's moral behavior to a secular humanist.
I would think that "What is moral", to a religious extremist, is "What God wants, regardless of the outcome".
I think the major problem here is that there are often disagreements in definitions of morality, objectivity, and subjectivity. If we can't all agree on the same set of axioms, then it's very hard to have a discussion.
I do like reading threads like these, however, to see how people playing devil's advocate elicit certain responses and make people reflect upon their initial claims. There's certainly no harm in doing that; it can surely be logical.
On May 12 2011 03:00 VIB wrote: Stop bringing up that Sam Harris talk, it's just silly. You're completely misunderstanding what he's saying. You can shorten his whole talk to 2 sentences:
- If we define the word "morality" as this one single idea I have (that avoiding suffering is moral). - Then my specific definition of the word is objective and practical
That's cool. But that's only your own definition of morality. And clearly not everyone else's :O It's not universal. That's only your own opinion. Sam Harris is smart enough to understand this. He is NOT advocating morals are universal. All he's saying is that IF we all agree to morals being the same thing, then maybe science can quantify it and study it.
Again, Sam Harris is NOT arguing that morals are universal. Stop misinterpretating him.
You are missing one crucial point from Harris. Harris states many, many times (not in that specific talk, but in others and his book) that his definition of morality (avoiding suffering) is the only thing we can value. So don't be mistaken. Sam is genuinely arguing that morality is universal and objective.
How does
a) his definition of morality (avoiding suffering) is the only thing we can value
implies into
b) morality is universal and objective
???
His definition is practical for studying. But it's still HIS DEFINITION! If there are diferent definitions it's not universal!
Well hes asserting that IF there EXISTS a definition, then it HAS to be his, otherwise it does NOT have a definition. This is different than morality having a DIFFERENT definition.
That's semantics. The whole point is there is no definition. Morality doesn't exist. Men made it up.
Its made up in the same sense that our idea of 'health' is made up. Yes, we used what knowledge we have to come up with a working definition of 'healthy' but in 100 years we could learn that we were completely and absolutely wrong about our own health. Does this mean that all definitions and all possible notions of what everyone considers health are equally valid? No.
EDIT - I feel like we agree on 99% of this. Your view on Harris is spot on, modulo his emphasis why his definition is better, and why it has to be better than others.
There's a practical use for naming things. But that doesn't mean what we named is that what we named. It doesn't mean it exist Something can be wrong, and still have a good practical scientific use. We know today that newton's movement laws are wrong. But we still use it to calculate how to build buildings. It has a practical use. The building is standing up, even tho you used something that doesn't exist to get there.
I'm saying morals doesn't exist. It's definition is not universal. People will disagree to a common universal moral. It's not universal. I'm not saying that there isn't a practical use for trying to find a scientific definition for morality (what Harris is doing). Maybe it does have a practical use. I'm not convinced, but it's plausible that there might be one
Ah, I see what you are saying. This is more were I am unsure about Harris and the argument in general, I need to read more. But I believe Harris is asserting that through science is the only way we can even discuss morality. In the same way it is really the only way we can discuss health. In any other terms, its not worth discussing.
On May 12 2011 01:59 Acrofales wrote: Agreed. Despite being an atheist I would've preferred if he hadn't tried to mix and merge. However, the science part says that we are capable of explaining altruism without a higher power, which is the interesting part!
The problem with this interpretation of altruism is that it isn't altruism anymore. You give someone a cookie because eating it yourself wouldn't make you as happy as giving it to someone else. It is, in it's essence, a reduction of altruism to self-interest.
(Which is why so many millionaires start foundations in their own name. 'Look at me, I'm a good person!')
Simple fact is that humans are a social species. We're hardwired to do these things, and analyzing it takes away the beauty of empathic acts.
No it doesn't. Knowing that we do it because it gives us an increase in endorphins and other pleasurable stimulants in our brain does not make it less pleasurable!
"Hey a beggar, should I give him money?" "No, it'd be selfish of you, as you'll only be doing it to feel proud of yourself" "You're right. I should burn this dollar note instead, that would be a truly selfless act!"
On May 12 2011 03:00 VIB wrote: Stop bringing up that Sam Harris talk, it's just silly. You're completely misunderstanding what he's saying. You can shorten his whole talk to 2 sentences:
- If we define the word "morality" as this one single idea I have (that avoiding suffering is moral). - Then my specific definition of the word is objective and practical
That's cool. But that's only your own definition of morality. And clearly not everyone else's :O It's not universal. That's only your own opinion. Sam Harris is smart enough to understand this. He is NOT advocating morals are universal. All he's saying is that IF we all agree to morals being the same thing, then maybe science can quantify it and study it.
Again, Sam Harris is NOT arguing that morals are universal. Stop misinterpretating him.
You are missing one crucial point from Harris. Harris states many, many times (not in that specific talk, but in others and his book) that his definition of morality (avoiding suffering) is the only thing we can value. So don't be mistaken. Sam is genuinely arguing that morality is universal and objective.
How does
a) his definition of morality (avoiding suffering) is the only thing we can value
implies into
b) morality is universal and objective
???
His definition is practical for studying. But it's still HIS DEFINITION! If there are diferent definitions it's not universal!
Well hes asserting that IF there EXISTS a definition, then it HAS to be his, otherwise it does NOT have a definition. This is different than morality having a DIFFERENT definition.
That's semantics. The whole point is there is no definition. Morality doesn't exist. Men made it up.
Its made up in the same sense that our idea of 'health' is made up. Yes, we used what knowledge we have to come up with a working definition of 'healthy' but in 100 years we could learn that we were completely and absolutely wrong about our own health. Does this mean that all definitions and all possible notions of what everyone considers health are equally valid? No.
EDIT - I feel like we agree on 99% of this. Your view on Harris is spot on, modulo his emphasis why his definition is better, and why it has to be better than others.
There's a practical use for naming things. But that doesn't mean what we named is that what we named. It doesn't mean it exist Something can be wrong, and still have a good practical scientific use. We know today that newton's movement laws are wrong. But we still use it to calculate how to build buildings. It has a practical use. The building is standing up, even tho you used something that doesn't exist to get there.
I'm saying morals doesn't exist. It's definition is not universal. People will disagree to a common universal moral. It's not universal. I'm not saying that there isn't a practical use for trying to find a scientific definition for morality (what Harris is doing). Maybe it does have a practical use. I'm not convinced, but it's plausible that there might be one
Ah, I see what you are saying. This is more were I am unsure about Harris and the argument in general, I need to read more. But I believe Harris is asserting that through science is the only way we can even discuss morality. In the same way it is really the only way we can discuss health. In any other terms, its not worth discussing.
Finally! Something I agree with! I do believe that morality is worth studying (in fact, I have friends who are studying the evolution of normative systems, which is very interesting) and that the only true way of studying anything is by using the scientific method. However, I do not agree with Sam Harris' premature conclusions that there is an objective morality, because a good moral choice is synonymous to reducing human suffering. Mainly because I disagree there is an objective definition of human suffering... hell, there's a problem with any singular definition of human (does a human start at fertilisation? gastrulation? birth?), let alone suffering.
On May 12 2011 03:00 VIB wrote: Stop bringing up that Sam Harris talk, it's just silly. You're completely misunderstanding what he's saying. You can shorten his whole talk to 2 sentences:
- If we define the word "morality" as this one single idea I have (that avoiding suffering is moral). - Then my specific definition of the word is objective and practical
That's cool. But that's only your own definition of morality. And clearly not everyone else's :O It's not universal. That's only your own opinion. Sam Harris is smart enough to understand this. He is NOT advocating morals are universal. All he's saying is that IF we all agree to morals being the same thing, then maybe science can quantify it and study it.
Again, Sam Harris is NOT arguing that morals are universal. Stop misinterpretating him.
You are missing one crucial point from Harris. Harris states many, many times (not in that specific talk, but in others and his book) that his definition of morality (avoiding suffering) is the only thing we can value. So don't be mistaken. Sam is genuinely arguing that morality is universal and objective.
How does
a) his definition of morality (avoiding suffering) is the only thing we can value
implies into
b) morality is universal and objective
???
His definition is practical for studying. But it's still HIS DEFINITION! If there are diferent definitions it's not universal!
Well hes asserting that IF there EXISTS a definition, then it HAS to be his, otherwise it does NOT have a definition. This is different than morality having a DIFFERENT definition.
That's semantics. The whole point is there is no definition. Morality doesn't exist. Men made it up.
Its made up in the same sense that our idea of 'health' is made up. Yes, we used what knowledge we have to come up with a working definition of 'healthy' but in 100 years we could learn that we were completely and absolutely wrong about our own health. Does this mean that all definitions and all possible notions of what everyone considers health are equally valid? No.
EDIT - I feel like we agree on 99% of this. Your view on Harris is spot on, modulo his emphasis why his definition is better, and why it has to be better than others.
There's a practical use for naming things. But that doesn't mean what we named is that what we named. It doesn't mean it exist Something can be wrong, and still have a good practical scientific use. We know today that newton's movement laws are wrong. But we still use it to calculate how to build buildings. It has a practical use. The building is standing up, even tho you used something that doesn't exist to get there.
I'm saying morals doesn't exist. It's definition is not universal. People will disagree to a common universal moral. It's not universal. I'm not saying that there isn't a practical use for trying to find a scientific definition for morality (what Harris is doing). Maybe it does have a practical use. I'm not convinced, but it's plausible that there might be one
Ah, I see what you are saying. This is more were I am unsure about Harris and the argument in general, I need to read more. But I believe Harris is asserting that through science is the only way we can even discuss morality. In the same way it is really the only way we can discuss health. In any other terms, its not worth discussing.
Finally! Something I agree with! I do believe that morality is worth studying (in fact, I have friends who are studying the evolution of normative systems, which is very interesting) and that the only true way of studying anything is by using the scientific method. However, I do not agree with Sam Harris' premature conclusions that there is an objective morality, because a good moral choice is synonymous to reducing human suffering. Mainly because I disagree there is an objective definition of human suffering... hell, there's a problem with any singular definition of human (does a human start at fertilisation? gastrulation? birth?), let alone suffering.
I think you misrepresent Harris here, Harris states that there are objective facts to be learned about morality, and as we learn them our knowledge will grow and be more refined. But he doesn't argue that we can do some calculations and figure out the answer to every question about life. Rather, we can use science to explore options and discover (objectively) better and worse aspects of all options.
I think it's subjective. There are tons of gray areas when speaking about morality, but I think even the black and white things are subjective.
Just the masses have come to expect, and want certain things out of life. To not have to worry about you getting murdered or raped (which happens regardless) will make you feel (supposedly) that raping / killing is in itself a bad thing.
I tend to think it's just a widely accepted agreement because your average person does not want to get raped or killed for any reason.
Therefore everyone appreciates not having to worry about that (for the most part), and that promotes community, which in essence is a lot of people agreeing to not rape and kill each other.
Morality is never objective and it's pretty hard to do any arguing about that. It all depends on how you've lived to the point of now, every different person has a different morality.
On May 12 2011 04:06 Tdelamay wrote: Morality only matters to Humans, so it is subjective.
Whether or not you care about an issue has no reflection on whether or not it's objective or subjective. Calculus only matters to humans, yet it's objective.
I'd argue morality is both objective and subjective, it's not just a black or white distinction. Some things are completely ingrained in our nature that, for humans, they become objective. We naturally don't like seeing someone starving. We don't like seeing someone injured. It's thanks to millennia of evolution that they're things we hate and don't want to see. Other moral subjects stem from schools of thought and are entirely subjective.
Morals are, in my view, a set of values adapted to environmental factors (subjective). However in increasingly complex societies, where environmental factors remain generally stable over short periods (several generations), these values become codified into a system which is generally accepted (appear to observer as objective). however, as environmental factors (ecological as well as social) inevitably change over long periods, of themselves and as a direct result of complex societies themselves, these systems eventually become, in whole or in part, obsolete. Ethics is the objective investigation of Morality. The big question here is whether there is an a priori (objective) value which affects the formation of moral values (subjective) in a certain direction. Note that this definition of Objective Morality does not necessarily require a 'higher power' or 'supreme being', only a value (such as health, security, pleasure, etc) that, subconsciously held, in the manner of 'instinct', would inform our actions (values). I cant help but point out the irony that our perceived 'spirituality' (Objective Morality) may be a function of our 'animality' (Instinct).
On May 11 2011 15:31 ILIVEFORAIUR wrote: This is always a fun conversation!
Like the title asks, "Is morality subjective or objective?"
A couple definition for the nubs
Subjective morals: Each person determines his/her own morals based on their experiences. For example, a priest would believe it is moral to help others, a murder would think it is moral to end another's life. There is no set moral code which we all live by. We make this moral code through our experiences.
Objective morals: What is considered "right" and "wrong" are universal and will always be such. For example, it is moral for a priest to help others, it is immoral for a murder to end another's life.
Personally, I believe in subjective morals, based on my existential worldview. I believe that there is not inherent meaning to life, in that we go through our life and create our own meaning. This world view would be consistant with subjective morals.
I would love to know what the TLr's think
Cheers, ILIVEFORAIUR
Well the whole example in your post is kind of incorrect, as it's only what the public opinion of what these groups are supposed to think. Also you're comparing a job to an act a random person have commited during his lifetime. Most murderers are regretting what they've done, as it wasn't their actual intention, whereas there are tonnes of priests who have sex with children.
The moral code of society is constantly changing, is different in different parts of the world, and has changed immensly since for instance the medieval era.
This isn't a question under discussion, it's objectively a subjective question. Moral is something humans have constructed, and is decided by us, thus making it subjective. That doesn't make it less powerful though. For instance it's immoral to be homusexual in the middle east, which means that the governments have a death penalty on it, whereas in most western countries people are fairly indifferent.
This is why Miyazaki films are better than baseless Hollywood action films. There is no black and white. There is no good and evil. It's all shades of grey. That's how the world works. Therefor, morality is subjective. You can't say that pro-life is OBJECTIVELY better than pro-choice. Everything has down and ups.
stop clouding your foggy heads with useless preachers (religion AND scientists) that base their wealth on their teachings. unless you're actually a better person from the knowledge they BESTOW upon you, shut up. the point of philosophy is to learn and grow, which is obviously not happening in this world.
The whole "objective morality" is just an, as inabsolute as our laws, (yet still valuable) mechanism, or norm if you may, taught (hopefully) at early age to stop us from doing what would have a negative outcome on the bigger picture of our civilization.
As there is no true objective "Right" and "wrong", these will always be different in the eyes of the beholder. I see it just like learning manners. This is what you do, this is what you don't.
Morality will always be subject to our opinions, experiences, beliefs, etcetera. Did cavemen ever consider the morality of beheading someone to steal their food? Did morality evolve? No, we did and so did our norms.
Governments and media will always try to bend it to serve the bigger picture. It's clever, really!
On May 12 2011 04:50 jimmyjingle wrote: there is nothing constructive going on here.
stop clouding your foggy heads with useless preachers (religion AND scientists) that base their wealth on their teachings. unless you're actually a better person from the knowledge they BESTOW upon you, shut up. the point of philosophy is to learn and grow, which is obviously not happening in this world.
Did you really call scientists "useless preachers"? I think it's rather absurd that you group them with religious preachers, although I agree with you that philosophy should help you learn and grow (and identify truths regarding the world... which is what this thread is trying to do...).
On May 12 2011 03:59 Barrin wrote: Sam Harris knows what he's talking about, and I've fundamentally agreed with the concept that "morality" is just "avoiding suffering" ever since I came to that conclusion on my own like 10 years ago.
Of course. I've long believed that something is "wrong" only if it directly causes harm to another being, and that is my criteria. It is the basis for a lot of my libertarian arguments for eliminating victimless crimes as well.
However, I also acknowledge that this is a purely subjective criteria and that there are fundamental inconsistencies to the belief. Morality will never be objective, and it will never be strict or precise or consistent. Because ultimately morality is based upon human emotions, and that is the crux of everything. In this sense, Sam Harris doesn't know what he is talking about. You can't force these characteristics when they don't actually exist.
I deny the objective legitimacy of morality for being dependent on subjective emotion, but at the end of the day I am still the subjective individual. I'm not going to pretend my emotions are rational criteria by using scientific generalizations.
Let's make it simple. Our moral is mirrored in our laws. Let's do a test. Have our laws changed the past 1000 years? Yes. Are our laws different in different parts of the world? Yes. Are our laws followed by everyone? No.
On May 12 2011 04:50 jimmyjingle wrote: there is nothing constructive going on here.
stop clouding your foggy heads with useless preachers (religion AND scientists) that base their wealth on their teachings. unless you're actually a better person from the knowledge they BESTOW upon you, shut up. the point of philosophy is to learn and grow, which is obviously not happening in this world.
Did you really call scientists "useless preachers"? I think it's rather absurd that you group them with religious preachers, although I agree with you that philosophy should help you learn and grow (and identify truths regarding the world... which is what this thread is trying to do...).
no, I called useless preachers useless preachers. by all means, read very deeply into what I said. this thread is "feel good philosphy," it's not critical, it's not insightful, it's not useful. I would like it to become those things.
On May 12 2011 04:50 jimmyjingle wrote: there is nothing constructive going on here.
stop clouding your foggy heads with useless preachers (religion AND scientists) that base their wealth on their teachings. unless you're actually a better person from the knowledge they BESTOW upon you, shut up. the point of philosophy is to learn and grow, which is obviously not happening in this world.
Did you really call scientists "useless preachers"? I think it's rather absurd that you group them with religious preachers, although I agree with you that philosophy should help you learn and grow (and identify truths regarding the world... which is what this thread is trying to do...).
no, I called useless preachers useless preachers. by all means, read very deeply into what I said. this thread is "feel good philosphy," it's not critical, it's not insightful, it's not useful. I would like it to become those things.
Is this even considered philosophy? This question has a straight answere based on fact. It's like asking "is 1+1=2? I think it is, but what's your opinion?" Ofcourse people are going to make it complicated, but it's hardly philosphy.
On May 12 2011 04:59 Euronyme wrote: Let's make it simple. Our moral is mirrored in our laws. Let's do a test. Have our laws changed the past 1000 years? Yes. Are our laws different in different parts of the world? Yes. Are our laws followed by everyone? No.
Moral is subjective.
Morality being objective does not mean that everyone agrees, it means that even if someone disagrees and thinks that it can be moral to murder for example they are wrong.
On May 12 2011 04:50 jimmyjingle wrote: there is nothing constructive going on here.
stop clouding your foggy heads with useless preachers (religion AND scientists) that base their wealth on their teachings. unless you're actually a better person from the knowledge they BESTOW upon you, shut up. the point of philosophy is to learn and grow, which is obviously not happening in this world.
Did you really call scientists "useless preachers"? I think it's rather absurd that you group them with religious preachers, although I agree with you that philosophy should help you learn and grow (and identify truths regarding the world... which is what this thread is trying to do...).
no, I called useless preachers useless preachers. by all means, read very deeply into what I said. this thread is "feel good philosphy," it's not critical, it's not insightful, it's not useful. I would like it to become those things.
I'm sure a lot of us would like the thread to be constructive and insightful. So... are you going to post something that would help it move in that direction? Or are you just going to hate on everyone who's posting their opinions? I'm sure if you contribute something helpful, we could start a good discussion.
It is, after all a public forum... not a philosophy class.
On May 12 2011 04:50 jimmyjingle wrote: there is nothing constructive going on here.
stop clouding your foggy heads with useless preachers (religion AND scientists) that base their wealth on their teachings. unless you're actually a better person from the knowledge they BESTOW upon you, shut up. the point of philosophy is to learn and grow, which is obviously not happening in this world.
Did you really call scientists "useless preachers"? I think it's rather absurd that you group them with religious preachers, although I agree with you that philosophy should help you learn and grow (and identify truths regarding the world... which is what this thread is trying to do...).
no, I called useless preachers useless preachers. by all means, read very deeply into what I said. this thread is "feel good philosphy," it's not critical, it's not insightful, it's not useful. I would like it to become those things.
I'm sure a lot of us would like the thread to be constructive and insightful. So... are you going to post something that would help it move in that direction? Or are you just going to hate on everyone who's posting their opinions? I'm sure if you contribute something helpful, we could start a good discussion.
It is, after all a public forum... not a philosophy class.
What do you think about the topic?
I've already contributed my part and I'm done discussing this with you given your post history.
On May 12 2011 04:59 Euronyme wrote: Let's make it simple. Our moral is mirrored in our laws. Let's do a test. Have our laws changed the past 1000 years? Yes. Are our laws different in different parts of the world? Yes. Are our laws followed by everyone? No.
Moral is subjective.
Morality being objective does not mean that everyone agrees, it means that even if someone disagrees and thinks that it can be moral to murder for example they are wrong.
Moral being objective means my moral is better than your moral
On May 12 2011 04:59 jimmyjingle wrote: unless you're actually a better person from the knowledge they BESTOW upon you, shut up. the point of philosophy is to learn and grow, which is obviously not happening in this world.
Except "usefulness" is not a valid criteria for judging the truthfulness of a belief or statement, and neither is "becoming a better person." Better of course is subjective, which is what this whole discussion is about, in case you haven't noticed.
Couldn't it possibly be a characteristic of truth that learning it makes you a "worse person" in the eyes of the ignorant? I do feel the world is learning and growing, though it may not be growing in the direction that particular groups, such as christians, may desire.
Moral relativism: Morals are relative, whatever you think is right, is right.
Moral Skepticism: Its impossible for us as humans to know what is right and wrong
Moral Nihilism : There is no right or wrong
Kantian morals: Humans are ends in themselves, harm to a human being is an ultimate wrong. The golden rule: treat others as you want to be treated. Use the categorical imperative: find universal laws that humans will obey. (Basically harm to humans is bad)
Utilitarian morals: Utility, you do what is the MOST good and the LEAST bad for the MOST people. This can lead to problems, if torturing someone on tv brings more pleasure then it does harm, then it is morally right to do that. Its also hard to quantify pain and pleasure.
Virtue ethics (aristotle): It is not the acts that a person does, it is the character of the person that decides if that is a good person or bad person. To be a good person you do good things? (Sorry never really understood this)
I personally agree with Kantian ethics. Even if morality is relative, life would be soooo much better if everyone followed kantian ethics. Seriously, why not value human beings and life? If you want to live a happy life you should do it!
Moral relativism doesn't satisfy most philosophers because it refuses to be rationally examined, since it just stops at "everything is relative dude".
On May 11 2011 22:18 adun12345 wrote: or you have to believe that it was wrong solely on the basis that you personally believe that it was wrong.
No. There is a third option without reverting to an "objective" morality: the predominant belief in your society is that it is wrong. In this case "your society" refers to the majority of the world. This is how we have an International Court of Justice and the Geneva Conventions, because the majority of the world population came together and set down a list of rules that should not be broken. However, if the majority view of the world population changes, there is a good chance we will readdress issues in International Law and other such treaties, just as countries update their internal laws as the time goes on (and individuals adjust their behaviour as they go through life: as a teenager I might have thought it acceptable to not pay a metro ticket, whereas now I frown on this behaviour).
This is admittedly an option, but it fails to explain why I, as a rational individual, ought to behave according to the rules of society. Can pure ethics provide any rationale for why I shouldn't do this? By what authority can the global community judge me?
More sympathetically, what if the majority decides for something with which you personally disagree? Suppose the majority of the world decided that slavery was an acceptable institution - would you be wrong for disagreeing with them? Individually-centric pure ethics would say of course not - you generate your own ethics, and damn anyone who says otherwise. However, community-centric ethics would say of course - you are magically beholden to conform your own personal behavior to the whims of the majority.
In short, although you are right that there is a third option, I fail to see how this option is more consistent, or more appealing.
I think my earlier post makes sense of that. Your personal code of ethics can obviously differ significantly from the majority view (for instance, fundamental moslims in -lets say- china), although human evolution has hardcoded some ways of thinking into us and it would be extreme to break a rule given by this way of thinking.
Even so, there is nothing "wrong" with that, unless you break some code of ethics which has been turned into legal code, in which case you will suffer the consequences (if caught). The same for your example: if you decide it is ethically okay to slaughter 800,000 unarmed people with machetes (or jews with a gas chamber, tutsis with machine guns or kurds with mustard gas, to name some real examples) then you are welcome to do so, but don't be surprised when the large majority of people who don't share your code of ethics cry out in rage and subject you to a fitting punishment (try you for crimes against humanity most likely).
As for your other example: if the majority population decides to revert back to the idea that slavery is ethical you are welcome to disagree with it (just as Thomas More did, except as a form of punishment for criminals, in the 15th century), just don't expect to achieve anything or even be judged to have the moral highground (except perhaps in the eyes of a future civilization when slavery has been abolished once again).
Community-centered ethics are what rules and laws are built around. Person-centered ethics are subsequent rules you personally decide to live your life by. If these conflict significantly with community-centered ethics there is a large chance you will be a social outcast, or tried as a criminal. However there is no ethical system which is inherently right or wrong, which is what an objective morality states. The universe at large does not impose some set of morals which must be adhered to, however the underlying laws of the universe do impose some restrictions on what sets of morals lead to a viable society (if wholesale slaughter is seen as ethical, the society runs a large risk of extinguishing itself).
All of that is besides my real question, though: by what right does society impose its ethical norms upon the individual? The very difference between a law and an ethical standard is that a law only has a negative aspect - obey or be punished - while an ethical standard also has a positive aspect ("it is good to act ethically"). If one seeks to depend entirely on the negative aspect, then one is no longer actually discussing pure ethics - rather, one has moved over into the realm of "legalism," in which the law is the ultimate and final arbiter of all.
The difficulty I still have with pure ethics is from whence the positive aspect of communal ethics emerges (it is good to act ethically). From an objective morality standpoint, I support the statement "it is good to act ethically" in so far as the ethics in question adhere to my understanding of the general objective moral principles, because it is good to act morally (and thus, ethically). From a pure ethics standpoint, I cannot see how one can say "it is good to act ethically." Why is this the case? What positive argument is there to be made for this position (distinct from the negative argument of, "because otherwise you will be punished")?
I have just watched the TED talk by Sam Harris posted earlier. I somewhat agree with him, but not so much with his examples. I think a good moral system (more on this later) is more to be grounded in evolution and the sociology of a society, whereas his idea is that it is a system for maximizing human happiness. However, there is a fundamental flaw in this: I have seen a lot of poverty when traveling in Africa, yet these people were extremely friendly, hospitable and above all happy. Brainscans aside, I believe people can find happiness in the most apalling conditions (and similarly, others find misery in the most ideal situations) and thus maximizing individual happiness seems like a bad benchmark for deciding whether a code of ethics is "good" or "bad". As the interviewer after Sam Harris' talk mentioned: women wearing burkas in Afghanistan are often genuinely satisfied by the fact that they have to wear a burka. Now you can refer to their deluded belief system, but who are we to say (as Sam Harris did) that their belief system is deluded?
For that reason I feel that the only "judge" of a code of ethics is: 1. our personal code of ethics (and thus majority rules) 2. time (if a code of ethics of a society is sufficiently bad, that society will dwindle under its weight)
Our personal code of ethics is partially inspired by our biology. We feel empathy, which instills in us a want for others not to experience what we would not to experience ourselves. For most this results in rules such as: 1. do not kill (because we don't want to die) 2. do not steal (because we don't want to be stolen from) 3. do not rape (because we don't want to be raped) 4. do not oppress (because we don't want to be oppressed)
Thus resulting in strong disapproval of people who slaughter 800,000 civilians with machetes, people who condone slavery, etc. Note that I am not speaking about an individual who knows it is wrong to kill his opponents, but, in his thirst to maintain power does so anyway, but people who feel genuinely morally justified in their homicidal tendencies. If a majority of your society has convinced itself that jews are not really people, gas chambers are a possible result. Similarly for black people (or just people who were beaten in war) and slavery. That in modern times we look back on history and judge these as gross aberrations and lack of ethics is simply because you and I do[\i] empathize with jews and blacks. However, the same still continues, with Osama bin Laden justifying wholescale slaughter of civilians in the twin towers in a similar manner and equally radical bible thumping protestants declaiming the Islam as a dangerous and inferior religion and thus worthy of eradication. I judge both viewpoints as wrong (or even evil) because I do feel empathy towards americans, respectively moslims, but have to acknowledge that there is no universal code that makes me right and them wrong.
All of which is perfectly fine, in as far as it goes. However, to simply say "I believe that al Qaeda is wrong, but I recognize that there is no universal objective code that makes me right and them wrong" still does not answer the basic question: do we as a society have a right to force individuals who believe in al Qaeda's ethical code to abide by our ethical code?
I don't want to immediately discount the answer "no," but I would also like to point out that we as a society nonetheless have taken action to enforce our ethical standards on members of al Qaeda, just as we have with many other divergent viewpoints. The question here is, is our attempt to enforce our ethical views on others at all justified? It seems to me that the viewpoint above will forever be limited to only judging one's own personal behavior, or to arbitrarily attempting to enforce one's own viewpoints on others [i]even though one knows that these viewpoints are entirely subjective.
Well, there's the question of tribalism to consider here as well. We as "western" society want to protect our "western" way of life. Whether or not this is morally justifiable is kinda beside the point, even though there will be many people saying that we are not just protecting our lifestyle, but also a higher moral standard or some such bollocks Whether we are morally justified in attempting to spread our code of ethics to the rest of the planet is thus irrelevant (if not deeply flawed in the very asking): it is a very good tactic for protecting our code of ethics from destruction (by proponents of other codes of ethics, such as al Quaeda's).
Some part of it is built into us biologically. I can highly recommend Richard Dawkin's work as an illuminating read on where concepts such as altruism can come from, if not from a higher power. One clue is that we feel genuine pleasure from helping somebody in the street who we have no selfish reason to help. Our brain's reward system kicks in to give us a selfish reason for doing a "good deed". This alone should give us an indication that (societies of) humans feeling pleasure from helping other humans somehow had a leg up over (societies of) non-altruistic humans in the battle for survival. A possible reason for this is given in "The Selfish Gene", which, although quite old now, still rings true (although the end on memetics is pure speculation).
As an aside, the great difficulty I have with Dawkin's work is that he takes the above example (the brain rewards us for altruism) and therefore concludes that there is no God (I just can't fathom the logic of "Chemicals in the brain reward us for altruism, therefore there is no God;" I always feel like there are a couple of steps missing in that logic) - although his science is generally sound, his philosophy is simply abysmal (and his conflating of philosophy and science rather unforgivable, both from a scientific and philosophical standpoint).
Agreed. Despite being an atheist I would've preferred if he hadn't tried to mix and merge. However, the science part says that we are capable of explaining altruism without a higher power, which is the interesting part!
However, a full discussion of my opinions on the soundness of Dawkin's work would take us wildly off-topic, so instead let's focus on the specific question of brain chemistry. For the question of morality, it would seem to me that this example provides perhaps more evidence for objective morality than it does for pure ethics. The premise is that all human begins are genetically hard-wired to respond to certain thoughts or actions in certain ways through the common evolutionary experiences of our ancestors. If we accept that judgments of "right" and "wrong" have a certain objective basis in human brain chemistry, then that would seem to support the concept that there are certain objective standards by which human behavior can be judged right or wrong that exist beyond either the the rational, creative effort of the individual consciousness or the quasi-democratic zeitgeist of society.
One might further induce the broader origins of this brain-chemical level reaction by suggesting that it reflects the will of a higher power, but this induction is not really necessary to suggest that there are certain standards of behavior (vague though they might be) shared by all human beings that exist beyond the ethical realm of reason and society.
Well, there are some rules which are biologically programmed into us (and others which are socially programmed into us). However, this is hardly a definition of an objective moral code. Female praying mantises have it biologically hardcoded to eat their mates after sex: is this an objective moral code of praying mantises? If so, then moral code is species dependent. What if we evolve over a couple of thousand years into two species: a ruler human and a slave human (see plenty of distopian scifi books for similar examples, including the seminal brave new world (huxley) and the time machine (wells)): would slavery be morally justified by biology then? If we accept that "right" and "wrong" have a bias in human brain chemistry, then we have not decided it's objective, just species-wide. However, biological programming can also be overcome, just as social programming can. In the end a personal code of ethics is an amalgamy of biological, social and personal influences. That's why many people (and societies) consider it morally wrong to cheat on your husband/wife, despite there being a biological drive to do so. Following your instincts is thus not always considered ethical!
Once again, I'm not entirely convinced by the argument that the only reason we impose our ethical system on al Qaeda is because it is convenient for the survival of our ethical system (although that is, admittedly, an advantage). On these grounds, the only reason my society would ever intervene anywhere is because of a direct threat to my ethical structure - that is, an individual who wanted to force their ethics onto me.
That fails to provide any justification for, say, intervening in Rwanda in 1994 - their society, their rules. And yet, that is not how most people here would react. Instead, I believe most would claim that the genocide in Rwanda was wrong, and that action should have been taken to save innocent lives. And my question is: how does one reconcile the proposition of pure ethics (in that individuals or societies develop their own subjective ethical systems) with the position that international action against the genocide in Rwanda would have been correct? As far as I can tell, either one must admit that there is no good reason to intervene and impose one's ethics on another group, or one must claim that, by some extra-ethical standards, one's own ethics are superior to those of the genocidaires.
Maybe those rules are genetically-dictated by the brain chemistry that emerged from our shared evolutionary experiences. Maybe those rules are the result of a natural law written on our souls at the moment of creation by an all-mighty God. Maybe the only rule is survival (a grim possibility, but a possibility nonetheless). But without some rules, without some standard by which we can evaluate ethical systems against each other, we have absolutely no way of judging the worth of one thought or action against another. Without that basis, without the ability to judge thoughts and actions, either implicitly or explicitly, against objective standards, I fail to see how any society can survive.
Heh, our little slowchat here in the middle of the thread is far more interesting than the thread at large
Your second paragraph sounds a lot like what Zeri is quoting Sam Harris about. I would firstly argue that where morality comes from is essential to the discussion. An objective morality imposed by a higher being would have a right and wrong answer to any ethical question, namely, the answer given by the divine being. Any ambiguous question of morality (such as philosophers are really good at dreaming up) would thus have a correct answer and our task is to find out what it is. We have <insert divine scripture here> to guide us in this quest, but often it's still just guess work and common sense.
However, if with "objective morality" you mean morality as defined by Sam Harris, it is fluid and defined by making the "least bad choice". As such, we should tally up the "human suffering" (however you want to measure that) from each choice and the choice that results in the least suffering is the right choice. This can change over time (for instance, abortion of babies with genetical defects might be good now, but as medical science improves we could cure genetical defects and abortion would be bad) and is thus not really objective: there is no universal morality.
Personally I believe in the third option you give: there is no objective morality, but morality IS genetically encoded to some extent, because it has helped humans, as a species (or maybe just societies of humans and it's group selection rather than gene selection), evolve. That is why an aversion for slaughter, rape, theft and some other things are fairly universal. However, opinions on abortion, euthanasia or capital punishment are so diverse throughout the world: they have had no (evolutionary) effect on the survival of a society. Just as haircolour is so diverse throughout the human species: if there was an advantage in being blonde, a lot more people would be (and not just artificially ).
I agree entirely - we rock. Also, it's so nice to have a discussion about a potentially-controversial issue with someone without it devolving into an "omgyoursuchastupidqueernazilover," so above all, thanks for the civility!
The issue that remains for me is the same I had at the start: namely, that the only logical conclusion that all morality is totally subjective is that no one thought or action is any better than another. Yet this is clearly not how people act. Contemporary standards of political correctness may dictate that it is impolite to suggest that one's views are superior to those of another, but many of the same people who purport to believe in completely subjective morality will gladly agree that more ought to have been done in 1994 to mitigate the genocide in Rwanda. Despite our excellent discussion of the evolutionary and anthropological origins of ethical behavior, philosophically it makes little sense to me when rational, free-willed individuals claim "Everything is all shades of grey" and then turn around and say "How dare you commit genocide?" (obviously not the entirety of your position, but I think a fair appraisal of many of the supporters of moral subjectivity in this thread). Even the most sophisticated defense of moral subjectivity still falls apart in my eyes because it fails to account for the fact that people clearly structure their belief systems and lives on the basis that certain things are right and certain things are wrong, both for themselves and others. In my eyes, this is not the action of an individual who actually believes in moral subjectivity.
Alternatively, one could posit - as I believe you suggest - that certain things fall under some universal moral rubric (i.e., indiscriminate slaughter is wrong) while certain things do not (i.e., it doesn't matter what your hair color is). I am willing - as I think most proponents of objective morality would be willing - to accept this formulation, though I must point out that it is a formulation that accepts the existence of an objective morality. Having established that, what remains is to determine what, exactly, falls into the category of universal morality, and what does not. That discussion, however, would take us far beyond the premises of this thread.
Thus, I am left to conclude that there are objective moral standards, even though we may not all agree on what they are. Although I have heard many who claim that they believe morality to be subjective, I have yet to meet anyone who actually conducts their life with absolutely no recourse - however implicit - to objective standards of behavior.
On May 12 2011 04:59 Euronyme wrote: Let's make it simple. Our moral is mirrored in our laws. Let's do a test. Have our laws changed the past 1000 years? Yes. Are our laws different in different parts of the world? Yes. Are our laws followed by everyone? No.
Moral is subjective.
Ah, but you see, human beings make laws and human beings are fallible. Many of the laws in the past 1000 years have been made by dicators and tyrants. People who wanted to stay in power, and people who are stupid. You can't really prove too much by saying that because our laws have changed that = changing morals.
I would argue that as time goes on we get closer and closer to realizing that human beings are ends in themselves, if you look at history, that seems to be the trend. What gets fuzzy these days are what it means to be a human being (look at abortion).
I don't think there even needs to be this concept of morality... I guess you could say I have a subjective sense of morality, I just do whatever seems right to me. And so far as I can tell, the rest of society seems to think I'm just fine the only thing I do that makes me feel guilty is doing badly in school and pirating music.
On May 12 2011 05:11 Fulgrim wrote: Kantian morals: Humans are ends in themselves, harm to a human being is an ultimate wrong. The golden rule: treat others as you want to be treated.
So hetero sex is immoral. I don't want her to do to me, what I do to her
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.
This isn't nihilism. At all.
Do you really think a person that is extremely devoted to nihilism would be even caring to reply at all? I did not state that I was even a nihilist, I only stated I viewed the world in a nihilistic way or concept.
Debating the subjectivity or objectivity of morality from people who haven't seriously studied philosophy and ethics is a waste of time. At least with people who have studied it you have some framework to argue based on rather than pure speculation.
For instance, the majority of posters here lack the understanding of what objectivity entails. Because people have different opinions does not have any saying on objectivity. Also, when someone argues "everything is relative" (except that statement?), there is no discussion to be had. Cause "that's just like your opinion... man".
On May 12 2011 04:59 Euronyme wrote: Let's make it simple. Our moral is mirrored in our laws. Let's do a test. Have our laws changed the past 1000 years? Yes. Are our laws different in different parts of the world? Yes. Are our laws followed by everyone? No.
Moral is subjective.
Morality being objective does not mean that everyone agrees, it means that even if someone disagrees and thinks that it can be moral to murder for example they are wrong.
Moral being objective means my moral is better than your moral
nooooooooooo it means that there is a code of morals that says what is right or wrong and that is final, no one has to necessarily know what those morals are.
also
I just took an IB exam paper on ethics!
Moral relativism: Morals are relative, whatever you think is right, is right.
Moral Skepticism: Its impossible for us as humans to know what is right and wrong
Moral Nihilism : There is no right or wrong
Kantian morals: Humans are ends in themselves, harm to a human being is an ultimate wrong. The golden rule: treat others as you want to be treated. Use the categorical imperative: find universal laws that humans will obey. (Basically harm to humans is bad)
Utilitarian morals: Utility, you do what is the MOST good and the LEAST bad for the MOST people. This can lead to problems, if torturing someone on tv brings more pleasure then it does harm, then it is morally right to do that. Its also hard to quantify pain and pleasure.
Virtue ethics (aristotle): It is not the acts that a person does, it is the character of the person that decides if that is a good person or bad person. To be a good person you do good things? (Sorry never really understood this)
I personally agree with Kantian ethics. Even if morality is relative, life would be soooo much better if everyone followed kantian ethics. Seriously, why not value human beings and life? If you want to live a happy life you should do it!
Moral relativism doesn't satisfy most philosophers because it refuses to be rationally examined, since it just stops at "everything is relative dude".
I don't like your argument for Kant, really if everyone decided to follow most major moral codes the world would be much better, that doesn't actually prove that to be the best one. Personally I am all for consequentialism and really think that deontology is a pretty silly general philosophy. Kantian ethics actually state that if a murderer was to come to your door and ask if anyone was inside so that they could kill them, and told you that they would believe you no matter what (they won't kill you no matter what either) then you morally MUST tell the truth, I honestly don't see how anyone can get around a problem like this, and if you follow a more watered down version then you will still have similar problems and not achieve Kant's original goal, basically nullifying the philosophy.
On May 12 2011 05:19 EscPlan9 wrote: Debating the subjectivity or objectivity of morality from people who haven't seriously studied philosophy and ethics is a waste of time. At least with people who have studied it you have some framework to argue based on rather than pure speculation.
Yeah but this is the internet so we all know what we're talking about and everyone deserves a say.
Definitely subjective. There are plenty of things that I consider moral that others don't, such as eating meat or prostitution. What people consider right and wrong have never been objective, that doesn't even make any sense at all. Some people thinking breaking the law is immoral, that still won't stop them from going over the speed limit, everyone has arbitrarily drawn a line on what they believe is ok or not ok.
On May 12 2011 05:11 Fulgrim wrote: I just took an IB exam paper on ethics!
Moral relativism: Morals are relative, whatever you think is right, is right.
Moral Skepticism: Its impossible for us as humans to know what is right and wrong
Moral Nihilism : There is no right or wrong
Kantian morals: Humans are ends in themselves, harm to a human being is an ultimate wrong. The golden rule: treat others as you want to be treated. Use the categorical imperative: find universal laws that humans will obey. (Basically harm to humans is bad)
Utilitarian morals: Utility, you do what is the MOST good and the LEAST bad for the MOST people. This can lead to problems, if torturing someone on tv brings more pleasure then it does harm, then it is morally right to do that. Its also hard to quantify pain and pleasure.
Virtue ethics (aristotle): It is not the acts that a person does, it is the character of the person that decides if that is a good person or bad person. To be a good person you do good things? (Sorry never really understood this)
I personally agree with Kantian ethics. Even if morality is relative, life would be soooo much better if everyone followed kantian ethics. Seriously, why not value human beings and life? If you want to live a happy life you should do it!
Moral relativism doesn't satisfy most philosophers because it refuses to be rationally examined, since it just stops at "everything is relative dude".
Where is the option to believe:
Conceptualizations and generalizations of the mind do not experience an actual existence, and their meaning is dependent upon the definition we choose to ascribe to them?
I guess that makes me a nihilist...
The way I see it, all metaphysical arguments such as this boil down to the fact that we are ascribing a human invention: Words and Ideas, an actual existence in the world. We forget that words are simply tools for communication.
In order for a word to have any actual meaning, it must be connected to actual physical stimuli and empirical observations. The word "dog" has a meaning because you can physically see a dog's hair, hear a bark, smell it... What about words like "justice" or "truth" or "morality"? These words rely on subjective criteria such as human emotion, and therefore they will never have objective criteria as a foundation to actually define what they mean. So long as people do not have psychological experiences in common the way they can observe a dog in common, then these psychological inventions will have no real meaning.
So you have people debating for decades a word that we simply made up and never actually strictly defined. Words are just words, concepts are just concepts, they don't have a reality that you can deduce with logic or reasoning or anything else...
On May 12 2011 05:19 EscPlan9 wrote: Debating the subjectivity or objectivity of morality from people who haven't seriously studied philosophy and ethics is a waste of time. At least with people who have studied it you have some framework to argue based on rather than pure speculation.
I agree! We need Tyler to come drop some knowledge bombs! =P
Conceptualizations and generalizations of the mind do not experience an actual existence, and their meaning is dependent upon the definition we choose to ascribe to them?
I guess that makes me a nihilist...
The way I see it, all metaphysical arguments such as this boil down to the fact that we are ascribing a human invention: Words and Ideas, an actual existence in the world. We forget that words are simply tools for communication.
In order for a word to have any actual meaning, it must be connected to actual physical stimuli and empirical observations. The word "dog" has a meaning because you can physically see a dog's hair, hear a bark, smell it... What about words like "justice" or "truth" or "morality"? These words rely on subjective criteria such as human emotion, and therefore they will never have objective criteria as a foundation to actually define what they mean. So long as people do not have psychological experiences in common the way they can observe a dog in common, then these psychological inventions will have no real meaning.
So you have people debating for decades a word that we simply made up and never actually strictly defined. Words are just words, concepts are just concepts, they don't have a reality that you can deduce with logic or reasoning or anything else...
Am I the only one who thinks this way?
I believe your describing a form of error theory. I am not entirely sure, because your terminology is very much your own. Also, you may want to look into semiotics.
Conceptualizations and generalizations of the mind do not experience an actual existence, and their meaning is dependent upon the definition we choose to ascribe to them?
I guess that makes me a nihilist...
The way I see it, all metaphysical arguments such as this boil down to the fact that we are ascribing a human invention: Words and Ideas, an actual existence in the world. We forget that words are simply tools for communication.
In order for a word to have any actual meaning, it must be connected to actual physical stimuli and empirical observations. The word "dog" has a meaning because you can physically see a dog's hair, hear a bark, smell it... What about words like "justice" or "truth" or "morality"? These words rely on subjective criteria such as human emotion, and therefore they will never have objective criteria as a foundation to actually define what they mean. So long as people do not have psychological experiences in common the way they can observe a dog in common, then these psychological inventions will have no real meaning.
So you have people debating for decades a word that we simply made up and never actually strictly defined. Words are just words, concepts are just concepts, they don't have a reality that you can deduce with logic or reasoning or anything else...
Am I the only one who thinks this way?
I believe your describing a form of error theory. I am not entirely sure, because your terminology is very much your own. Also, you may want to look into semiotics.
To answer your question.
Thanks, I will look it up.
All I know is that I was profoundly influenced by "The Ego and It's Own" by Max Stirner. He talked about how we are schizophrenic in the sense that we invent our ideas and then procede to believe in their objective existence. We have "spooks" or ghosts in the mind in the form of these invented concepts that rule over our thinking and behavior. We believe that "morality" and "duty" and other social inventions are real instead of just tools for manipulating us, and that true liberation for the individual stems from eliminating these false ideals in favor subjective or "egoist" criteria.
Morals are subjective in the same way that everything is, but as a human I find it futile to try to fight your fundamental instincts, in my mind the idea of inflicting unwanted, unnecessary pain in another is inescapably wrong, including animals. My morals are felt as powerfully and seem near as fundamental as any of my senses, when I see something I very rarely even consider that it might be different or not truly there, similarly if I see something as moral/immoral I find the idea of me being wrong rarely enters my mind and if it does the alternative is irreconcilable with who I am. I cannot look at torture and say that it is right, I cannot look at a table and say that it is not there.
Theres 2 things in the bible and other religions that stand out to me as moral constants in the universe.
Love the others as you love yourself, which means, do not to the other what you wouldnt want done in yourself (basically, dont get other people in shit, give em shit, hurt em, blind fanatics trying to opress people with religious views wouldnt exacly qualify in my view, as being correct as much as they disagree)
Thats a powerfull message right there, bigger and broader than any religion, but people fail to see it for what it is
Saying there are objective morals in the absence of a divine being is just silly. Where did the concept of right and wrong come from if not from a god or from humans? I find it strange that people even try to argue that "the worst possible misery for everyone" etc would be some kind of objective state when it's not even the same for every person.
So while it's not really comforting that values are totally subjective it's the only realistic and rational approach. After this realization you can apply whatever coping strategy you want to rationalize this problem, so that you can live from your own set of rules that are pragmatic or utilitarian or whatever.
On May 12 2011 05:11 Fulgrim wrote: I just took an IB exam paper on ethics!
Moral relativism: Morals are relative, whatever you think is right, is right.
Moral Skepticism: Its impossible for us as humans to know what is right and wrong
Moral Nihilism : There is no right or wrong
Kantian morals: Humans are ends in themselves, harm to a human being is an ultimate wrong. The golden rule: treat others as you want to be treated. Use the categorical imperative: find universal laws that humans will obey. (Basically harm to humans is bad)
Utilitarian morals: Utility, you do what is the MOST good and the LEAST bad for the MOST people. This can lead to problems, if torturing someone on tv brings more pleasure then it does harm, then it is morally right to do that. Its also hard to quantify pain and pleasure.
Virtue ethics (aristotle): It is not the acts that a person does, it is the character of the person that decides if that is a good person or bad person. To be a good person you do good things? (Sorry never really understood this)
I personally agree with Kantian ethics. Even if morality is relative, life would be soooo much better if everyone followed kantian ethics. Seriously, why not value human beings and life? If you want to live a happy life you should do it!
Moral relativism doesn't satisfy most philosophers because it refuses to be rationally examined, since it just stops at "everything is relative dude".
Where is the option to believe:
Conceptualizations and generalizations of the mind do not experience an actual existence, and their meaning is dependent upon the definition we choose to ascribe to them?
I guess that makes me a nihilist...
The way I see it, all metaphysical arguments such as this boil down to the fact that we are ascribing a human invention: Words and Ideas, an actual existence in the world. We forget that words are simply tools for communication.
In order for a word to have any actual meaning, it must be connected to actual physical stimuli and empirical observations. The word "dog" has a meaning because you can physically see a dog's hair, hear a bark, smell it... What about words like "justice" or "truth" or "morality"? These words rely on subjective criteria such as human emotion, and therefore they will never have objective criteria as a foundation to actually define what they mean. So long as people do not have psychological experiences in common the way they can observe a dog in common, then these psychological inventions will have no real meaning.
So you have people debating for decades a word that we simply made up and never actually strictly defined. Words are just words, concepts are just concepts, they don't have a reality that you can deduce with logic or reasoning or anything else...
Am I the only one who thinks this way?
. The word "dog" has a meaning because you can physically see a dog's hair, hear a bark, smell it... What about words like "justice" or "truth" or "morality"?
These words also have meaning but they 'describe' aspects of "reality" that are far more abstract than i.e dog - thus, it is a lot harder to find a consensus. Nonetheless, there is some kind of consensus, at least on a general level - because, although we are not able to see a concrete physical object that could be described by such words - we are able to observe results, influence that the things described by these words have on our existence.
For example, statement that emotions subjective - if it implies that they are only subjective - is not true because they are partially objective. Certain human emotions have certain influence our behaviors and actions that are similar for the vast majority of people. Nearly everyone is able to tell the difference between anger and happiness. Of course, the results of these emotions can be faked - but it works only if the faking capabilities of the one who fakeing surpass the perception and interpretation capabilities of those observing it.
Also, these emotions are triggered in a similar way for most people.
The general consensus and belief systems regarding ethics, morality and justice do have a very real and significant influence on how the domains we call reality look like.
Why is there no poll? Would have been interesting to see what the general opinion was.
My answer would take too long for me to write but basically you have to study the history of as many different cultures as possible and draw your conclusions from what you find. In essence - what is commonly referred to as "absolute" morality is simply a consequence of cultural trial and error. Incest for example seems like a really good idea. So you try it. A couple of generations later, things aren't so great and the culture suffers from it. Society either finds the root of its problems and adapts or is destroyed/marginalized.
In my opinion, the term "objective morality" should be reserved for the scientifically sound concepts that we have discovered and realized are foundations of a functioning society. Core stuff, like incest = bad, cannibalism = bad, breeding at too late an age = bad. Lately we have some new ones as well, like unprotected sex with strangers = bad (spread of STDs, mainly HIV) is a good example.
Finally, to touch on a classic one "the weak shall be protected by the strong". This is a huge scam in my opinion and never serves its intended purpose. Instead it serves mainly to keep the strong in power and suppress the weak. Human rights were the first step in the right direction but those still need to be enforced by the strong in order to be functional.
Is there really someone here that hasn't said, "that isn't fair" or "that isn't right?"
If you have ever said either of the two phrases (in similar wording), you've implied that there is a standard that either everyone should adhere to or that everyone already does adhere to (except maybe the person you're saying it to...heh).
On May 12 2011 05:54 Sablar wrote: Saying there are objective morals in the absence of a divine being is just silly. Where did the concept of right and wrong come from if not from a god or from humans? I find it strange that people even try to argue that "the worst possible misery for everyone" etc would be some kind of objective state when it's not even the same for every person.
So while it's not really comforting that values are totally subjective it's the only realistic and rational approach. After this realization you can apply whatever coping strategy you want to rationalize this problem, so that you can live from your own set of rules that are pragmatic or utilitarian or whatever.
Saying there are objective morals that come from a divine being is profoundly circular. Morality can be discussed objectively through the view of science perfectly fine. Pure moral subjectivity is not realistic and terribly irrational (my answer to the meaning of life is 'lamp' and you have to accept that it is equally valid as every other possible answer) It's been addressed in this thread plenty of times but our understanding of health is equally man made and objective as morality.
On May 12 2011 05:54 Sablar wrote: Saying there are objective morals in the absence of a divine being is just silly. Where did the concept of right and wrong come from if not from a god or from humans? I find it strange that people even try to argue that "the worst possible misery for everyone" etc would be some kind of objective state when it's not even the same for every person.
So while it's not really comforting that values are totally subjective it's the only realistic and rational approach. After this realization you can apply whatever coping strategy you want to rationalize this problem, so that you can live from your own set of rules that are pragmatic or utilitarian or whatever.
Saying there are objective morals that come from a divine being is profoundly circular. Morality can be discussed objectively through the view of science perfectly fine. Pure moral subjectivity is not realistic and terribly irrational (my answer to the meaning of life is 'lamp' and you have to accept that it is equally valid as every other possible answer) It's been addressed in this thread plenty of times but our understanding of health is equally man made and objective as morality.
Isn't "Morality can be discussed objectively through the view of science perfectly fine" a subjective claim?
On May 12 2011 05:50 D10 wrote: Theres 2 things in the bible and other religions that stand out to me as moral constants in the universe.
Love the others as you love yourself, which means, do not to the other what you wouldnt want done in yourself (basically, dont get other people in shit, give em shit, hurt em, blind fanatics trying to opress people with religious views wouldnt exacly qualify in my view, as being correct as much as they disagree)
Thats a powerfull message right there, bigger and broader than any religion, but people fail to see it for what it is
I think "do onto others as you would have done to yourself" is a good mantra, but it cant be applied inflexibly to everything, I mean, is it good to hurt a masochist? Probably yes, but I wouldn't want to be spanked. lol.
On May 12 2011 05:54 Sablar wrote: Saying there are objective morals in the absence of a divine being is just silly. Where did the concept of right and wrong come from if not from a god or from humans? I find it strange that people even try to argue that "the worst possible misery for everyone" etc would be some kind of objective state when it's not even the same for every person.
So while it's not really comforting that values are totally subjective it's the only realistic and rational approach. After this realization you can apply whatever coping strategy you want to rationalize this problem, so that you can live from your own set of rules that are pragmatic or utilitarian or whatever.
Is the "worst possible misery" really different for everyone? I don't think so. I don't think anyone WANTS to live in a state of constant physical, emotional, and/or psychological suffering. No one wants to live in a world where people's selfishness leads them to kill, steal from, and rape everyone else that they can. No one wants to see genocide of their people occur. There are definitely things that no one wants to happen, and an objective moral rule would be; don't cause those things to happen.
It's not realistic to think that morals are subjective. There are things that are bad, universally. Look at the different systems in religions or governments across the world. I bet you find some common themes. Obviously, people tend to think alike on matters like this. There will always be outliers, but they do not imply some sort of logical disconnect between survival/advancement of the human race (some hard-coded into us genetically) and the moral systems that we develop.
Objective morals can come from humans. You can think we're all different and that makes everything subjective, but you're wrong. There are even good arguments AGAINST objective morals that come from god, one of the most famous as the Euthyphro by Plato. If you're going to talk about ethics/morals, at least do your homework first.
On May 12 2011 05:57 Thrill wrote: Why is there no poll? Would have been interesting to see what the general opinion was.
My answer would take too long for me to write but basically you have to study the history of as many different cultures as possible and draw your conclusions from what you find. In essence - what is commonly referred to as "absolute" morality is simply a consequence of cultural trial and error. Incest for example seems like a really good idea. So you try it. A couple of generations later, things aren't so great and the culture suffers from it. Society either finds the root of its problems and adapts or is destroyed/marginalized.
In my opinion, the term "objective morality" should be reserved for the scientifically sound concepts that we have discovered and realized are foundations of a functioning society. Core stuff, like incest = bad, cannibalism = bad, breeding at too late an age = bad. Lately we have some new ones as well, like unprotected sex with strangers = bad (spread of STDs, mainly HIV) is a good example.
Finally, to touch on a classic one "the weak shall be protected by the strong". This is a huge scam in my opinion and never serves its intended purpose. Instead it serves mainly to keep the strong in power and suppress the weak. Human rights were the first step in the right direction but those still need to be enforced by the strong in order to be functional.
The problem is that you are simply redefining morality to mean pragmatism, when they have traditionally meant very different things, even though in practice they went hand in hand because morality controls behavior.
EDIT: Yes, I would have loved to see a poll. Just to see how many people honestly think "objective." Even if you believe morality comes from God, then it is still HIS subjective morality.
For the most part I believe morals are subjective. Even across the US tons of differing opinions on morality are present, and I would even say that within a family differences would be vast. Morality cannot be defined by anyone other than yourself, because they are based on your values and who you are fundamentally as an individual. Morals cannot be objective or differing opinions and values would be ignored. Whether they are emotionally disturbed or not people can believe in morality in the absolute polar opposite manner in which you do.
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.
Dear sir, what if I come up to you and say that my moral values justify my killing you, what would you say?
Indeed you would struggle to prevent me from having my way, but then doesn't morality totally cease to function as a restraint, and doesn't mankind have nothing but violence to coordinate their society? I know it is hard to prove that there is a universal set of moral rules, but it is equally hard to prove that there is not one. Yet so many seem convinced by this humanistic notion that there is no higher authority than the individual's will, even though to believe so has the dangerous and fatalistic implication that mankind is lawless and incapable of progress. Not only is that a dangerous notion, it is not totally accurate description of how mankind conducts itself hitherto either.
Yet somehow the strong current of historicism and relativism has brought us to a point that everyone of us has a little relativist within.
In my opinion, the term "objective morality" should be reserved for the scientifically sound concepts that we have discovered and realized are foundations of a functioning society. Core stuff, like incest = bad, cannibalism = bad, breeding at too late an age = bad. Lately we have some new ones as well, like unprotected sex with strangers = bad (spread of STDs, mainly HIV) is a good example.
For example, statement that emotions subjective - if it implies that they are only subjective - is not true because they are partially objective. Certain human emotions have certain influence our behaviors and actions that are similar for the vast majority of people. Nearly everyone is able to tell the difference between anger and happiness. Of course, the results of these emotions can be faked - but it works only if the faking capabilities of the one who fakeing surpass the perception and interpretation capabilities of those observing it.
Something isn't 'good' in an evolutionary perspective = a belief, or value. It's entirely based on the context and it's perfectly possible that only HIV carriers were to survive some catastrophe or something. Now HIV is suddenly something good? That doesn't make an objective amount of sense.
Emotions are universal? People in general dislike things like pain and even seeing others in pain? Yes. So values avoiding pain are objectively good because we are sort of hardwired to dislike it? Why? Just because it's part of nature doesn't make it right or wrong. Then you have already assigned a value to the world around us and saying that 'nature' has a purpose in itself that is 'good', much like a god would. It doesn't make it objective nor partially objective, it just means that it's something that most people don't like.
I think it's a perfectly rational idea that avoiding pain is a good thing, but that's something I believe, not something that is written in the laws of the universe or something.
On May 12 2011 05:11 Fulgrim wrote: I just took an IB exam paper on ethics!
Moral relativism: Morals are relative, whatever you think is right, is right.
Moral Skepticism: Its impossible for us as humans to know what is right and wrong
Moral Nihilism : There is no right or wrong
Kantian morals: Humans are ends in themselves, harm to a human being is an ultimate wrong. The golden rule: treat others as you want to be treated. Use the categorical imperative: find universal laws that humans will obey. (Basically harm to humans is bad)
Utilitarian morals: Utility, you do what is the MOST good and the LEAST bad for the MOST people. This can lead to problems, if torturing someone on tv brings more pleasure then it does harm, then it is morally right to do that. Its also hard to quantify pain and pleasure.
Virtue ethics (aristotle): It is not the acts that a person does, it is the character of the person that decides if that is a good person or bad person. To be a good person you do good things? (Sorry never really understood this)
I personally agree with Kantian ethics. Even if morality is relative, life would be soooo much better if everyone followed kantian ethics. Seriously, why not value human beings and life? If you want to live a happy life you should do it!
Moral relativism doesn't satisfy most philosophers because it refuses to be rationally examined, since it just stops at "everything is relative dude".
Where is the option to believe:
Conceptualizations and generalizations of the mind do not experience an actual existence, and their meaning is dependent upon the definition we choose to ascribe to them?
I guess that makes me a nihilist...
The way I see it, all metaphysical arguments such as this boil down to the fact that we are ascribing a human invention: Words and Ideas, an actual existence in the world. We forget that words are simply tools for communication.
In order for a word to have any actual meaning, it must be connected to actual physical stimuli and empirical observations. The word "dog" has a meaning because you can physically see a dog's hair, hear a bark, smell it... What about words like "justice" or "truth" or "morality"? These words rely on subjective criteria such as human emotion, and therefore they will never have objective criteria as a foundation to actually define what they mean. So long as people do not have psychological experiences in common the way they can observe a dog in common, then these psychological inventions will have no real meaning.
So you have people debating for decades a word that we simply made up and never actually strictly defined. Words are just words, concepts are just concepts, they don't have a reality that you can deduce with logic or reasoning or anything else...
Am I the only one who thinks this way?
I like the way you are thinking, isn't mathematics also just a concept/language though? all be it with more strict definitions and rules.
On May 12 2011 06:01 lectR wrote: Is there really someone here that hasn't said, "that isn't fair" or "that isn't right?"
If you have ever said either of the two phrases (in similar wording), you've implied that there is a standard that either everyone should adhere to or that everyone already does adhere to (except maybe the person you're saying it to...heh).
Problem:
Everyone should adhere to = I wish everyone adheres to
If you are using personal dissatisfaction as a criteria for morality, then you are agreeing it is subjective.
On May 12 2011 06:10 Quochobao wrote: Dear sir, what if I come up to you and say that my moral values justify my killing you, what would you say?
There's nothing to be said. Most people are mentally and physically capable of killing, and if their desire and morals are working towards that end, all one can do is attempt to reason / physically defend themselves.
As much as you might think your question proves a point, it doesn't. "Rights," just like morality are still subjective and based on perspective and interpretation.
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.
Dear sir, what if I come up to you and say that my moral values justify my killing you, what would you say?
Indeed you would struggle to prevent me from having my way, but then doesn't morality totally cease to function as a restraint, and doesn't mankind have nothing but violence to coordinate their society? I know it is hard to prove that there is a universal set of moral rules, but it is equally hard to prove that there is not one. Yet so many seem convinced by this humanistic notion that there is no higher authority than the individual's will, even though to believe so has the dangerous and fatalistic implication that mankind is lawless and incapable of progress. Not only is that a dangerous notion, it is not totally accurate description of how mankind conducts itself hitherto either.
Yet somehow the strong current of historicism and relativism has brought us to a point that everyone of us has a little relativist within.
You bolded it, not me... but that's the part I wish to focus on anyway.
You know Pascal's Wager is a fallacious argument, right?
And also, the existence of objective morality doesn't necessarily implicate the existence of God. In general, objectivity doesn't mean there must be a higher authority involved. There already exist universal laws, logic, and mathematics that are objective and don't indicate that any higher authority exists.
Also, I'm pretty sure it would be hypothetically easy to prove that objective morality *can* exist. Just... give an example.
On May 12 2011 05:54 Sablar wrote: Saying there are objective morals in the absence of a divine being is just silly. Where did the concept of right and wrong come from if not from a god or from humans? I find it strange that people even try to argue that "the worst possible misery for everyone" etc would be some kind of objective state when it's not even the same for every person.
So while it's not really comforting that values are totally subjective it's the only realistic and rational approach. After this realization you can apply whatever coping strategy you want to rationalize this problem, so that you can live from your own set of rules that are pragmatic or utilitarian or whatever.
I think you may have too hastily concluded there can be no objective morality without a divine creator. You claim the concept of morality came from either god or humans, but it doesn't necessarily follow that morality is subjective if the concept was reached by humans alone or equally granted by god. Supposing an omnipotent being embedded objective moral truths into our universe, can the concept of these truths never be realized by man alone? Likewise, the concepts of mathematics and logic would have been acquired by man alone in the absence of an omnipotent being, as all concepts would have. They seem to be objectively true. What of scientific truths, the laws of nature? The acquisition of concepts on the surface seems to say little about whether or not their references objectively exist.
I'm not arguing either way; I'm just posing some questions I feel your argument doesn't address.
If you look at small socities, where things like sex with underage is normalized, or cannibalism (not many now but there were some) is accepted. It's very hard to be an objective moralist. Those small socities established an own moral of what is right and wrong, and that would only be changed by outsiders.
To take an example a little more down to earth though: If you were raised to believe that beating women/your wife was the right thing to do, you would not feel any moral obligation to not do it. If you say "but that's just objective morally wrong" then you are in a society that do not beat women because of morals.
The only thing scientist have found to be "universal morally wrong" is incest. So no, there is nothing that is morally objective, unless all societies agree upon that norm.
On May 12 2011 06:21 travis wrote: Morality is subjective, for sure. We make up the rules of right or wrong based on ideals we hold and what is important to us.
Logic, however, is objective; and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality.
Just because we "make it up" doesn't mean it's not objective, does it? We "made up" math, but it's still objective. If the large majority of the world thinks that killing innocent people is wrong (they do, btw), then it's obvious an objective truth. Verifiable.
On May 12 2011 05:11 Fulgrim wrote: I just took an IB exam paper on ethics!
Moral relativism: Morals are relative, whatever you think is right, is right.
Moral Skepticism: Its impossible for us as humans to know what is right and wrong
Moral Nihilism : There is no right or wrong
Kantian morals: Humans are ends in themselves, harm to a human being is an ultimate wrong. The golden rule: treat others as you want to be treated. Use the categorical imperative: find universal laws that humans will obey. (Basically harm to humans is bad)
Utilitarian morals: Utility, you do what is the MOST good and the LEAST bad for the MOST people. This can lead to problems, if torturing someone on tv brings more pleasure then it does harm, then it is morally right to do that. Its also hard to quantify pain and pleasure.
Virtue ethics (aristotle): It is not the acts that a person does, it is the character of the person that decides if that is a good person or bad person. To be a good person you do good things? (Sorry never really understood this)
I personally agree with Kantian ethics. Even if morality is relative, life would be soooo much better if everyone followed kantian ethics. Seriously, why not value human beings and life? If you want to live a happy life you should do it!
Moral relativism doesn't satisfy most philosophers because it refuses to be rationally examined, since it just stops at "everything is relative dude".
Where is the option to believe:
Conceptualizations and generalizations of the mind do not experience an actual existence, and their meaning is dependent upon the definition we choose to ascribe to them?
I guess that makes me a nihilist...
The way I see it, all metaphysical arguments such as this boil down to the fact that we are ascribing a human invention: Words and Ideas, an actual existence in the world. We forget that words are simply tools for communication.
In order for a word to have any actual meaning, it must be connected to actual physical stimuli and empirical observations. The word "dog" has a meaning because you can physically see a dog's hair, hear a bark, smell it... What about words like "justice" or "truth" or "morality"? These words rely on subjective criteria such as human emotion, and therefore they will never have objective criteria as a foundation to actually define what they mean. So long as people do not have psychological experiences in common the way they can observe a dog in common, then these psychological inventions will have no real meaning.
So you have people debating for decades a word that we simply made up and never actually strictly defined. Words are just words, concepts are just concepts, they don't have a reality that you can deduce with logic or reasoning or anything else...
Am I the only one who thinks this way?
I like the way you are thinking, isn't mathematics also just a concept/language though? all be it with more strict definitions and rules.
Yes, it works the same way. We can say 1+1=2 is an objective truth because we have strictly defined what each of the terms mean and can deduce the statement as a logical truism. In other words, it is true, but only by definition.
We understand that mathematics is merely a tool for describing the outside world. We understand that the number 7 doesn't actually exist in the world. You could say 7 "apples" exist, but the number is simply a quantity, in other words a concept of the mind.
Now imagine if someone came to you and said "what is the value of X?" and then everyone proceeded to debate what the value actually was for 50 pages... At some point you have to simply say "X is undefined."
All metaphysical concepts are undefined. Metaphysics is nothing more than the consequence of an imprecise language. When you look at it this way, the history of philosophy becomes almost laughable.
On May 12 2011 06:21 travis wrote: Logic, however, is objective; and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality.
Eh? It's not that logic dictates morality.
For instance, the reason I don't kill someone isn't because I think it's wrong or bad. It's because unless I'm fully confident in not being caught, I won't do it because of the consequence of being placed in jail.
People perform this opportunity cost and probabilities for everything they do.
On May 12 2011 05:54 Sablar wrote: Saying there are objective morals in the absence of a divine being is just silly. Where did the concept of right and wrong come from if not from a god or from humans? I find it strange that people even try to argue that "the worst possible misery for everyone" etc would be some kind of objective state when it's not even the same for every person.
So while it's not really comforting that values are totally subjective it's the only realistic and rational approach. After this realization you can apply whatever coping strategy you want to rationalize this problem, so that you can live from your own set of rules that are pragmatic or utilitarian or whatever.
Is the "worst possible misery" really different for everyone? I don't think so. I don't think anyone WANTS to live in a state of constant physical, emotional, and/or psychological suffering. No one wants to live in a world where people's selfishness leads them to kill, steal from, and rape everyone else that they can. No one wants to see genocide of their people occur. There are definitely things that no one wants to happen, and an objective moral rule would be; don't cause those things to happen.
It's not realistic to think that morals are subjective. There are things that are bad, universally. Look at the different systems in religions or governments across the world. I bet you find some common themes. Obviously, people tend to think alike on matters like this. There will always be outliers, but they do not imply some sort of logical disconnect between survival/advancement of the human race (some hard-coded into us genetically) and the moral systems that we develop.
Objective morals can come from humans. You can think we're all different and that makes everything subjective, but you're wrong. There are even good arguments AGAINST objective morals that come from god, one of the most famous as the Euthyphro by Plato. If you're going to talk about ethics/morals, at least do your homework first.
So objective morals exists because someone made an argument against it, and because I need to do my homework.
I already touched on the evolution =/ good in a previous post. Also the fact that many people do something or believe something doesn't make it true or objective. Much like the non-flat planet.
Your imagination of the worst possible suffering wouldn't be the same as mine. The rule you state is about what you believe suffering and pain to be.
Saying there are objective morals that come from a divine being is profoundly circular. Morality can be discussed objectively through the view of science perfectly fine. Pure moral subjectivity is not realistic and terribly irrational (my answer to the meaning of life is 'lamp' and you have to accept that it is equally valid as every other possible answer) It's been addressed in this thread plenty of times but our understanding of health is equally man made and objective as morality.
I'm using a divine being as an argument because a 'belief' basically doesn't require any proof, much like the belief in objective morals.
Your argument for objective morals appear to be that stupid beliefs would be valid, and that others in the thread have said so. It's not really an argument but more of a practical problem of being able to accept other peoples beliefs. I can still think it's wrong because of my beliefs, just not because of someone elses.
On May 12 2011 06:21 travis wrote: Morality is subjective, for sure. We make up the rules of right or wrong based on ideals we hold and what is important to us.
Logic, however, is objective; and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality.
Wait, is he trolling? I don't understand...
How is logic supposed to determine subjective values?
On May 12 2011 06:21 travis wrote: Morality is subjective, for sure. We make up the rules of right or wrong based on ideals we hold and what is important to us.
Logic, however, is objective; and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality.
If morality was dictated by logic (which is objective), then morality would necessarily be objective as well.
But our idealogies and values aren't necessarily ingrained in formal logic or abstract thinking. They're based on experiences and relationships just as much as rational thought. These situational aspects are what make me think that morality is subjective, rather than objective. Interpretation is involved as heavily as logic is, when deciding moral values.
On May 12 2011 06:21 travis wrote: Morality is subjective, for sure. We make up the rules of right or wrong based on ideals we hold and what is important to us.
Logic, however, is objective; and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality.
Wait, is he trolling? I don't understand...
How is logic supposed to determine subjective values?
It's not as inconsistent as it appears on the surface. Basically Travis has proposed a theory which claims values are subjective, but logic is objective. Logic will ultimately guide action with respect to each individual's values. I'm actually pretty sure most subjective theories of morality operate in this way, if not all. The role logic plays is just not mentioned, because it seems obvious.
Well, in either case it would be kind of absurd to have a subjective theory of morality which claims subjects have differing and equally valid faculties of reason.
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.
Dear sir, what if I come up to you and say that my moral values justify my killing you, what would you say?
Indeed you would struggle to prevent me from having my way, but then doesn't morality totally cease to function as a restraint, and doesn't mankind have nothing but violence to coordinate their society? I know it is hard to prove that there is a universal set of moral rules, but it is equally hard to prove that there is not one. Yet so many seem convinced by this humanistic notion that there is no higher authority than the individual's will, even though to believe so has the dangerous and fatalistic implication that mankind is lawless and incapable of progress. Not only is that a dangerous notion, it is not totally accurate description of how mankind conducts itself hitherto either.
Yet somehow the strong current of historicism and relativism has brought us to a point that everyone of us has a little relativist within.
I'd say, "Really, why?"
Too bad it happens in the real world now and in the past. Just looking at someone or being someone the "wrong" way and they probably will kill you. Look at Osama bin Ladin.
However, you probably already know the consequences that will happen if you do.
Just because you know the consequences and do not act upon your values, does not invalidate them. If I destroyed people's cars because I think they produce too much pollution and wrong. Of course I know the consequences of what might happen to me. However, that still does not invalidate my value that cars produce too much pollution if I don't do it.
1. Even in the hypothetical situation that someone wishes to kill me, I could still think they are wrong and that morals are subjective because it is through my subjective concept of morality that I deem it wrong. Believing something is wrong is not mutually exclusive with believing that someone else may think that same something is right.
Subjectivity does not mean that I cannot, individually, hold some values to be objective; it simply means I believe that everyone hold values to be objective and be correct.
2. For people simply believing in moral subjectivity because of some shorthanded argument with little concern for philosophical rigor in their argument, I urge you to read up on Kant's categorical imperative.
3. For people believing in moral objectivity without apply philosophical rigor in their argument, read on Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals
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.
Dear sir, what if I come up to you and say that my moral values justify my killing you, what would you say?
Indeed you would struggle to prevent me from having my way, but then doesn't morality totally cease to function as a restraint, and doesn't mankind have nothing but violence to coordinate their society? I know it is hard to prove that there is a universal set of moral rules, but it is equally hard to prove that there is not one. Yet so many seem convinced by this humanistic notion that there is no higher authority than the individual's will, even though to believe so has the dangerous and fatalistic implication that mankind is lawless and incapable of progress. Not only is that a dangerous notion, it is not totally accurate description of how mankind conducts itself hitherto either.
Yet somehow the strong current of historicism and relativism has brought us to a point that everyone of us has a little relativist within.
You're presenting a strawman argument. Moral subjectivity does not entail a lawless society or a society motivated by only violence.
You see, there are these things called social norms, culture, and government. They shape and enforce morals, although the objectivity with which they shape and enforce morals may be unfounded, they do so nonetheless.
On May 12 2011 06:21 travis wrote: Morality is subjective, for sure. We make up the rules of right or wrong based on ideals we hold and what is important to us.
Logic, however, is objective; and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality.
Just because we "make it up" doesn't mean it's not objective, does it? We "made up" math, but it's still objective.
We didn't "make up" math, we discovered it(and still are discovering it).
If the large majority of the world thinks that killing innocent people is wrong (they do, btw), then it's obvious an objective truth. Verifiable.
I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you trying to state that because the majority of people believe something, that means it's an objective truth?
You really don't see the obvious flaws in this argument?
On May 12 2011 06:21 travis wrote: Morality is subjective, for sure. We make up the rules of right or wrong based on ideals we hold and what is important to us.
Logic, however, is objective; and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality.
Wait, is he trolling? I don't understand...
How is logic supposed to determine subjective values?
It's not as inconsistent as it appears on the surface. Basically Travis has proposed a theory which claims values are subjective, but logic is objective. Logic will ultimately guide action with respect to each individual's values. I'm actually pretty sure most subjective theories of morality operate in this way, if not all. The role logic plays is just not mentioned, because it seems obvious.
Well, in either case it would be kind of absurd to have a subjective theory of morality which claims subjects have differing and equally valid faculties of reason.
He didn't say logic should guide our actions or be used to fulfill our subjective morality, he said logic should DICTATE what morality is.
On May 12 2011 06:21 travis wrote: Logic, however, is objective; and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality.
Eh? It's not that logic dictates morality.
For instance, the reason I don't kill someone isn't because I think it's wrong or bad. It's because unless I'm fully confident in not being caught, I won't do it because of the consequence of being placed in jail.
People perform this opportunity cost and probabilities for everything they do.
Really, that's why you don't kill people? I am sorry to hear that. But I am not sure how what you're saying has any place in a discussion on morality. You aren't even addressing the issue of morality.
On May 12 2011 06:21 travis wrote: Morality is subjective, for sure. We make up the rules of right or wrong based on ideals we hold and what is important to us.
Logic, however, is objective; and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality.
Just because we "make it up" doesn't mean it's not objective, does it? We "made up" math, but it's still objective. If the large majority of the world thinks that killing innocent people is wrong (they do, btw), then it's obvious an objective truth. Verifiable.
I don't think those words mean what you think they mean. Objective, verifiable, truth.
On May 12 2011 06:21 travis wrote: Morality is subjective, for sure. We make up the rules of right or wrong based on ideals we hold and what is important to us.
Logic, however, is objective; and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality.
Wait, is he trolling? I don't understand...
How is logic supposed to determine subjective values?
We use logic to determine subjective values all the time. Logic is the science of reasoning. Reasoning is used to determine what music we like, what food we like, who we would like to date, etc etc etc etc.
Now sure, emotion plays a large part in this as well. But emotion isn't rational and that's exactly why I say "and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality."
What if some powerful aliens came to Earth and killed us off, because we're in the way of them harvesting resources. We would think that they're actions are wrong, but to them we're wrong for getting in their way. Our moralities doesn't really matter to the aliens if they are so set in removing us, and we did not have enough power to stop them.
On May 12 2011 06:21 travis wrote: Morality is subjective, for sure. We make up the rules of right or wrong based on ideals we hold and what is important to us.
Logic, however, is objective; and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality.
Wait, is he trolling? I don't understand...
How is logic supposed to determine subjective values?
We use logic to determine subjective values all the time. Logic is the science of reasoning. Reasoning is used to determine what music we like, what food we like, who we would like to date, etc etc etc etc.
Now sure, emotion plays a large part in this as well. But emotion isn't rational and that's exactly why I say "and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality."
Reasoning determines what music we like and what food we like and who we like to date?
Really?
Sure we have reasonable explanations for why we like things, but it's hard to not believe that they are simply mere rationalizations of arbitrary inclinations when we examine them.
On May 12 2011 06:21 travis wrote: Morality is subjective, for sure. We make up the rules of right or wrong based on ideals we hold and what is important to us.
Logic, however, is objective; and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality.
Wait, is he trolling? I don't understand...
How is logic supposed to determine subjective values?
We use logic to determine subjective values all the time. Logic is the science of reasoning. Reasoning is used to determine what music we like, what food we like, who we would like to date, etc etc etc etc.
Now sure, emotion plays a large part in this as well. But emotion isn't rational and that's exactly why I say "and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality."
Logic and reasoning have nothing to do with determining a person's taste in music, food, dating, etc. These are determined by personal preferences, whether learned or biological, etc. There is no way that logic or reasoning could be used to determine a normative judgement of the "good" or "bad" preferences in an individual. Even if they use logic to deduce a belief, they are still operating on the premise of their subjective preferences.
On May 12 2011 06:21 travis wrote: Morality is subjective, for sure. We make up the rules of right or wrong based on ideals we hold and what is important to us.
Logic, however, is objective; and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality.
Just because we "make it up" doesn't mean it's not objective, does it? We "made up" math, but it's still objective. If the large majority of the world thinks that killing innocent people is wrong (they do, btw), then it's obvious an objective truth. Verifiable.
100% False. Argumentum ad populum logical fallacy. Objective truth or facts aren't decided by what is popular. They're decided by what's actually factual.
There was a period of time when the general public thought the Earth was flat; this opinion was in the majority. Not true though.
I'm pretty sure that the statistics show that the majority of Americans don't accept the theory of evolution. That doesn't falsify it.
Truth is not dependent on public opinion or what the majority thinks.
morality is based in evolution, so its mainly objective. it can appear subjective because of different people growing up in different situations and that shaping their views.
even the staunchest liberals and conservatives want the same basic things at the simplest level, based on objective morals and such.
In my opinion, the term "objective morality" should be reserved for the scientifically sound concepts that we have discovered and realized are foundations of a functioning society. Core stuff, like incest = bad, cannibalism = bad, breeding at too late an age = bad. Lately we have some new ones as well, like unprotected sex with strangers = bad (spread of STDs, mainly HIV) is a good example.
Something isn't 'good' in an evolutionary perspective = a belief, or value. It's entirely based on the context and it's perfectly possible that only HIV carriers were to survive some catastrophe or something. Now HIV is suddenly something good? That doesn't make an objective amount of sense.
I disagree with your interpretation. The good lies in embracing logically and ultimately scientifically determined facts. Once said catastrophe happens and it becomes apparent that HIV is a necessity for survival it does make objective sense to adapt to these new findings for the same reason the behavior in question was shunned earlier - it should now be embraced.
"But - unprotected sex with strangers would have saved more people, ergo HIV was objectively good all along"
Well, let's take the malaria example. The legs of hospital beds in the tropics were placed in water (buckets, cups) in order to restrict crawling insects from reaching patients. A sound practice given the current knowledge of tropical disease. The consequence, however, was the spawning of mosquitoes in these pools of water that from birth had easy access to both infected and healthy blood - hospitals themselves became a breeding zone for malaria.
I guess what i'm saying is - objective morality is doing what we "know" to be best for the prolonged success of society. We're not always right (most of the time we're not) but trying - i dare call that grounds for the word 'objective'.
On May 12 2011 06:21 travis wrote: Morality is subjective, for sure. We make up the rules of right or wrong based on ideals we hold and what is important to us.
Logic, however, is objective; and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality.
Just because we "make it up" doesn't mean it's not objective, does it? We "made up" math, but it's still objective. If the large majority of the world thinks that killing innocent people is wrong (they do, btw), then it's obvious an objective truth. Verifiable.
I don't think those words mean what you think they mean. Objective, verifiable, truth.
Well, he is right in the sense that IF.. "the large majority of the world thinks that killing innocent people is wrong" then it's an objective truth that "the large majority of the world thinks that killing innocent people is wrong"
On an unrelated note referring to Kant and people not having knowledge enough kind of bothers me. It's like having to be baptised in order to discuss Christianity or something. What I learnt from philosophy at the university is that you can make anything sound smart and complex when it's in fact either A) an argument about 'who is the least wrong' leading nowhere or B) kind of self explanatory and common sense.
On May 12 2011 06:55 turdburgler wrote: morality is based in evolution, so its mainly objective. it can appear subjective because of different people growing up in different situations and that shaping their views.
even the staunchest liberals and conservatives want the same basic things at the simplest level, based on objective morals and such.
The capacity for hate and murder are also evolved. Are they therefore moral?
On May 12 2011 06:55 turdburgler wrote: morality is based in evolution, so its mainly objective. it can appear subjective because of different people growing up in different situations and that shaping their views.
even the staunchest liberals and conservatives want the same basic things at the simplest level, based on objective morals and such.
The capacity for hate and murder are also evolved. Are they therefore moral?
I don't think everything evolved must be moral. Heck, lungs are evolved. Are they moral?
I think morality has evolved, but that's why it's subjective, not objective >.>
Morals are just another word invented to control people's actions. I believe in laws to keep people from killing me and taking my money, food and land. Laws may or may not be moral, and I don't really care, as long as it makes my life easier.
To claim that morality is "objective" or "subjective" does not even make sense. Under no circumstance can morals be "true" or "false", they can only be useful or not, because morality is not a claim. Only claims can be true or false.
It is like the rules of a game, they are not "true" or "false", but they can be followed or not.
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.
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.
^ Winners :D ^
What is evil but good tortured by its own hunger and thirst?
Word is nothing without silence. What is your god without infinity of zero?
On May 12 2011 06:21 travis wrote: Morality is subjective, for sure. We make up the rules of right or wrong based on ideals we hold and what is important to us.
Logic, however, is objective; and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality.
Wait, is he trolling? I don't understand...
How is logic supposed to determine subjective values?
We use logic to determine subjective values all the time. Logic is the science of reasoning. Reasoning is used to determine what music we like, what food we like, who we would like to date, etc etc etc etc.
Now sure, emotion plays a large part in this as well. But emotion isn't rational and that's exactly why I say "and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality."
Hold on there. You can't just equate logic and reasoning. Logic is systematic study of proper inferences and such. By itself, logic has no actual content. Logic is a machine, it can't tell you anything about morals or art or science. The best you can do is give logic some statements and arguments and logic will tell you if they are consistent or valid. Logic can't help you with the truth of the premises and such.
We use logic to determine subjective values all the time. Logic is the science of reasoning. Reasoning is used to determine what music we like, what food we like, who we would like to date, etc etc etc etc.
Now sure, emotion plays a large part in this as well. But emotion isn't rational and that's exactly why I say "and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality."
Not really, logic isn't a 'science' of any thing. Logic in the academic sense is parasitic on common language. All logic is is an attempt to make clearer the rules that govern the central features of human discourse, so we can better understand it.
The thing which frustrates me the most about these debates, and that people can't seem to get through there head is that logic 'says' nothing
Logical Identity p p T T F F
Tells you nothing about the world, all it tells you is how we conceptualize it. It's very useful, but it itself can't dictate the nature of how we should live it, that has to come from some place else. You do not use logic to determine which music you like, that's simply not possible - it's not how logic works to think so just shows a clear misunderstanding of logic and reasoning. All logic and reasoning due is enlighten you as to certain common rules.
Logic cannot dictate morality, anymore than a pen can dictate a book.
Majority is more of a general concensus of agreed subjective concepts.
If there is a majority, then there is a minority. Just because the majority have come to an agreement, does not mean that the minority have. It then, is not universal for everyone.
On May 12 2011 07:02 Dystisis wrote: To claim that morality is "objective" or "subjective" does not even make sense. Under no circumstance can morals be "true" or "false", they can only be useful or not, because morality is not a claim. Only claims can be true or false.
It is like the rules of a game, they are not "true" or "false", but they can be followed or not.
Objectivity doesn't necessarily claim things to be true, but rather that, in your terms, the rules of "the game" should be followed without question, and always.
On May 12 2011 07:01 Klogbert wrote: Morals are just another word invented to control people's actions. I believe in laws to keep people from killing me and taking my money, food and land. Laws may or may not be moral, and I don't really care, as long as it makes my life easier.
Well in that case, I believe in laws to kill you, take your money, food, and land, and turn it over to me. My laws may or may not be moral, and I don't really care, as long as it makes my life easier.
On May 12 2011 07:07 Torte de Lini wrote: Why isn't the question: Is morality cultural or universal. That would be a better perspective to approach the question of morality.
Well that's similar, although "subjective" is broader than "cultural". It's better fitting in philosophy too, I'd think.
Cultural relativity can be seen as an extension of subjectivity in moral theory. Typically, Cultural relativists want to avoid being reduced to subjectivism. Personally, I think the debate is best treated as a three way between subjectivists, relativists and objectivists.
On May 12 2011 07:07 Torte de Lini wrote: Why isn't the question: Is morality cultural or universal. That would be a better perspective to approach the question of morality.
Because then the answer would be "neither." Within the same culture, individuals will still differ on their moral attitudes, making the question, "Is morality subjective or objective."
In other words, is there a criteria for determining what morality is outside of individual desires and preferences? And the answer is no.
In my opinion, the term "objective morality" should be reserved for the scientifically sound concepts that we have discovered and realized are foundations of a functioning society. Core stuff, like incest = bad, cannibalism = bad, breeding at too late an age = bad. Lately we have some new ones as well, like unprotected sex with strangers = bad (spread of STDs, mainly HIV) is a good example.
Something isn't 'good' in an evolutionary perspective = a belief, or value. It's entirely based on the context and it's perfectly possible that only HIV carriers were to survive some catastrophe or something. Now HIV is suddenly something good? That doesn't make an objective amount of sense.
I disagree with your interpretation. The good lies in embracing logically and ultimately scientifically determined facts. Once said catastrophe happens and it becomes apparent that HIV is a necessity for survival it does make objective sense to adapt to these new findings for the same reason the behavior in question was shunned earlier - it should now be embraced.
"But - unprotected sex with strangers would have saved more people, ergo HIV was objectively good all along"
Well, let's take the malaria example. The legs of hospital beds in the tropics were placed in water (buckets, cups) in order to restrict crawling insects from reaching patients. A sound practice given the current knowledge of tropical disease. The consequence, however, was the spawning of mosquitoes in these pools of water that from birth had easy access to both infected and healthy blood - hospitals themselves became a breeding zone for malaria.
I guess what i'm saying is - objective morality is doing what we "know" to be best for the prolonged success of society. We're not always right (most of the time we're not) but trying - i dare call that grounds for the word 'objective'.
I think we are thinking along the same lines but when I say objective morals I mean it in the sense of good and bad objectively existíng outside our conciousness, as something that is part of the universe and not influenced or created by humans.
Regarding the ethics of the situation you describe I agree that it is good to do what we 'know' is best, or like people have discussed, what logically appears to be the best course of action to reach whatever goal we have. But we have to define what is "good" before we can do what we "know" is best, and that definition wouldn't be universal. If good = people not getting malaria, then it's good, but it's good from a goal that was defined and not because it fulfilled some sort of higher moral purpose.
Morality is by definition an abstract societal construct. Since morality is only(at the present) created by and used by human beings and since human beings are subjective in nature morality is therefore subjective and only constructed by a subjective mind.
On May 12 2011 07:12 THE_DOMINATOR wrote: Morality is by definition an abstract societal construct. Since morality is only(at the present) created by and used by human beings and since human beings are subjective in nature morality is therefore subjective and only constructed by a subjective mind.
No, morality is, by definition, a concept of right and wrong. Whether it is a societal construct or something much greater than that is the subject of debate.
I think we are thinking along the same lines but when I say objective morals I mean it in the sense of good and bad objectively existíng outside our conciousness, as something that is part of the universe and not influenced or created by humans.
Well, that's a very particular definition of objectivity. If the human mind is governed by certain universal laws (reason) then those laws (if they exist) can lead to certain logical outcomes. You can't just say "Oh, it's not objectivity if it's not realism" you can believe in Objectivity without being a realist Immanuel Kant was a great example.
On May 12 2011 07:12 THE_DOMINATOR wrote: Morality is by definition an abstract societal construct. Since morality is only(at the present) created by and used by human beings and since human beings are subjective in nature morality is therefore subjective and only constructed by a subjective mind.
Morality is by definition an abstract societal construct.
Not so sure about that.
Since morality is only(at the present) created by and used by human beings
Irrelevant?
human beings are subjective in nature
Since when? I think your computer would have great difficulty processing information if that were true.
since human beings are subjective in nature morality is therefore subjective and only constructed by a subjective mind.
I guess the inference is valid somewhat but your premises are beyond ridiculous. Untenable conclusion.
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.
On May 12 2011 06:21 travis wrote: Morality is subjective, for sure. We make up the rules of right or wrong based on ideals we hold and what is important to us.
Logic, however, is objective; and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality.
Wait, is he trolling? I don't understand...
How is logic supposed to determine subjective values?
We use logic to determine subjective values all the time. Logic is the science of reasoning. Reasoning is used to determine what music we like, what food we like, who we would like to date, etc etc etc etc.
Now sure, emotion plays a large part in this as well. But emotion isn't rational and that's exactly why I say "and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality."
Logic and reasoning have nothing to do with determining a person's taste in music, food, dating, etc. These are determined by personal preferences, whether learned or biological, etc.
Admittedly, taste in music and food are pretty terrible examples, I didn't give it much thought. Dating is a good example though. What about picking a favorite sports team or player? Personal preferences definitely play a role in this but reasoning can be the primary means by which these choices are made(or in the case of MoltkeWarding, 100% of the means).
There is no way that logic or reasoning could be used to determine a normative judgement of the "good" or "bad" preferences in an individual.
What do you mean by this?
Even if they use logic to deduce a belief, they are still operating on the premise of their subjective preferences.
What does personal preference have to do with belief in god or lack thereof? What does personal preference have to do with being a nihilist? Do you think I am a Theravada Buddhist because of personal preference? No, it's from hours upon hours of pondering the nature of things. I was raised a Christian, or such was attempted at least.
I'm having a lot of trouble reconciling the fact that 95% of us think morality is subjective and yet people post with such moral superiority and self-righteousness on these forums. Reading this thread and the Osama thread and the Uganda thread at the same time is really hurting my brain...
On May 12 2011 06:21 travis wrote: Morality is subjective, for sure. We make up the rules of right or wrong based on ideals we hold and what is important to us.
Logic, however, is objective; and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality.
Wait, is he trolling? I don't understand...
How is logic supposed to determine subjective values?
We use logic to determine subjective values all the time. Logic is the science of reasoning. Reasoning is used to determine what music we like, what food we like, who we would like to date, etc etc etc etc.
Now sure, emotion plays a large part in this as well. But emotion isn't rational and that's exactly why I say "and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality."
Hold on there. You can't just equate logic and reasoning. Logic is systematic study of proper inferences and such. By itself, logic has no actual content. Logic is a machine, it can't tell you anything about morals or art or science. The best you can do is give logic some statements and arguments and logic will tell you if they are consistent or valid. Logic can't help you with the truth of the premises and such.
I didn't equate them.
You say
The best you can do is give logic some statements and arguments and logic will tell you if they are consistent or valid.
and then you say
Logic can't help you with the truth of the premises and such.
How can you say this? Clearly if you are pursuing the truth then knowing whether or not a line of thought is valid is of utmost importance.
On May 12 2011 07:02 Dystisis wrote: To claim that morality is "objective" or "subjective" does not even make sense. Under no circumstance can morals be "true" or "false", they can only be useful or not, because morality is not a claim. Only claims can be true or false.
It is like the rules of a game, they are not "true" or "false", but they can be followed or not.
Objectivity doesn't necessarily claim things to be true, but rather that, in your terms, the rules of "the game" should be followed without question, and always.
Whether or not they *should* be followed does not seem to answer the question of whether morals are objective or not. When a person says that morals are objective, they are not making a normative claim. Perhaps what they mean is that everyone, or every culture, has the same morals. That every culture follows the same rules of the game, so to speak.
But this is demonstrably not the case. So if that is all that they mean when they say "morality is objective" or (the inversion) "morality is subjective" this discussion is over and the topic should be closed. In future discussions the phrasing should rather be "our morality is shared in all cultures", or "is universal".
However, when a person claims that "morality is objective" it is more likely because they confuse morality with declarative sentences, while morality actually are rules or conventions of conduct. Morality has nothing to do with describing the world, or being "correct" or "incorrect". Yet we confuse ourselves over this all the time, by saying an action is "right" or "wrong". So it is easy to start thinking that moral actions in some way corresponds to correct declarative statements. And thus, to get confused about whether morality is "subjective" or "objective", that they are 'rational' and correspond to something in the world.
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.
We use logic to determine subjective values all the time. Logic is the science of reasoning. Reasoning is used to determine what music we like, what food we like, who we would like to date, etc etc etc etc.
Now sure, emotion plays a large part in this as well. But emotion isn't rational and that's exactly why I say "and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality."
Not really, logic isn't a 'science' of any thing. Logic in the academic sense is parasitic on common language. All logic is is an attempt to make clearer the rules that govern the central features of human discourse, so we can better understand it.
The thing which frustrates me the most about these debates, and that people can't seem to get through there head is that logic 'says' nothing
Logical Identity p p T T F F
Tells you nothing about the world, all it tells you is how we conceptualize it. It's very useful, but it itself can't dictate the nature of how we should live it, that has to come from some place else. You do not use logic to determine which music you like, that's simply not possible - it's not how logic works to think so just shows a clear misunderstanding of logic and reasoning. All logic and reasoning due is enlighten you as to certain common rules.
Logic cannot dictate morality, anymore than a pen can dictate a book.
You cannot properly reason without logic. If someone is pursuing truth then logic is a requirement, right? So if someone was to try to reason out a moral system, logic would be the basis of how this reasoning was formed, right? If the system wasn't logical then the reasoning would be flawed?
And if logic isn't the science of reasoning then why is the very first definition on dictionary.com
the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
.
The science of reasoning is exactly what logic is.
On May 12 2011 07:23 jdseemoreglass wrote: I'm having a lot of trouble reconciling the fact that 95% of us think morality is subjective and yet people post with such moral superiority and self-righteousness on these forums. Reading this thread and the Osama thread and the Uganda thread at the same time is really hurting my brain...
While some people post interpretive statements as if they were factual, you can surely post a subjective opinion that's well-defended I understand your surprise though lol.
On May 12 2011 06:21 travis wrote: Morality is subjective, for sure. We make up the rules of right or wrong based on ideals we hold and what is important to us.
Logic, however, is objective; and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality.
Wait, is he trolling? I don't understand...
How is logic supposed to determine subjective values?
It's not as inconsistent as it appears on the surface. Basically Travis has proposed a theory which claims values are subjective, but logic is objective. Logic will ultimately guide action with respect to each individual's values. I'm actually pretty sure most subjective theories of morality operate in this way, if not all. The role logic plays is just not mentioned, because it seems obvious.
Well, in either case it would be kind of absurd to have a subjective theory of morality which claims subjects have differing and equally valid faculties of reason.
He didn't say logic should guide our actions or be used to fulfill our subjective morality, he said logic should DICTATE what morality is.
I don't see the difference bro, it's just loose usage of the word dictate
On May 12 2011 06:21 travis wrote: Morality is subjective, for sure. We make up the rules of right or wrong based on ideals we hold and what is important to us.
Logic, however, is objective; and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality.
Wait, is he trolling? I don't understand...
How is logic supposed to determine subjective values?
We use logic to determine subjective values all the time. Logic is the science of reasoning. Reasoning is used to determine what music we like, what food we like, who we would like to date, etc etc etc etc.
Now sure, emotion plays a large part in this as well. But emotion isn't rational and that's exactly why I say "and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality."
Hold on there. You can't just equate logic and reasoning. Logic is systematic study of proper inferences and such. By itself, logic has no actual content. Logic is a machine, it can't tell you anything about morals or art or science. The best you can do is give logic some statements and arguments and logic will tell you if they are consistent or valid. Logic can't help you with the truth of the premises and such.
Logic can't help you with the truth of the premises and such.
How can you say this? Clearly if you are pursuing the truth then knowing whether or not a line of thought is valid is of utmost importance.
You can tell if a premise is valid with logic, but you can't create a premise without giving some subjective input. People like Descarte have tried, and made so called logical arguments about the existence of god that are really pretty bad.
That's what I thought you meant at first. That values are subjective, and logic and reasoning is a subjective but good way to go about when determining ethics.
On May 12 2011 06:21 travis wrote: Morality is subjective, for sure. We make up the rules of right or wrong based on ideals we hold and what is important to us.
Logic, however, is objective; and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality.
Wait, is he trolling? I don't understand...
How is logic supposed to determine subjective values?
We use logic to determine subjective values all the time. Logic is the science of reasoning. Reasoning is used to determine what music we like, what food we like, who we would like to date, etc etc etc etc.
Now sure, emotion plays a large part in this as well. But emotion isn't rational and that's exactly why I say "and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality."
Hold on there. You can't just equate logic and reasoning. Logic is systematic study of proper inferences and such. By itself, logic has no actual content. Logic is a machine, it can't tell you anything about morals or art or science. The best you can do is give logic some statements and arguments and logic will tell you if they are consistent or valid. Logic can't help you with the truth of the premises and such.
Alright, well, I never was trying to claim that you can actually attain an objective truth. Just that it was a goal to pursue it. You can definitely reach a conclusion that makes more sense than another conclusion, and logic is a tool that helps us do that when we are reasoning.
You cannot properly reason without logic. If someone is pursuing truth then logic is a requirement, right? So if someone was to try to reason out a moral system, logic would be the basis of how this reasoning was formed, right? If the system wasn't logical then the reasoning would be flawed?
And if logic isn't the science of reasoning then why is the very first definition on dictionary.com
the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
.
The science of reasoning is exactly what logic is.
I never said logic wasn't a requirement. I said logic cannot dictate the way things should be in a contingent world. Logic is the very tool by which we 'reason' our way through a system, so in this you are agreeing with me (so I assume you misunderstood me.) However, logic cannot tell you that 'the best human life is one lived in pursuit of knowledge.' It can tell you that the argument 'Knowledge is useless therefor you should spend your whole life pursuing it' is a bad argument. But it can't tell you whether the context itself is the right place to be.
Oh my god, all my years of studying philosophy and I could have just used dictionary.com to define all my terms! One thing you'll learn very quickly if you intend to take these issues seriously is that dictionaries on technical terms have very little role in philosophy. Science makes contingent statements about predictive outcomes. Logic makes necessary conclusions. In a colloquial sense, logic is indeed the science of reasoning. In a literal sense the two are very, very different. Dictionaries are not written for academia, if they were most academic debates at the moment would have very clear outcomes, and they do not.
On May 12 2011 07:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: While some people post interpretive statements as if they were factual, you can surely post a subjective opinion that's well-defended I understand your surprise though lol.
Some of us are just defending ourselves, our values, and way of thought and logic, we've never said it applied to everyone.
Earlier someone told me what would I say if they came up to me and wanted to kill me because of their moral values. I would say, "Really, why?" and I would most likely said this afterwards, "Well, I'm not stopping you, the only thing that is stopping you is yourself."
If our subjective views or logic applied to everyone and everything, it wouldn't be subjective anymore, it would then be objective.
On May 12 2011 06:01 lectR wrote: Is there really someone here that hasn't said, "that isn't fair" or "that isn't right?"
If you have ever said either of the two phrases (in similar wording), you've implied that there is a standard that either everyone should adhere to or that everyone already does adhere to (except maybe the person you're saying it to...heh).
No. There is a standard you are holding that person to, namely your own standard. That doesn't mean that the other person agrees with you (or anybody else does for that matter). Fairness in general is an interesting concept, but is only tangentially related to morality and you shouldn't confuse the two issues.
On May 12 2011 06:21 travis wrote: Morality is subjective, for sure. We make up the rules of right or wrong based on ideals we hold and what is important to us.
Logic, however, is objective; and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality.
Wait, is he trolling? I don't understand...
How is logic supposed to determine subjective values?
We use logic to determine subjective values all the time. Logic is the science of reasoning. Reasoning is used to determine what music we like, what food we like, who we would like to date, etc etc etc etc.
Now sure, emotion plays a large part in this as well. But emotion isn't rational and that's exactly why I say "and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality."
Logic and reasoning have nothing to do with determining a person's taste in music, food, dating, etc. These are determined by personal preferences, whether learned or biological, etc.
Admittedly, taste in music and food are pretty terrible examples, I didn't give it much thought. Dating is a good example though. What about picking a favorite sports team or player? Personal preferences definitely play a role in this but reasoning can be the primary means by which these choices are made(or in the case of MoltkeWarding, 100% of the means).
Even if they use logic to deduce a belief, they are still operating on the premise of their subjective preferences.
What does personal preference have to do with belief in god or lack thereof? What does personal preference have to do with being a nihilist? Do you think I am a Theravada Buddhist because of personal preference? No, it's from hours upon hours of pondering the nature of things. I was raised a Christian, or such was attempted at least.
Dating is not a good example either. Explain abusive but continuing relationships
You cannot properly reason without logic. If someone is pursuing truth then logic is a requirement, right? So if someone was to try to reason out a moral system, logic would be the basis of how this reasoning was formed, right? If the system wasn't logical then the reasoning would be flawed?
And if logic isn't the science of reasoning then why is the very first definition on dictionary.com
the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
.
The science of reasoning is exactly what logic is.
I never said logic was a requirement. I said logic cannot dictate the way things should be in a contingent world. Logic is the very tool by which we 'reason' our way through a system, so in this you are agreeing with me (so I assume you misunderstood me.) However, logic cannot tell you that 'the best human life is one lived in pursuit of knowledge.'
Well I think that with enough thought given to the matter, enough reasoning, then usage of logic would take you to that conclusion if it is the case. It's just a matter of properly reasoning it out, which clearly isn't easy and may not be attainable within a lifetime. And it's also a matter of basing your reasoning on what you have experienced in life, and experience grows change as our lives go on.
Oh my god, all my years of studying philosophy and I could have just used dictionary.com to define all my terms! One thing you'll learn very quickly if you intend to take these issues seriously is that dictionaries on technical terms have very little role in philosophy.
yeah, fine, fair enough. I didn't actually get my definition from dictionary.com, it just happened to agree with me. the only reason I quoted it is because you weren't actually explaining why you thought my definition was wrong.
Science makes contingent statements about predictive outcomes. Logic makes necessary conclusions. In a colloquial sense, logic is indeed the science of reasoning. In a literal sense the two are very, very different.
well this is just a semantical argument. you must not be using the same definition of science as myself.
On May 12 2011 06:21 travis wrote: Morality is subjective, for sure. We make up the rules of right or wrong based on ideals we hold and what is important to us.
Logic, however, is objective; and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality.
Wait, is he trolling? I don't understand...
How is logic supposed to determine subjective values?
We use logic to determine subjective values all the time. Logic is the science of reasoning. Reasoning is used to determine what music we like, what food we like, who we would like to date, etc etc etc etc.
Now sure, emotion plays a large part in this as well. But emotion isn't rational and that's exactly why I say "and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality."
Logic and reasoning have nothing to do with determining a person's taste in music, food, dating, etc. These are determined by personal preferences, whether learned or biological, etc.
Admittedly, taste in music and food are pretty terrible examples, I didn't give it much thought. Dating is a good example though. What about picking a favorite sports team or player? Personal preferences definitely play a role in this but reasoning can be the primary means by which these choices are made(or in the case of MoltkeWarding, 100% of the means).
There is no way that logic or reasoning could be used to determine a normative judgement of the "good" or "bad" preferences in an individual.
What do you mean by this?
Even if they use logic to deduce a belief, they are still operating on the premise of their subjective preferences.
What does personal preference have to do with belief in god or lack thereof? What does personal preference have to do with being a nihilist? Do you think I am a Theravada Buddhist because of personal preference? No, it's from hours upon hours of pondering the nature of things. I was raised a Christian, or such was attempted at least.
Dating is not a good example either. Explain abusive but continuing relationships
Well, I originally said
Now sure, emotion plays a large part in this as well. But emotion isn't rational
plenty of people base relationship choices mostly upon reasoning
This might be an important contribution to the discussion.
"Does the Taliban have a point of view on physics that is worth considering? No. How is their ignorance any less obvious on the subject of human wellbeing?"
Watch it! Think about it! It might change your opinion.
Yah, Sam Harris is a baller. His argument in favor of objective morality outside of theism is way better than mine, so imma let him finish.
On May 12 2011 06:55 turdburgler wrote: morality is based in evolution, so its mainly objective. it can appear subjective because of different people growing up in different situations and that shaping their views.
even the staunchest liberals and conservatives want the same basic things at the simplest level, based on objective morals and such.
The capacity for hate and murder are also evolved. Are they therefore moral?
its easy to hate people who are different because they are competition who probably dont share your dna.
its easy to love family members because even your cousin is still mostly the same as you, helping them increases the chances of your genetic code living on.
thats an evolved reasoning for hate and love, i dont think anyones ever said its the only reasoning. and i never said that morals are the only thing we pass on to each other
On May 12 2011 06:47 travis wrote: Really, that's why you don't kill people? I am sorry to hear that. But I am not sure how what you're saying has any place in a discussion on morality. You aren't even addressing the issue of morality.
Sorry to hear that? Feeling ethically superior or something? I'm sorry for being honest.
I addressed it in my prior posts.
"Good, bad, right and wrong are simply classifications of actions based on perspective. Morality is a societal construct; it's subjective."
There is no objective "right" or "wrong" because each person has their own relative experience, values (existentialism), and perspective to evaluate the situation with. An action is just an action. Just because we've evolved the capacity to create a construct by which to classify actions does not equate it to being objective.
On May 12 2011 06:47 travis wrote: Really, that's why you don't kill people? I am sorry to hear that. But I am not sure how what you're saying has any place in a discussion on morality. You aren't even addressing the issue of morality.
Sorry to hear that? Feeling ethically superior or something? I'm sorry for being honest.
not ethically, I don't care about that, it doesn't actually mean anything to me. And I think it's great that you are honest.
anyways I agree that morality isn't objective. but maybe you should do some more thinking on what reasons there could be for not killing other people.
On May 12 2011 07:48 travis wrote: Well I think that with enough thought given to the matter, enough reasoning, then usage of logic would take you to that conclusion if it is the case. It's just a matter of properly reasoning it out, which clearly isn't easy and may not be attainable within a lifetime. And it's also a matter of basing your reasoning on what you have experienced in life, and experience grows change as our lives go on.
Well, then really we agree. But you're description of logic is still kind of inflated. Most human beings if put to the test are quite logical within a particular system, this has never been the problem. If logic was the issue we'd have achieved an objective system of morality a thousand years ago.
It is certainly a matter of living, and dedicating yourself to trying to always provide logic and reasoned arguments to your fellow man. The question shouldn't be 'is there an objective form of morality' but 'how should one live' which is the original philosophical question anyways. But that question is the most problematic all of.
Philosophy really hasn't moved on much in the past 2,500 years outside of rhetoric, but maybe thats just me reading too much Wittgenstein and Rorty.
On May 12 2011 06:22 BleaK_ wrote: The only thing scientist have found to be "universal morally wrong" is incest. So no, there is nothing that is morally objective, unless all societies agree upon that norm.
Why is incest morally wrong? Because it leads to malformed babies? How about incestuous relationships that use birth control (lets say a relation between mutually consenting adult brother and sister)? There would be no victim of this "universal morally wrong" act, so why is it wrong?
On May 12 2011 06:47 travis wrote: Really, that's why you don't kill people? I am sorry to hear that. But I am not sure how what you're saying has any place in a discussion on morality. You aren't even addressing the issue of morality.
Sorry to hear that? Feeling ethically superior or something? I'm sorry for being honest.
not ethically, I don't care about that, it doesn't actually mean anything to me. And I think it's great that you are honest.
anyways I agree that morality isn't objective. but maybe you should do some more thinking on what reasons there could be for not killing other people.
He stated a reason, his desire to not go to jail, and you balked at that. Obviously what you wanted were not reasons, but emotions, such as guilt, compassion, empathy, etc.
It would be more appropriate to say: "maybe you should do some more feeling on what emotions there could be for not killing other people."
After all, morality is entirely dependent on emotion, not on reasoning or logic.
EDIT:
On May 12 2011 08:13 ILIVEFORAIUR wrote: Just added a poll to the OP
On May 12 2011 08:08 kataa wrote: Philosophy really hasn't moved on much in the past 2,500 years outside of rhetoric, but maybe thats just me reading too much Wittgenstein and Rorty.
I think that's being a bit unfair to Descartes, Hume, Kant and all the other enlightenment philosophers. That Wittgenstein disagreed with them doesn't mean he didn't need to build upon their thought processes to disagree with them! It's like saying Freud was a horrible psychologist because he has been proven wrong on almost every account. However, if he hadn't done the pioneering work we might still have looked at phrenology as a valid explanation of people's behaviour (I know, I exaggerate).
On May 12 2011 06:22 BleaK_ wrote: The only thing scientist have found to be "universal morally wrong" is incest. So no, there is nothing that is morally objective, unless all societies agree upon that norm.
Why is incest morally wrong? Because it leads to malformed babies? How about incestuous relationships that use birth control (lets say a mutually consenting, adult, brother and sister)? There would be no victim of this "universal morally wrong" act, so why is it wrong?
I believe I read something about the risk of malformation in incestuous relations to be greatly exaggerated.
you two are living within social constructs too much. you seem to think theres not an obvious morality in going to starbucks means everything is subjective.
back when we were cavemen, how did we know what to do, before we could talk to each other. our morals are a form of learned behaviour passed on through evolution, built into the operating system of our brain that doesnt require any outside input. the evolutionary need to pass on our dna drives us to protect our children, people who didnt have this drive either let their children die, or just killed them. leading to those people dying out.
this is why its so hard to want to kill your own family members. its much easier to be ok with someone you dont know dying, someone far away. its morally wrong to kill your children in almost any circumstance.
but its all relative (hurr play on words). in times of plentiful supplies its ok to let your competition live. they might be 1% like you, from generations before, so theres still a chance your dna will be passed on by them, but when times are hard you withdraw to just yourself, the only person you can be sure is 100% like you in terms of dna.
this idea of what is morally ok changing as our situation changing can be seen today, in the western world people will share anything, because theres no limit on resources anymore, where as the third world is still so tribal, because of the family links and the importance of family survival.
i cant be bothered to explain it better in a forum post, but thats the jist of a system of objectively shared morals developed through evolution because they increase the survival rate of your dna.
On May 12 2011 06:22 BleaK_ wrote: The only thing scientist have found to be "universal morally wrong" is incest. So no, there is nothing that is morally objective, unless all societies agree upon that norm.
Why is incest morally wrong? Because it leads to malformed babies? How about incestuous relationships that use birth control (lets say a mutually consenting, adult, brother and sister)? There would be no victim of this "universal morally wrong" act, so why is it wrong?
I believe I read something about the risk of malformation in incestuous relations to be greatly exaggerated.
incest is a difficult one. between close family members the risk is certainly reasonable, but as you get further away it drops down again quickly. its another relative thing. if you have 10000 women to choose from, the risk of a malformed baby (that cant mate) isnt worth it, we have evolved this disgust to prompt us to look outside the nest for a mate. but if you were the last 2 people on earth, would you be so hesitant to have sex with your sibling? probably not, its the only way to ensure your dna lives on
On May 12 2011 08:08 kataa wrote: Philosophy really hasn't moved on much in the past 2,500 years outside of rhetoric, but maybe thats just me reading too much Wittgenstein and Rorty.
I think that's being a bit unfair to Descartes, Hume, Kant and all the other enlightenment philosophers. That Wittgenstein disagreed with them doesn't mean he didn't need to build upon their thought processes to disagree with them! It's like saying Freud was a horrible psychologist because he has been proven wrong on almost every account. However, if he hadn't done the pioneering work we might still have looked at phrenology as a valid explanation of people's behaviour (I know, I exaggerate).
I don't think Wittgenstein meant something so vapid.
On May 12 2011 06:22 BleaK_ wrote: The only thing scientist have found to be "universal morally wrong" is incest. So no, there is nothing that is morally objective, unless all societies agree upon that norm.
Why is incest morally wrong? Because it leads to malformed babies? How about incestuous relationships that use birth control (lets say a mutually consenting, adult, brother and sister)? There would be no victim of this "universal morally wrong" act, so why is it wrong?
I believe I read something about the risk of malformation in incestuous relations to be greatly exaggerated.
Well, between first cousins. Between family members of the first degree I don't think there is any doubt about it being a genetically bad idea, especially if the inbreeding continues. However, if the risks are greatly exaggerated that just strengthens my argument: why is it wrong if there is no victim?
On May 12 2011 08:08 kataa wrote: Philosophy really hasn't moved on much in the past 2,500 years outside of rhetoric, but maybe thats just me reading too much Wittgenstein and Rorty.
I think that's being a bit unfair to Descartes, Hume, Kant and all the other enlightenment philosophers. That Wittgenstein disagreed with them doesn't mean he didn't need to build upon their thought processes to disagree with them! It's like saying Freud was a horrible psychologist because he has been proven wrong on almost every account. However, if he hadn't done the pioneering work we might still have looked at phrenology as a valid explanation of people's behaviour (I know, I exaggerate).
I don't think Wittgenstein meant something so vapid.
I don't think I said anything about what Wittgenstein meant, but rather I was responding to Kataa.
EDIT: ah, I see how you misinterpreted my text. It's late and I should go to bed before I keep writing arguments so badly
On May 12 2011 06:47 travis wrote: Really, that's why you don't kill people? I am sorry to hear that. But I am not sure how what you're saying has any place in a discussion on morality. You aren't even addressing the issue of morality.
Sorry to hear that? Feeling ethically superior or something? I'm sorry for being honest.
not ethically, I don't care about that, it doesn't actually mean anything to me. And I think it's great that you are honest.
anyways I agree that morality isn't objective. but maybe you should do some more thinking on what reasons there could be for not killing other people.
He stated a reason, his desire to not go to jail, and you balked at that.
Did I balk? I don't think I did. I just didn't know if he actually wanted to get into it or not. Perhaps I was rude, but having no qualms about killing people if you won't get caught is pretty unhealthy for yourself and for society.
Obviously what you wanted were not reasons, but emotions, such as guilt, compassion, empathy, etc.
empathy isn't an emotion, and definitely is a great reason.
On May 12 2011 08:08 kataa wrote: Philosophy really hasn't moved on much in the past 2,500 years outside of rhetoric, but maybe thats just me reading too much Wittgenstein and Rorty.
I think that's being a bit unfair to Descartes, Hume, Kant and all the other enlightenment philosophers. That Wittgenstein disagreed with them doesn't mean he didn't need to build upon their thought processes to disagree with them!
I've already cited Kant and Descartes in other posts in this thread. I'm well aware of my own personal biased, I'd be an idiot not to be.
All-in all the 'philosophy is a dead end' argument will just derail the thread, but PM if you're actually pedantic enough (I know I am) to engage in it.
edit: Wittgenstein never read Hume He was philosophically retarded by the standards of his time.
I don't personally think that there are two sets up moral "standards", subjective and objective seem to be the same; meaning that only the person looking upon another person, who thinks there morals are right, who can say another perception is wrong or right?, what is to say one or the other has right or wrong morale's?
I think that's being a bit unfair to Descartes, Hume, Kant and all the other enlightenment philosophers. That Wittgenstein disagreed with them doesn't mean he didn't need to build upon their thought processes to disagree with them!
Wittgenstein was an anti-philosopher. The only extent he "built" upon traditional philosophers like the ones you mentioned was to show them to be completely nonsensical. He showed that philosophy is, to the degree that it is philosophy, based on grammatical misuse.
He called himself a philosopher, but not before he redefined "philosopher" to mean a person helping others clear their conceptual confusions grounded in grammatical distortion.
On May 12 2011 08:47 Likeaboss452 wrote: I don't personally think that there are two sets up moral "standards", subjective and objective seem to be the same; meaning that only the person looking upon another person, who thinks there morals are right, who can say another perception is wrong or right?, what is to say one or the other has right or wrong morale's?
well if you read my post above :D things like killing your own children are seen by 'everyone' to be wrong. theres no subjectivity in that emotion if everyone agrees. and i gave the reason that its so universal.
On May 12 2011 08:54 turdburgler wrote: well if you read my post above :D things like killing your own children are seen by 'everyone' to be wrong. theres no subjectivity in that emotion if everyone agrees. and i gave the reason that its so universal.
On May 12 2011 08:47 Likeaboss452 wrote: I don't personally think that there are two sets up moral "standards", subjective and objective seem to be the same; meaning that only the person looking upon another person, who thinks there morals are right, who can say another perception is wrong or right?, what is to say one or the other has right or wrong morale's?
well if you read my post above :D things like killing your own children are seen by 'everyone' to be wrong. theres no subjectivity in that emotion if everyone agrees. and i gave the reason that its so universal.
What about abortions? And that story in the bible where god asked someone to kill his own son and he went to do it? And while you may be right in the case of 99.999999% of people there are some people who might disagree. And just because everyone agrees with something doesn't make it objective.
On May 12 2011 08:47 Likeaboss452 wrote: I don't personally think that there are two sets up moral "standards", subjective and objective seem to be the same; meaning that only the person looking upon another person, who thinks there morals are right, who can say another perception is wrong or right?, what is to say one or the other has right or wrong morale's?
well if you read my post above :D things like killing your own children are seen by 'everyone' to be wrong. theres no subjectivity in that emotion if everyone agrees. and i gave the reason that its so universal.
Well executions, war. Plenty of monarchs probably killed members of their immediate family in self defense.
It is seen by 99.9% of the population to be distasteful, but lots of the population finds brocolli distateful too.
On May 11 2011 16:45 mufin wrote: Since we (human beings/people) came up with this idea of "morality" then we are the ones who determine what it is. The "universe" can't know what is moral and what isn't moral because it doesn't know what "moral" is in the first place. Morality is a human invention derived from our ability to reason.
So on that note, why can't morality be both subjective (opinions vary) and objective (opinions are in agreement)?
For example, 99.9% of people will agree that murder is wrong. This would make murder an objective morality (everyone agrees).
But as a counter example, not everyone will agree on moral grey areas such as abortion or the privacy vs. security debate and opinions on these will vary widely from person to person making it a subjective morality.
So to put it in picture form:
Wait wait wait... so if 99.9% of people of a society agreed on human sacrifice, then that's fine and dandy? The majority should not be tasked with classifying a moral and ethical construct. I'm in firm belief there exists a higher standard to be further hashed out by science, because we can't leave morals to subjectivity. It's too easy for a culture to follow thousand year old traditions that can be objectively identified as bad. This identification process can be found through objective evaluation of the brain itself.
100% subjective. I saw a news story once this guy and his son killed his daughter and was proud about it and could not even understand why he was even prosecuted in Canada.
On May 12 2011 05:54 Sablar wrote: Saying there are objective morals in the absence of a divine being is just silly. Where did the concept of right and wrong come from if not from a god or from humans? I find it strange that people even try to argue that "the worst possible misery for everyone" etc would be some kind of objective state when it's not even the same for every person.
So while it's not really comforting that values are totally subjective it's the only realistic and rational approach. After this realization you can apply whatever coping strategy you want to rationalize this problem, so that you can live from your own set of rules that are pragmatic or utilitarian or whatever.
Saying there are objective morals that come from a divine being is profoundly circular. Morality can be discussed objectively through the view of science perfectly fine. Pure moral subjectivity is not realistic and terribly irrational (my answer to the meaning of life is 'lamp' and you have to accept that it is equally valid as every other possible answer) It's been addressed in this thread plenty of times but our understanding of health is equally man made and objective as morality.
Isn't "Morality can be discussed objectively through the view of science perfectly fine" a subjective claim?
It seems pretty self evident to me, morality is subjective and there is the massive sample data of human history to draw that conclusion from. Human morality has constantly changed over decades and within communities. It is not at all long ago that outright racism was considered perfectly reasonable. There were times when slavery was accepted and there are ideas and behaviours today that might not be considered moral in another hundred years. Just like there are moral standards in one part of the world today that are not the case in other parts. All of this suggests that human beings collectively develop new moral standards.
Now the argument could still be made that there is some objective morality towards which we are all striving and thus the change in human morality is merely the exploration of the path towards the best answers. But to say that morality is objective is to say that morality must be a law like any other, imposed by the very nature of the universe, or by whatever creator being people believe in. Morality can not be objective without being imposed from outside of humanity and there is absolutely no evidence that this is the case.
That said, I don't subscribe to the postmodernist idea of everyone is right in their own way, I think that there are moral values in my own country that are superior to moral values in Iran. Morality does not have to be objective for one side to be more "right" than another. Its like politics, politics is certainly not objective but given time it can most definitely be argued that certain ideaologies are better than others at accomplishing given goals.
On May 12 2011 10:16 VanGarde wrote: That said, I don't subscribe to the postmodernist idea of everyone is right in their own way, I think that there are moral values in my own country that are superior to moral values in Iran. Morality does not have to be objective for one side to be more "right" than another.
On May 12 2011 10:16 VanGarde wrote: That said, I don't subscribe to the postmodernist idea of everyone is right in their own way, I think that there are moral values in my own country that are superior to moral values in Iran. Morality does not have to be objective for one side to be more "right" than another.
Yes it does... because morality="what is right?"
Ehm no? If morality is simpley "what is right" then the mass of the moon is a moral question, indeed everything would be a moral question. Morality just like politics is a field of thought around how we should act. In politics it is about how we should run a country, society, world to the best outcome based on the goals set. Morality is about how we should act towards other living beings. Neither of them are objective because they are human constructs, if humanity did not exist there would be neither politics nor morals because they are behaviour structures we impose on ourselves, they are not commanded down upon us from the universe.
But if humanity did not exist there would still be physics, gravity worked fine before we figured out that there was such a thing as gravity.
My Ethics prof had a wonderful illustration of the incoherence of the idea that morality is subjective.
Assume you subscribe to the view that morality is subjective. You're walking down the street, and a man stops you, points a gun at you, and says, "Stand and deliver: your money or your life!" (hint: he's mugging you). As you reach for your wallet (slowly), you raise the (ethically) obvious question: "How can you possibly do this to another human being? This isn't right!" The mugger, who happens to be of a philosophical bent, responds with an explanation-- in his culture, taking from those who cannot stop you isn't immoral, it's just how life works. So to him, his robbing you is not immoral. It is actually perfectly in line with his ethics.
This leaves you, the moral subjectivist, with no course other than than to say "okay", hand him your wallet, and part ways. After all, he's not being immoral. You are having a disagreement over who has rights to the wallet, but it is not a moral one, and therefore you CANNOT CONDEMN HIM FOR STEALING YOUR WALLET. At least not with the force of morality.
It's something like that. It's been like 8 months since that lecture.
On May 12 2011 09:55 tdt wrote: 100% subjective. I saw a news story once this guy and his son killed his daughter and was proud about it and could not even understand why he was even prosecuted in Canada.
dont wanna argue but you can't say something like this and use as an argument an isolated story about a guy and his son both of which are probably mentally handicapped, need more data
The argument that Human morality has constantly changed over decades and within communities and therefore isnt objective is wrong. Scientific truth also changed over the past and still u call them objektive. Or is newton wrong and einstein right ? And even nowadays different scientific communities have different views on the same topic.
The true Problem why ppl like u think Moral isnt objective and Science is, is the fact that science tells us sth about the world how it is while moral tells us how it should be. Therefore u can make Experiments in science (and "see" the results while u naturally cant do it in Moral issues) Still this does not proof that Moral isnt objektive, cause even in Experiments u can not "see" the results by itself, but that would lead way too far away from the Discussion.
On May 11 2011 16:45 mufin wrote: Since we (human beings/people) came up with this idea of "morality" then we are the ones who determine what it is. The "universe" can't know what is moral and what isn't moral because it doesn't know what "moral" is in the first place. Morality is a human invention derived from our ability to reason.
So on that note, why can't morality be both subjective (opinions vary) and objective (opinions are in agreement)?
For example, 99.9% of people will agree that murder is wrong. This would make murder an objective morality (everyone agrees).
But as a counter example, not everyone will agree on moral grey areas such as abortion or the privacy vs. security debate and opinions on these will vary widely from person to person making it a subjective morality.
So to put it in picture form:
Wait wait wait... so if 99.9% of people of a society agreed on human sacrifice, then that's fine and dandy? The majority should not be tasked with classifying a moral and ethical construct. I'm in firm belief there exists a higher standard to be further hashed out by science, because we can't leave morals to subjectivity. It's too easy for a culture to follow thousand year old traditions that can be objectively identified as bad. This identification process can be found through objective evaluation of the brain itself.
If 99.9% of people agreed on human sacrifice, there's a 99,9% that YOU would find it fine and dandy And wouldn't be here thinking a higher morals would be needed to fight that. You would just agree with it and find it normal.
On May 12 2011 10:44 neohero9 wrote: The mugger, who happens to be of a philosophical bent, responds with an explanation-- in his culture, taking from those who cannot stop you isn't immoral, it's just how life works. So to him, his robbing you is not immoral. It is actually perfectly in line with his ethics.
This leaves you, the moral subjectivist, with no course other than than to say "okay", hand him your wallet, and part ways. After all, he's not being immoral. You are having a disagreement over who has rights to the wallet, but it is not a moral one, and therefore you CANNOT CONDEMN HIM FOR STEALING YOUR WALLET. At least not with the force of morality.
No I cannot condemn him on morality. So what? What's your point? I can still try to get him arrested under law. Why would I care about morality? I don't want him arrested because it's moral. I want him arrested so he doesn't steal me.
On May 12 2011 10:46 Nakama wrote: The argument that Human morality has constantly changed over decades and within communities and therefore isnt objective is wrong. Scientific truth also changed over the past and still u call them objektive. Or is newton wrong and einstein right ? And even nowadays different scientific communities have different views on the same topic.
The true Problem why ppl like u think Moral isnt objective and Science is, is the fact that science tells us sth about the world how it is while moral tells us how it should be. Therefore u can make Experiments in science (and "see" the results while u naturally cant do it in Moral issues) Still this does not proof that Moral isnt objektive, cause even in Experiments u can not "see" the results by itself, but that would lead way too far away from the Discussion.
PS: Sry for my bad english
There is quite a dramatic difference between how scientific theories evolve and how morality changes over time. Scientific theories does not radically change in opposite direction, theories build and expand on one another. Einstein did not make Newton wrong, Newtonian mathematics were used to get people to the moon. As for different scientific communities having different vies on the same topic, those topics would be ones that are not fully proven yet. Physics is quite objective and does not change based on what we do, the fact that scienfitic theories are constantly modified with new findings is in fact evidence of why the laws of nature are objective. There is no discovery that can be made that proves that murder in any situation is wrong. People can agree that it is wrong but you can't prove the immorality of murder through any other means reasoning. That does not make questions of morality insignificant, but if you are to argue that morality is objective you really need to present where that law is coming from. Because the universe and nature sure as hell does not subscribe to human morality, in fact if we were to approach morality as if it was objective we ought to live by darwinian laws and I don't think anyone wants that.
Moral positions though don't only change from one extreme to another over time but also change back and fourth in either direction and changes in moral discourse does not come about from discoveries but gradual change of collective opinion either by force from a state or a church or through open discussion and collective group pressure if you will.
On May 12 2011 10:44 neohero9 wrote: The mugger, who happens to be of a philosophical bent, responds with an explanation-- in his culture, taking from those who cannot stop you isn't immoral, it's just how life works. So to him, his robbing you is not immoral. It is actually perfectly in line with his ethics.
This leaves you, the moral subjectivist, with no course other than than to say "okay", hand him your wallet, and part ways. After all, he's not being immoral. You are having a disagreement over who has rights to the wallet, but it is not a moral one, and therefore you CANNOT CONDEMN HIM FOR STEALING YOUR WALLET. At least not with the force of morality.
No I cannot condemn him on morality. So what? What's your point? I can still try to get him arrested under law. Why would I care about morality? I don't want him arrested because it's moral. I want him arrested so he doesn't steal me.
The topic is about Morality being subjective or objective. That is to what I was responding. Law and morality, as much as they are supposed to be informed, are not always bedfellows.
Basically, your comment is unrelated to the content of my post.
But to respond: You could easily locate this situation in the mugger's nation/region, and assume that said region had no laws against this act. Therefore, you could not have him arrested. Then you are left in exactly the position outlined above.
On May 12 2011 04:06 Tdelamay wrote: Morality only matters to Humans, so it is subjective.
Whether or not you care about an issue has no reflection on whether or not it's objective or subjective. Calculus only matters to humans, yet it's objective.
Calculus is a method. It is a way to interpret numbers, but calculus itself does not 'exist'. Physics however, affects us whether we know of it or not. Animals are affected by the same physics laws as we are. Morality does not have that same reach.
Morality is another creation of humanity. It changes according to our preferences. To be objective, it would have to be universal, and then, what exactly would it affect? Say, if killing a man was universally immoral, then wouldn't that make life itself immoral since death eventually 'kills' a man. What would it matter if the universe as a whole was immoral?
On May 12 2011 10:46 Nakama wrote: The argument that Human morality has constantly changed over decades and within communities and therefore isnt objective is wrong. Scientific truth also changed over the past and still u call them objektive. Or is newton wrong and einstein right ? And even nowadays different scientific communities have different views on the same topic.
The true Problem why ppl like u think Moral isnt objective and Science is, is the fact that science tells us sth about the world how it is while moral tells us how it should be. Therefore u can make Experiments in science (and "see" the results while u naturally cant do it in Moral issues) Still this does not proof that Moral isnt objektive, cause even in Experiments u can not "see" the results by itself, but that would lead way too far away from the Discussion.
PS: Sry for my bad english
There is quite a dramatic difference between how scientific theories evolve and how morality changes over time. Scientific theories does not radically change in opposite direction, theories build and expand on one another. Einstein did not make Newton wrong, Newtonian mathematics were used to get people to the moon. As for different scientific communities having different vies on the same topic, those topics would be ones that are not fully proven yet. Physics is quite objective and does not change based on what we do, the fact that scienfitic theories are constantly modified with new findings is in fact evidence of why the laws of nature are objective. There is no discovery that can be made that proves that murder in any situation is wrong. People can agree that it is wrong but you can't prove the immorality of murder through any other means reasoning. That does not make questions of morality insignificant, but if you are to argue that morality is objective you really need to present where that law is coming from. Because the universe and nature sure as hell does not subscribe to human morality, in fact if we were to approach morality as if it was objective we ought to live by darwinian laws and I don't think anyone wants that.
Moral positions though don't only change from one extreme to another over time but also change back and fourth in either direction and changes in moral discourse does not come about from discoveries but gradual change of collective opinion either by force from a state or a church or through open discussion and collective group pressure if you will.
Newton was WRONG, he was wrong then and he is wrong now. Einstein is probably wrong too.
The point is the reality of what is has nothing to do with what people believe about it.
So just because people's Beliefs about morality are subjective does not mean morality is not objective.
However, unlike the physical world, the Impact of morality on your life is primarily based on the beliefs people have about it. (if 99.9% of people believe human sacrifice is moral, then you may get punished if you don't sacrifice humans).
So Morality itself is either objective or it doesn't really exist. The people's beliefs about morality are also "objective" but for a particular situation (like the air temperature where you live is objective, but it is subject to where you live)
On May 12 2011 10:44 neohero9 wrote: My Ethics prof had a wonderful illustration of the incoherence of the idea that morality is subjective.
....
The mugger, who happens to be of a philosophical bent, responds with an explanation-- in his culture, taking from those who cannot stop you isn't immoral, it's just how life works. So to him, his robbing you is not immoral. It is actually perfectly in line with his ethics.
This leaves you, the moral subjectivist, with no course other than than to say "okay", hand him your wallet, and part ways. After all, he's not being immoral. You are having a disagreement over who has rights to the wallet, but it is not a moral one, and therefore you CANNOT CONDEMN HIM FOR STEALING YOUR WALLET. At least not with the force of morality.
It's not only incoherent, it's completely outside the real world experience. By that I mean, there is not a culture on Earth that would embody the morals of the mugger and uphold them. He must be a deviant, or in this case, a fictional being. Morals, at the base level, always gravitate towards an easily-identifiable standard. The things that people often identify as differences are conventions, not morals. There is a huge difference.
Objective morality must reign. Anybody who argues otherwise is, I suspect, looking for ways to excuse or justify their own failure or unwillingness to abide by them.
On May 12 2011 10:44 neohero9 wrote: The mugger, who happens to be of a philosophical bent, responds with an explanation-- in his culture, taking from those who cannot stop you isn't immoral, it's just how life works. So to him, his robbing you is not immoral. It is actually perfectly in line with his ethics.
This leaves you, the moral subjectivist, with no course other than than to say "okay", hand him your wallet, and part ways. After all, he's not being immoral. You are having a disagreement over who has rights to the wallet, but it is not a moral one, and therefore you CANNOT CONDEMN HIM FOR STEALING YOUR WALLET. At least not with the force of morality.
No I cannot condemn him on morality. So what? What's your point? I can still try to get him arrested under law. Why would I care about morality? I don't want him arrested because it's moral. I want him arrested so he doesn't steal me.
I think part of what the above post is pointing out is that you really do think it is wrong for people to steal from you (or murder you, etc) and your worldview does not account for that. I think people find it very hard to say that the evils in the world aren't 'wrong' in some cosmic sense. When we say it is wrong for a child to be tortured, we are not saying it is inconvenient to use, or simply that we don't like it, we are saying 'that ought not be!'. We all have this tendency as people, and the question is, how does your worldview explain that?
On May 12 2011 10:44 neohero9 wrote: My Ethics prof had a wonderful illustration of the incoherence of the idea that morality is subjective.
....
The mugger, who happens to be of a philosophical bent, responds with an explanation-- in his culture, taking from those who cannot stop you isn't immoral, it's just how life works. So to him, his robbing you is not immoral. It is actually perfectly in line with his ethics.
This leaves you, the moral subjectivist, with no course other than than to say "okay", hand him your wallet, and part ways. After all, he's not being immoral. You are having a disagreement over who has rights to the wallet, but it is not a moral one, and therefore you CANNOT CONDEMN HIM FOR STEALING YOUR WALLET. At least not with the force of morality.
It's not only incoherent, it's completely outside the real world experience. By that I mean, there is not a culture on Earth that would embody the morals of the mugger and uphold them. He must be a deviant, or in this case, a fictional being. Morals, at the base level, always gravitate towards an easily-identifiable standard. The things that people often identify as differences are conventions, not morals. There is a huge difference.
Objective morality must reign. Anybody who argues otherwise is, I suspect, looking for ways to excuse or justify their own failure or unwillingness to abide by them.
You could easily change the mugger from being a cultural relativist to an individual relativist. Examples of people who have no problem taking from those who cannot fight back are much easier to find. Cultures which function this way tend to either die or evolve past that rule, so you're right on there.
Like I said, it's been a long time since that lecture, so I may have flubbed it here or there.
On May 12 2011 10:44 neohero9 wrote: My Ethics prof had a wonderful illustration of the incoherence of the idea that morality is subjective.
....
The mugger, who happens to be of a philosophical bent, responds with an explanation-- in his culture, taking from those who cannot stop you isn't immoral, it's just how life works. So to him, his robbing you is not immoral. It is actually perfectly in line with his ethics.
This leaves you, the moral subjectivist, with no course other than than to say "okay", hand him your wallet, and part ways. After all, he's not being immoral. You are having a disagreement over who has rights to the wallet, but it is not a moral one, and therefore you CANNOT CONDEMN HIM FOR STEALING YOUR WALLET. At least not with the force of morality.
It's not only incoherent, it's completely outside the real world experience. By that I mean, there is not a culture on Earth that would embody the morals of the mugger and uphold them. He must be a deviant, or in this case, a fictional being. Morals, at the base level, always gravitate towards an easily-identifiable standard. The things that people often identify as differences are conventions, not morals. There is a huge difference.
Objective morality must reign. Anybody who argues otherwise is, I suspect, looking for ways to excuse or justify their own failure or unwillingness to abide by them.
Actually, people think subjective morality exists because that is what the evidence points to... sure objective morality would be all nice and easy, but so far we have yet to see justification and evidence for it.
To the guy before, sorry but your professor is fairly incorrect.
You might give the mugger your wallet, but not because you "suddenly" adhere to his system of morality. Rather you would do it because you value your life, and he will hurt you. You don't care about his system of morals, you only care about your own, and another way that situation might go is you knock the gun out of his hand and kill him...
To think that subjective morality means that everyone has equal basis and right to do anything is absolutely absurd. There is no right or basis, people decide for themselves why they do things and they do that based on consequences. No intelligent person hands their wallet over to the mugger for any reason other than looking after their own well-being (or perhaps they have pity for him).
" Scientific theories does not radically change in opposite direction"
yeah and neither do Moral theories.. It is in fact the other way around if u want to bring in some empirical arguments. Overall the world u still read Aristotels or Kant and so on if it comes to Ethics and Moral, while rly noone reads Gallilei anymore. To Murder ur own child is beeing wrong since ever ( dont come with isolated stories), 500 years ago ppl still though the earth is flat =)
and to ur second Point: Just read my last sentence...
"but if you are to argue that morality is objective you really need to present where that law is coming from"
if u can explain me where ur "natural law" comes from. Since Popper it is known that u cant make any sentence with scientific value that hasnt some theoretical Terms in it so what u call objective is highly dependant on other things then pure empirical data.
I am not saying i can proof that Moral is Objective, all i say is that no one can proof the opposite. Casue all arguemts i read are based upon a totally wrong comprehension of science
On May 12 2011 10:44 neohero9 wrote: My Ethics prof had a wonderful illustration of the incoherence of the idea that morality is subjective.
....
The mugger, who happens to be of a philosophical bent, responds with an explanation-- in his culture, taking from those who cannot stop you isn't immoral, it's just how life works. So to him, his robbing you is not immoral. It is actually perfectly in line with his ethics.
This leaves you, the moral subjectivist, with no course other than than to say "okay", hand him your wallet, and part ways. After all, he's not being immoral. You are having a disagreement over who has rights to the wallet, but it is not a moral one, and therefore you CANNOT CONDEMN HIM FOR STEALING YOUR WALLET. At least not with the force of morality.
It's not only incoherent, it's completely outside the real world experience. By that I mean, there is not a culture on Earth that would embody the morals of the mugger and uphold them. He must be a deviant, or in this case, a fictional being. Morals, at the base level, always gravitate towards an easily-identifiable standard. The things that people often identify as differences are conventions, not morals. There is a huge difference.
Objective morality must reign. Anybody who argues otherwise is, I suspect, looking for ways to excuse or justify their own failure or unwillingness to abide by them.
Actually, people think subjective morality exists because that is what the evidence points to... sure objective morality would be all nice and easy, but so far we have yet to see justification and evidence for it.
To the guy before, sorry but your professor is fairly incorrect.
You might give the mugger your wallet, but not because you "suddenly" adhere to his system of morality. Rather you would do it because you value your life, and he will hurt you. You don't care about his system of morals, you only care about your own, and another way that situation might go is you knock the gun out of his hand and kill him...
To think that subjective morality means that everyone has equal basis and right to do anything is absolutely absurd. There is no right or basis, people decide for themselves why they do things and they do that based on consequences. No intelligent person hands their wallet over to the mugger for any reason other than looking after their own well-being (or perhaps they have pity for him).
...I never once said you give it to him because you adhere to his moral code. You're precisely right in that you hand it over because he's still going to shoot you and your life is assumed to be worth more than the contents of your wallet (plus if you don't hand it over, he'll just shoot you and take it anyway).
And you're missing the point.
The point is that morality is supposed to give us a basis for declaring the actions of ourselves and others right or wrong. If objective morality does not exist, and if a person is obeying their own moral code, then their actions are not condemnable no matter how cruel, disgusting, disrespectful, etc they may be.
On May 12 2011 10:44 neohero9 wrote: My Ethics prof had a wonderful illustration of the incoherence of the idea that morality is subjective.
....
The mugger, who happens to be of a philosophical bent, responds with an explanation-- in his culture, taking from those who cannot stop you isn't immoral, it's just how life works. So to him, his robbing you is not immoral. It is actually perfectly in line with his ethics.
This leaves you, the moral subjectivist, with no course other than than to say "okay", hand him your wallet, and part ways. After all, he's not being immoral. You are having a disagreement over who has rights to the wallet, but it is not a moral one, and therefore you CANNOT CONDEMN HIM FOR STEALING YOUR WALLET. At least not with the force of morality.
It's not only incoherent, it's completely outside the real world experience. By that I mean, there is not a culture on Earth that would embody the morals of the mugger and uphold them. He must be a deviant, or in this case, a fictional being. Morals, at the base level, always gravitate towards an easily-identifiable standard. The things that people often identify as differences are conventions, not morals. There is a huge difference.
Objective morality must reign. Anybody who argues otherwise is, I suspect, looking for ways to excuse or justify their own failure or unwillingness to abide by them.
Actually, people think subjective morality exists because that is what the evidence points to... sure objective morality would be all nice and easy, but so far we have yet to see justification and evidence for it.
To the guy before, sorry but your professor is fairly incorrect.
You might give the mugger your wallet, but not because you "suddenly" adhere to his system of morality. Rather you would do it because you value your life, and he will hurt you. You don't care about his system of morals, you only care about your own, and another way that situation might go is you knock the gun out of his hand and kill him...
To think that subjective morality means that everyone has equal basis and right to do anything is absolutely absurd. There is no right or basis, people decide for themselves why they do things and they do that based on consequences. No intelligent person hands their wallet over to the mugger for any reason other than looking after their own well-being (or perhaps they have pity for him).
...I never once said you give it to him because you adhere to his moral code. You're precisely right in that you hand it over because he's still going to shoot you and your life is assumed to be worth more than the contents of your wallet (plus if you don't hand it over, he'll just shoot you and take it anyway).
And you're missing the point.
I believe your point was that you don't have the right to argue that what he is doing is wrong... my point was that there is no such thing as you "not having the right" to do anything.
You can lie your ass off to him and tell him that what he is doing is "wrong" and that he doesn't have the "right" to steal from you. That would be subjective morality, where your system of morals is only restricting yourself, and in my system I sure as hell would tell that robber that what he is doing is wrong if I thought it would provide me an advantage.
On May 12 2011 10:44 neohero9 wrote: My Ethics prof had a wonderful illustration of the incoherence of the idea that morality is subjective.
....
The mugger, who happens to be of a philosophical bent, responds with an explanation-- in his culture, taking from those who cannot stop you isn't immoral, it's just how life works. So to him, his robbing you is not immoral. It is actually perfectly in line with his ethics.
This leaves you, the moral subjectivist, with no course other than than to say "okay", hand him your wallet, and part ways. After all, he's not being immoral. You are having a disagreement over who has rights to the wallet, but it is not a moral one, and therefore you CANNOT CONDEMN HIM FOR STEALING YOUR WALLET. At least not with the force of morality.
It's not only incoherent, it's completely outside the real world experience. By that I mean, there is not a culture on Earth that would embody the morals of the mugger and uphold them. He must be a deviant, or in this case, a fictional being. Morals, at the base level, always gravitate towards an easily-identifiable standard. The things that people often identify as differences are conventions, not morals. There is a huge difference.
Objective morality must reign. Anybody who argues otherwise is, I suspect, looking for ways to excuse or justify their own failure or unwillingness to abide by them.
Actually, people think subjective morality exists because that is what the evidence points to... sure objective morality would be all nice and easy, but so far we have yet to see justification and evidence for it.
To the guy before, sorry but your professor is fairly incorrect.
You might give the mugger your wallet, but not because you "suddenly" adhere to his system of morality. Rather you would do it because you value your life, and he will hurt you. You don't care about his system of morals, you only care about your own, and another way that situation might go is you knock the gun out of his hand and kill him...
To think that subjective morality means that everyone has equal basis and right to do anything is absolutely absurd. There is no right or basis, people decide for themselves why they do things and they do that based on consequences. No intelligent person hands their wallet over to the mugger for any reason other than looking after their own well-being (or perhaps they have pity for him).
...I never once said you give it to him because you adhere to his moral code. You're precisely right in that you hand it over because he's still going to shoot you and your life is assumed to be worth more than the contents of your wallet (plus if you don't hand it over, he'll just shoot you and take it anyway).
And you're missing the point.
I believe your point was that you don't have the right to argue that what he is doing is wrong... my point was that there is no such thing as you "not having the right" to do anything.
You can lie your ass off to him and tell him that what he is doing is wrong and that he doesn't have the "right" to steal from you. That would be subjective morality, where your system of morals is only restricting yourself, and in my system I sure as hell would tell that robber that what he is doing is wrong if I thought it would provide me an advantage.
Yes.
But no matter how much you say "What you're doing is wrong," you will be incorrect, in his eyes. He will have no reason to even consider what you say with any kind of force.
The issue is taken down from a moral issue to a simple disagreement. You don't like it, he likes it, them's the breaks cuz he's the one with the gun.
Yes, you could lie to him, attack him, and even survive and kill him, retaining your wallet and your life.
On May 12 2011 10:44 neohero9 wrote: The mugger, who happens to be of a philosophical bent, responds with an explanation-- in his culture, taking from those who cannot stop you isn't immoral, it's just how life works. So to him, his robbing you is not immoral. It is actually perfectly in line with his ethics.
This leaves you, the moral subjectivist, with no course other than than to say "okay", hand him your wallet, and part ways. After all, he's not being immoral. You are having a disagreement over who has rights to the wallet, but it is not a moral one, and therefore you CANNOT CONDEMN HIM FOR STEALING YOUR WALLET. At least not with the force of morality.
No I cannot condemn him on morality. So what? What's your point? I can still try to get him arrested under law. Why would I care about morality? I don't want him arrested because it's moral. I want him arrested so he doesn't steal me.
I think part of what the above post is pointing out is that you really do think it is wrong for people to steal from you (or murder you, etc) and your worldview does not account for that. I think people find it very hard to say that the evils in the world aren't 'wrong' in some cosmic sense. When we say it is wrong for a child to be tortured, we are not saying it is inconvenient to use, or simply that we don't like it, we are saying 'that ought not be!'. We all have this tendency as people, and the question is, how does your worldview explain that?
No... most people are saying they don't like it.
Seriously, how many people LIKE the idea of a child being tortured?
Most people say "it should not be" because they REALLY don't like it on some gut level (Through social or biological programming).
On May 12 2011 10:44 neohero9 wrote: My Ethics prof had a wonderful illustration of the incoherence of the idea that morality is subjective.
....
The mugger, who happens to be of a philosophical bent, responds with an explanation-- in his culture, taking from those who cannot stop you isn't immoral, it's just how life works. So to him, his robbing you is not immoral. It is actually perfectly in line with his ethics.
This leaves you, the moral subjectivist, with no course other than than to say "okay", hand him your wallet, and part ways. After all, he's not being immoral. You are having a disagreement over who has rights to the wallet, but it is not a moral one, and therefore you CANNOT CONDEMN HIM FOR STEALING YOUR WALLET. At least not with the force of morality.
It's not only incoherent, it's completely outside the real world experience. By that I mean, there is not a culture on Earth that would embody the morals of the mugger and uphold them. He must be a deviant, or in this case, a fictional being. Morals, at the base level, always gravitate towards an easily-identifiable standard. The things that people often identify as differences are conventions, not morals. There is a huge difference.
Objective morality must reign. Anybody who argues otherwise is, I suspect, looking for ways to excuse or justify their own failure or unwillingness to abide by them.
Actually, people think subjective morality exists because that is what the evidence points to... sure objective morality would be all nice and easy, but so far we have yet to see justification and evidence for it.
To the guy before, sorry but your professor is fairly incorrect.
You might give the mugger your wallet, but not because you "suddenly" adhere to his system of morality. Rather you would do it because you value your life, and he will hurt you. You don't care about his system of morals, you only care about your own, and another way that situation might go is you knock the gun out of his hand and kill him...
To think that subjective morality means that everyone has equal basis and right to do anything is absolutely absurd. There is no right or basis, people decide for themselves why they do things and they do that based on consequences. No intelligent person hands their wallet over to the mugger for any reason other than looking after their own well-being (or perhaps they have pity for him).
...I never once said you give it to him because you adhere to his moral code. You're precisely right in that you hand it over because he's still going to shoot you and your life is assumed to be worth more than the contents of your wallet (plus if you don't hand it over, he'll just shoot you and take it anyway).
And you're missing the point.
I believe your point was that you don't have the right to argue that what he is doing is wrong... my point was that there is no such thing as you "not having the right" to do anything.
You can lie your ass off to him and tell him that what he is doing is wrong and that he doesn't have the "right" to steal from you. That would be subjective morality, where your system of morals is only restricting yourself, and in my system I sure as hell would tell that robber that what he is doing is wrong if I thought it would provide me an advantage.
Yes.
But no matter how much you say "What you're doing is wrong," you will be incorrect, in his eyes. He will have no reason to even consider what you say with any kind of force.
The issue is taken down from a moral issue to a simple disagreement. You don't like it, he likes it, them's the breaks cuz he's the one with the gun.
Yes, you could lie to him, attack him, and even survive and kill him, retaining your wallet and your life.
But that's outside the scope of the question.
Are you referring to the OP's question?
Because in that case, I was explaining how your professor's case against subjective morality was incorrect, since it seems like he is arguing that the absence of an objective morality disallows you certain actions.
Sure the robber doesn't at all have to accept what you are saying, but maybe he does, either way that system of morals is yours and obviously not universal and objective since the robber certainly isn't following the same system as you.
I think there is a language problem here in that you are trying to elevate the problem of morals above the realm of what we can observe. Because subjective morals can disagree, and there being a disagreement does not disallow them.
On May 12 2011 11:23 Traveler wrote: Actually, people think subjective morality exists because that is what the evidence points to... sure objective morality would be all nice and easy, but so far we have yet to see justification and evidence for it.
Objective morality isn't undermined by the degree to which it is practiced in real-life any more than the multiplication table is undermined by the fact that people often get their calculations wrong. Objective morality exists independently of people's perceptions and adherence to it. That is the essence of objectivity is it not?
I completely agree that we see a moral deficit in society all around us. That is not to say, however, that those who deviate from objective morality are unaware of it. I would venture that even the most savage person on Earth has an idea of how he or she "ought" to behave, unless he or she is suffering from a mental deficiency or lives in an alternate reality.
Robert Heinlein wrote something of a thesis on what morality is, why we have it, why it's important, what it stems from. To sum up a brilliant idea in a couple of sentences, he basically said that morality boils down to survival and propagation of the species. If something contributes to the overall well being and continuation of the species and its genes, it is moral. Although this is a gross oversimplification of what he was saying, I believe it's relevant and mostly correct. You just extrapolate individual actions to the level of impact on family, tribe, nation, world, etc. He also stated that he did not believe man is born with innate morals, they are taught.
On May 12 2011 10:44 neohero9 wrote: The mugger, who happens to be of a philosophical bent, responds with an explanation-- in his culture, taking from those who cannot stop you isn't immoral, it's just how life works. So to him, his robbing you is not immoral. It is actually perfectly in line with his ethics.
This leaves you, the moral subjectivist, with no course other than than to say "okay", hand him your wallet, and part ways. After all, he's not being immoral. You are having a disagreement over who has rights to the wallet, but it is not a moral one, and therefore you CANNOT CONDEMN HIM FOR STEALING YOUR WALLET. At least not with the force of morality.
No I cannot condemn him on morality. So what? What's your point? I can still try to get him arrested under law. Why would I care about morality? I don't want him arrested because it's moral. I want him arrested so he doesn't steal me.
The topic is about Morality being subjective or objective. That is to what I was responding. Law and morality, as much as they are supposed to be informed, are not always bedfellows.
Basically, your comment is unrelated to the content of my post.
But to respond: You could easily locate this situation in the mugger's nation/region, and assume that said region had no laws against this act. Therefore, you could not have him arrested. Then you are left in exactly the position outlined above.
I am on topic, you're missing the point. There will be no country where you are not arrested for murder only because of morals, because law are not based on morals. Laws are a consequence of politics, economical and social needs. So are morals. That's why morals are subjective. It changes depending on society. If you disagree with that, then go study some history.
On May 12 2011 11:23 Traveler wrote: Actually, people think subjective morality exists because that is what the evidence points to... sure objective morality would be all nice and easy, but so far we have yet to see justification and evidence for it.
Objective morality isn't undermined by the degree to which it is practiced in real-life any more than the multiplication table is undermined by the fact that people often get their calculations wrong. Objective morality exists independently of people's perceptions and adherence to it. That is the essence of objectivity is it not?
I completely agree that we see a moral deficit in society all around us. That is not to say, however, that those who deviate from objective morality are unaware of it. I would venture that even the most savage person on Earth has an idea of how he or she "ought" to behave, unless he or she is suffering from a mental deficiency or lives in an alternate reality.
Actually in order for objective morality to exist; it must enforce itself in reality somehow. Multiplication tables are subjective to people because our system of numbers is subjective, but in reality if you take 2 rocks and another 2 rocks, you have 4 rocks no matter what. Now our language can differ upon what we call them, but it there are still 4 rocks, because they enforce their constancy in their state of matter. (Be careful in picking analogies for things, because they may seem similar, but you might miss a key difference.) Since we don't see a system of morality that imposes itself on everyone no matter what...
People that have conceptions of how they "ought" to behave are only picking up cues from society, independent of society, totally alone, I doubt that person would have any problem at all with their actions. People are mistaking objective morality with the system of worth evolution has programmed into our minds, and that system of worth often makes us favor majority opinions because when people like us, we are more likely to survive.
On May 12 2011 10:44 neohero9 wrote: The mugger, who happens to be of a philosophical bent, responds with an explanation-- in his culture, taking from those who cannot stop you isn't immoral, it's just how life works. So to him, his robbing you is not immoral. It is actually perfectly in line with his ethics.
This leaves you, the moral subjectivist, with no course other than than to say "okay", hand him your wallet, and part ways. After all, he's not being immoral. You are having a disagreement over who has rights to the wallet, but it is not a moral one, and therefore you CANNOT CONDEMN HIM FOR STEALING YOUR WALLET. At least not with the force of morality.
No I cannot condemn him on morality. So what? What's your point? I can still try to get him arrested under law. Why would I care about morality? I don't want him arrested because it's moral. I want him arrested so he doesn't steal me.
I think part of what the above post is pointing out is that you really do think it is wrong for people to steal from you (or murder you, etc) and your worldview does not account for that. I think people find it very hard to say that the evils in the world aren't 'wrong' in some cosmic sense. When we say it is wrong for a child to be tortured, we are not saying it is inconvenient to use, or simply that we don't like it, we are saying 'that ought not be!'. We all have this tendency as people, and the question is, how does your worldview explain that?
No we don't. There's no such thing as right or wrong. This has been repeated over and over. We don't say it's wrong for a child to be tortured. We don't accept that because if it were it would be prejudicial to society. So to protect our society, 2 things happen: 1) make laws against child torture; 2) some invent that it's immoral. It's illegal because there's a need for it. Not because of some made up abstraction. Morals doesn't exist.
On May 12 2011 10:44 neohero9 wrote: My Ethics prof had a wonderful illustration of the incoherence of the idea that morality is subjective.
....
The mugger, who happens to be of a philosophical bent, responds with an explanation-- in his culture, taking from those who cannot stop you isn't immoral, it's just how life works. So to him, his robbing you is not immoral. It is actually perfectly in line with his ethics.
This leaves you, the moral subjectivist, with no course other than than to say "okay", hand him your wallet, and part ways. After all, he's not being immoral. You are having a disagreement over who has rights to the wallet, but it is not a moral one, and therefore you CANNOT CONDEMN HIM FOR STEALING YOUR WALLET. At least not with the force of morality.
It's not only incoherent, it's completely outside the real world experience. By that I mean, there is not a culture on Earth that would embody the morals of the mugger and uphold them. He must be a deviant, or in this case, a fictional being. Morals, at the base level, always gravitate towards an easily-identifiable standard. The things that people often identify as differences are conventions, not morals. There is a huge difference.
Objective morality must reign. Anybody who argues otherwise is, I suspect, looking for ways to excuse or justify their own failure or unwillingness to abide by them.
Actually, people think subjective morality exists because that is what the evidence points to... sure objective morality would be all nice and easy, but so far we have yet to see justification and evidence for it.
To the guy before, sorry but your professor is fairly incorrect.
You might give the mugger your wallet, but not because you "suddenly" adhere to his system of morality. Rather you would do it because you value your life, and he will hurt you. You don't care about his system of morals, you only care about your own, and another way that situation might go is you knock the gun out of his hand and kill him...
To think that subjective morality means that everyone has equal basis and right to do anything is absolutely absurd. There is no right or basis, people decide for themselves why they do things and they do that based on consequences. No intelligent person hands their wallet over to the mugger for any reason other than looking after their own well-being (or perhaps they have pity for him).
...I never once said you give it to him because you adhere to his moral code. You're precisely right in that you hand it over because he's still going to shoot you and your life is assumed to be worth more than the contents of your wallet (plus if you don't hand it over, he'll just shoot you and take it anyway).
And you're missing the point.
I believe your point was that you don't have the right to argue that what he is doing is wrong... my point was that there is no such thing as you "not having the right" to do anything.
You can lie your ass off to him and tell him that what he is doing is wrong and that he doesn't have the "right" to steal from you. That would be subjective morality, where your system of morals is only restricting yourself, and in my system I sure as hell would tell that robber that what he is doing is wrong if I thought it would provide me an advantage.
Yes.
But no matter how much you say "What you're doing is wrong," you will be incorrect, in his eyes. He will have no reason to even consider what you say with any kind of force.
The issue is taken down from a moral issue to a simple disagreement. You don't like it, he likes it, them's the breaks cuz he's the one with the gun.
Yes, you could lie to him, attack him, and even survive and kill him, retaining your wallet and your life.
But that's outside the scope of the question.
Are you referring to the OP's question?
Because in that case, I was explaining how your professor's case against subjective morality was incorrect, since it seems like he is arguing that the absence of an objective morality disallows you certain actions.
Sure the robber doesn't at all have to accept what you are saying, but maybe he does, either way that system of morals is yours and obviously not universal and objective since the robber certainly isn't following the same system as you.
I think there is a language problem here in that you are trying to elevate the problem of morals above the realm of what we can observe. Because subjective morals can disagree, and there being a disagreement does not disallow them.
Yes, I meant the OP's question.
Absence of objective morality does not disallow certain actions. I never said that, she never said that. It's not even implied. You can do what you want, however in or out of line with your own moral code those actions happen to be-- it doesn't change the thrust of the example.
[we enter the scene after you have demanded to know how the mugger could justify mugging you]: "But it's my wallet, you don't have a right to it." "No, no no. Morality is subjective, mate. My moral code says I have a right to what I want so long as I can take it. So I have a right to your wallet, because I have this gun and I want it." "No, you don't! It's mine!" "Says who?" "Says me!" (This is the part where he kills you.)
the fundamental mistake u make is that u replace the word moral with other words but u mean the same..
U say laws are made to protect the society and at the same time u say there is no such thing as right or wrong. so why is protecting ur society a good thing? where do u take that judgement from if there is no Moral ? And pls dont answer me with sth that has to do with Evolution
On May 12 2011 11:59 neohero9 wrote: Yes, I meant the OP's question.
Absence of objective morality does not disallow certain actions. I never said that, she never said that. It's not even implied. You can do what you want, however in or out of line with your own moral code those actions happen to be-- it doesn't change the thrust of the example.
[we enter the scene after you have demanded to know how the mugger could justify mugging you]: "But it's my wallet, you don't have a right to it." "No, no no. Morality is subjective, mate. My moral code says I have a right to what I want so long as I can take it. So I have a right to your wallet, because I have this gun and I want it." "No, you don't! It's mine!" "Says who?" "Says me!" (This is the part where he kills you.)
Now you're dead, and he takes your wallet.
And he has still done NOTHING WRONG.
That is the point.
Except that you don't care at all that he has done nothing "wrong" by some objective standard...
Neither he nor you need nor have any "justification" for the actions you commit. The example is flawed because it is assuming in some slight way that you DO.
Why at all should I care whether or not he is "right" or "wrong"? My system of morals says his actions are not favorable and I don't need anything more than that.
On May 12 2011 12:03 Nakama wrote: To VIB:
the fundamental mistake u make is that u replace the word moral with other words but u mean the same..
U say laws are made to protect the society and at the same time u say there is no such thing as right or wrong. so why is protecting ur society a good thing? where do u take that judgement from if there is no Moral ? And pls dont answer me with sth that has to do with Evolution
The fundamental mistake you are making is assuming you need "good" in order to protect our society, we need no justification greater than our wants to create laws.
A majority with the power to enforce them, creates them to protect itself, and it largely stems from a will to survive (which comes from evolution).
On May 12 2011 11:59 neohero9 wrote: And he has still done NOTHING WRONG.
That is the point.
Yes, he has done nothing morally wrong. And he's still getting arrested for it. It doesn't matter if he done nothing wrong. There is no such thing.
This is how you think society rules work: a) X is morally wrong. Because of that, one thing happens: b) Society creates rules and laws against X to protect our morals.
This is wrong. What really happens is:
a) X is harmful to society, economics, or politics Because of that, TWO things happens: b-1) Society creates rules against X to protect itself b-2) Society invents that X is immoral
Proof this is truth is abundant: just look at our thousands of years of human history. Morals have always changed to adapt to our current needs.
In short, you are confusing the cause and the consequence. Morality is the consequence not the cause. It's made up by men. It's subjective and as such has no objective consequence whatsoever.
On May 12 2011 11:48 Traveler wrote: Actually in order for objective morality to exist; it must enforce itself in reality somehow. Multiplication tables are subjective to people because our system of numbers is subjective, but in reality if you take 2 rocks and another 2 rocks, you have 4 rocks no matter what. Now our language can differ upon what we call them, but it there are still 4 rocks, because they enforce their constancy in their state of matter. (Be careful in picking analogies for things, because they may seem similar, but you might miss a key difference.) Since we don't see a system of morality that imposes itself on everyone no matter what...
People that have conceptions of how they "ought" to behave are only picking up cues from society, independent of society, totally alone, I doubt that person would have any problem at all with their actions. People are mistaking objective morality with the system of worth evolution has programmed into our minds, and that system of worth often makes us favor majority opinions because when people like us, we are more likely to survive.
What you are really saying, then, is that there is no such thing as morality at all. You're saying that what we call "morality" is really just a code of conduct created by ourselves and predicated on survival. You're pulling from Hobbes.
If that is truly your position, then I can't argue with you. But at the same time, you would have no basis by which to say that a Nazi mentality is good or bad. You would have no basis to condemn anybody's actions, no matter how cruel or inhumane they might be. You would have no basis by which to evaluate your own actions at all, except to the extent that they improve your own well-being. Because the moment you actually do attempt to evaluate them...you will be unwittingly bending towards objective morality. Evaluation presupposes something to evaluate against.
I think it's dangerous to look to everyday practice in order to ascertain whether objective morality exists. People will always fall short of the standard, and that is the state of affairs today. However, you do have intimate knowledge of YOURSELF, and if you were to evaluate your own thoughts and actions with honesty, you would find that they were at least compelled to some degree by a nagging feeling inside that what you were doing was right or wrong, independent of what herd mentality might dictate.
the fundamental mistake u make is that u replace the word moral with other words but u mean the same..
U say laws are made to protect the society and at the same time u say there is no such thing as right or wrong. so why is protecting ur society a good thing? where do u take that judgement from if there is no Moral ? And pls dont answer me with sth that has to do with Evolution
The fundamental mistake you make is that you think semantics have any importance whatsoever
We don't protect society because it's "morally correct" to do so. We protect ourselves because we infer we need to do that to survive.
On May 12 2011 10:44 neohero9 wrote: My Ethics prof had a wonderful illustration of the incoherence of the idea that morality is subjective.
Assume you subscribe to the view that morality is subjective. You're walking down the street, and a man stops you, points a gun at you, and says, "Stand and deliver: your money or your life!" (hint: he's mugging you). As you reach for your wallet (slowly), you raise the (ethically) obvious question: "How can you possibly do this to another human being? This isn't right!" The mugger, who happens to be of a philosophical bent, responds with an explanation-- in his culture, taking from those who cannot stop you isn't immoral, it's just how life works. So to him, his robbing you is not immoral. It is actually perfectly in line with his ethics.
This leaves you, the moral subjectivist, with no course other than than to say "okay", hand him your wallet, and part ways. After all, he's not being immoral. You are having a disagreement over who has rights to the wallet, but it is not a moral one, and therefore you CANNOT CONDEMN HIM FOR STEALING YOUR WALLET. At least not with the force of morality.
It's something like that. It's been like 8 months since that lecture.
His morality I don't agree with, that how fights start, people get shot, wars are fought etc. Victor sets the tone, but make no mistake all Morals are indoctrinated. Wasnt too long ago slavery was not only legal but it was admired if you could own people in ME and Europe.
On May 12 2011 12:09 VIB wrote: Proof this is truth is abundant: just look at our thousands of years of human history. Morals have always changed to adapt to our current needs.
"The fundamental mistake you are making is assuming you need "good" in order to protect our society, we need no justification greater than our wants to create laws. "
U don´t even get the point...
aha and u want sth because of what ?? mb cause u think its good ? now u replaced the word "good" with "want" and still u cant tell me why u think its good without reffering to some objektive value. This is philosophy fresh out of the 16th century =)
Well it really depends on whether you're religious or not, I think. What kind of objective morality can exist besides one based on the idea of a deity? Personally I don't believe in any kind of god so I chose subjective, but it really depends on beliefs.
On May 12 2011 11:48 Traveler wrote: Actually in order for objective morality to exist; it must enforce itself in reality somehow. Multiplication tables are subjective to people because our system of numbers is subjective, but in reality if you take 2 rocks and another 2 rocks, you have 4 rocks no matter what. Now our language can differ upon what we call them, but it there are still 4 rocks, because they enforce their constancy in their state of matter. (Be careful in picking analogies for things, because they may seem similar, but you might miss a key difference.) Since we don't see a system of morality that imposes itself on everyone no matter what...
People that have conceptions of how they "ought" to behave are only picking up cues from society, independent of society, totally alone, I doubt that person would have any problem at all with their actions. People are mistaking objective morality with the system of worth evolution has programmed into our minds, and that system of worth often makes us favor majority opinions because when people like us, we are more likely to survive.
What you are really saying, then, is that there is no such thing as morality at all. You're saying that what we call "morality" is really just a code of conduct created by ourselves and predicated on survival. You're pulling from Hobbes.
If that is truly your position, then I can't argue with you. But at the same time, you would have no basis by which to say that a Nazi mentality is good or bad. You would have no basis to condemn anybody's actions, no matter how cruel or inhumane they might be. You would have no basis by which to evaluate your own actions at all, except to the extent that they improve your own well-being. Because the moment you actually do attempt to evaluate them...you will be unwittingly bending towards objective morality. Evaluation presupposes something to evaluate against.
I think it's dangerous to look to everyday practice in order to ascertain whether objective morality exists. People will always fall short of the standard, and that is the state of affairs today. However, you do have intimate knowledge of YOURSELF, and if you were to evaluate your own thoughts and actions with honesty, you would find that they were at least compelled to some degree by a nagging feeling inside that what you were doing was right or wrong, independent of what herd mentality might dictate.
The only basis I need is that I dislike their actions, and I have a majority behind me willing to support me on that, and even take action to prevent them from committing those actions again.
Now you are probably stating that I have no objective basis, which I don't. But heck, I don't need one. (Also yes I am sort of pulling from Hobbes, but I had argued for this before my first philosophy course)
Also, take away society, and I bet there would be no nagging feeling. As I have said before in this thread, people mistake that nagging feeling of conforming to society's wishes as something greater.
On May 12 2011 12:20 Nakama wrote: "The fundamental mistake you are making is assuming you need "good" in order to protect our society, we need no justification greater than our wants to create laws. "
U don´t even get the point...
aha and u want sth because of what ?? mb cause u think its good ? now u replaced the word "good" with "want" and still u cant tell me why u think its good without reffering to some objektive value. This is philosophy fresh out of the 16th century =)
Actually I do get your point, but you are presupposing that there is a need to justify things based on some "objective system", and since we have absolutely no evidence for this it simply isn't the case.
You are getting tricked by language into thinking that we need "good" and "bad" in order to make choices and do things. What actually happens is that we make choices based on wants, and those wants stem from biochemical process set in motion by evolution.
On May 12 2011 12:20 Noak3 wrote: Well it really depends on whether you're religious or not, I think. What kind of objective morality can exist besides one based on the idea of a deity? Personally I don't believe in any kind of god so I chose subjective, but it really depends on beliefs.
Even if you are religious, then you are still deciding based on consequence. I said this to William Lane Craig when I went to a debate between him and Sam Harris, and Harris supported me on it. With free will, morality is objective, and with a deity, all that changes is that we are punished (similar to how laws work) for not obeying some arbitrary code on conduct.
On May 12 2011 12:09 VIB wrote: Proof this is truth is abundant: just look at our thousands of years of human history. Morals have always changed to adapt to our current needs.
On May 12 2011 12:20 Noak3 wrote: Well it really depends on whether you're religious or not, I think. What kind of objective morality can exist besides one based on the idea of a deity? Personally I don't believe in any kind of god so I chose subjective, but it really depends on beliefs.
Generally the most common defense of morality along these lines rests on an appeal to reason. For example, the golden rule. The existence of a god or gods does not change the validity of logic.
On May 12 2011 12:20 Noak3 wrote: Well it really depends on whether you're religious or not, I think. What kind of objective morality can exist besides one based on the idea of a deity? Personally I don't believe in any kind of god so I chose subjective, but it really depends on beliefs.
Religion is just another form of indoctrination. Gods laws as opposed to man made secular societies have. Either way both have morals, both are indoctrinated usually from a child, both use threats to keep you in line. Burning hell for religion, prison for secular society.
On May 12 2011 11:48 Traveler wrote: Actually in order for objective morality to exist; it must enforce itself in reality somehow. Multiplication tables are subjective to people because our system of numbers is subjective, but in reality if you take 2 rocks and another 2 rocks, you have 4 rocks no matter what. Now our language can differ upon what we call them, but it there are still 4 rocks, because they enforce their constancy in their state of matter. (Be careful in picking analogies for things, because they may seem similar, but you might miss a key difference.) Since we don't see a system of morality that imposes itself on everyone no matter what...
People that have conceptions of how they "ought" to behave are only picking up cues from society, independent of society, totally alone, I doubt that person would have any problem at all with their actions. People are mistaking objective morality with the system of worth evolution has programmed into our minds, and that system of worth often makes us favor majority opinions because when people like us, we are more likely to survive.
What you are really saying, then, is that there is no such thing as morality at all. You're saying that what we call "morality" is really just a code of conduct created by ourselves and predicated on survival. You're pulling from Hobbes.
If that is truly your position, then I can't argue with you. But at the same time, you would have no basis by which to say that a Nazi mentality is good or bad. You would have no basis to condemn anybody's actions, no matter how cruel or inhumane they might be. You would have no basis by which to evaluate your own actions at all, except to the extent that they improve your own well-being. Because the moment you actually do attempt to evaluate them...you will be unwittingly bending towards objective morality. Evaluation presupposes something to evaluate against.
I think it's dangerous to look to everyday practice in order to ascertain whether objective morality exists. People will always fall short of the standard, and that is the state of affairs today. However, you do have intimate knowledge of YOURSELF, and if you were to evaluate your own thoughts and actions with honesty, you would find that they were at least compelled to some degree by a nagging feeling inside that what you were doing was right or wrong, independent of what herd mentality might dictate.
The only basis I need is that I dislike their actions, and I have a majority behind me willing to support me on that, and even take action to prevent them from committing those actions again.
Might makes right?
So the lone gay couple in Saudi Arabia is immoral because the society is willing to kill them over it. Whereas if they were in West Hollywood they wouldn't be.
On May 12 2011 10:44 neohero9 wrote: My Ethics prof had a wonderful illustration of the incoherence of the idea that morality is subjective.
Assume you subscribe to the view that morality is subjective. You're walking down the street, and a man stops you, points a gun at you, and says, "Stand and deliver: your money or your life!" (hint: he's mugging you). As you reach for your wallet (slowly), you raise the (ethically) obvious question: "How can you possibly do this to another human being? This isn't right!" The mugger, who happens to be of a philosophical bent, responds with an explanation-- in his culture, taking from those who cannot stop you isn't immoral, it's just how life works. So to him, his robbing you is not immoral. It is actually perfectly in line with his ethics.
This leaves you, the moral subjectivist, with no course other than than to say "okay", hand him your wallet, and part ways. After all, he's not being immoral. You are having a disagreement over who has rights to the wallet, but it is not a moral one, and therefore you CANNOT CONDEMN HIM FOR STEALING YOUR WALLET. At least not with the force of morality.
It's something like that. It's been like 8 months since that lecture.
That is moral relativism, not moral subjectivism. Moral subjectivism recognises that morality is based on the based on the attitudes of the individual holding the values. That means one can hold a value to be absolutely right and also at the same time believe in subjectivity. The thought process of a moral subjectivist would more be like "People believe what they want -> I hold x to be true based on my attitude/experiences -> he did x to me and is wrong in doing so"
Sometimes, I drift into a daydream where everyone is just a chemical supercomputer, and the world is just a result of a series of events, like dominoes tipping over, one after another. However, then something happens to me that I feel sad about -- or I experience pain, or maybe even joy. If we are just chemical supercomputer, then how am I seeing? How am I inside myself, and not other people? How do I seem to have what people often call a "soul"?
Everything seems to come in a circle, and in the end I feel selfish that in this vast world, this huge pool of thoughts, opinions and emotions, I see good and bad through my own eyes; I feel exactly what my brain tells me to. My morality is entirely subjective despite the fact that, for myself, and anyone else, it feels objective.
Strangely, the internet and other growing communications seem to be unifying the morality of the world and fusing it into every culture. The ground basis for wars is ending and humanity as a whole is gaining an identity.
Sigh... I could go on forever about this but in the end there is no end to the numerous philosophical debates. We are. We exist. All we can do is live our lives as we see fit. People will have their own opinions on morality and the human psyche; their thoughts generally wont change, and don't really need to.
On May 12 2011 12:20 Noak3 wrote: Well it really depends on whether you're religious or not, I think. What kind of objective morality can exist besides one based on the idea of a deity? Personally I don't believe in any kind of god so I chose subjective, but it really depends on beliefs.
Generally the most common defense of morality along these lines rests on an appeal to reason. For example, the golden rule. The existence of a god or gods does not change the validity of logic.
Golden rule is a fallacy. What do you do if a man loves to fight and walks into a bar? Give him a fight? Golden rule says you're obliged to walk up to him and punch him in the mouth to get things started.
On May 12 2011 12:21 Traveler wrote: The only basis I need is that I dislike their actions, and I have a majority behind me willing to support me on that, and even take action to prevent them from committing those actions again.
Now you are probably stating that I have no objective basis, which I don't. But heck, I don't need one. (Also yes I am sort of pulling from Hobbes, but I had argued for this before my first philosophy course)
Also, take away society, and I bet there would be no nagging feeling. As I have said before in this thread, people mistake that nagging feeling of conforming to society's wishes as something greater.
Very well, then. Let's take away society. Let me throw this example out there:
If you're walking alone in the woods and hear a cry for help, would you automatically and without a second thought turn in the opposite direction and run? Would you consider a person a coward for having done the same? Remember, there is nobody around to approve or disapprove either way.
the fundamental mistake u make is that u replace the word moral with other words but u mean the same..
U say laws are made to protect the society and at the same time u say there is no such thing as right or wrong. so why is protecting ur society a good thing? where do u take that judgement from if there is no Moral ? And pls dont answer me with sth that has to do with Evolution
The fundamental mistake you make is that you think semantics have any importance whatsoever
We don't protect society because it's "morally correct" to do so. We protect ourselves because we infer we need to do that to survive.
and again u do the same mistake ... Why u want to survive ? mb cause its a good thing to live ??? U ALWAYS put in another moral value to explain me why we are protecting our socienty, or in other words why it is a good thing to do so and still u are saying there is nothing "good"....
On May 12 2011 12:09 VIB wrote: Proof this is truth is abundant: just look at our thousands of years of human history. Morals have always changed to adapt to our current needs.
On May 12 2011 12:21 Traveler wrote: The only basis I need is that I dislike their actions, and I have a majority behind me willing to support me on that, and even take action to prevent them from committing those actions again.
Now you are probably stating that I have no objective basis, which I don't. But heck, I don't need one. (Also yes I am sort of pulling from Hobbes, but I had argued for this before my first philosophy course)
Also, take away society, and I bet there would be no nagging feeling. As I have said before in this thread, people mistake that nagging feeling of conforming to society's wishes as something greater.
Very well, then. Let's take away society. Let me throw this example out there:
If you're walking alone in the woods and hear a cry for help, would you automatically and without a second thought turn in the opposite direction and run? Would you consider a person a coward for having done the same? Remember, there is nobody around to approve or disapprove either way.
I would not immediately turn and run, my curiosity would probably get the better of me. But I am assuming that is not the answer you are looking for.
I would not consider another person a coward for doing so. I might think they are dumb, since that cry from help might yield advantages, but that is the way I see it.
Lets assume this cry for help is someone stuck in a bear trap when I go investigate. My decision to save them or not will only happen based on what I perceive the advantages or disadvantages to be.
On May 12 2011 12:26 neohero9 wrote: Might makes right?
So the lone gay couple in Saudi Arabia is immoral because the society is willing to kill them over it. Whereas if they were in West Hollywood they wouldn't be.
No, there is no "right".
To that society, they are immoral, and they do kill them. And? To that couple, it isn't immoral, and they get killed. And?
And I don't like them being killed, so I need the Might to stop the killing. But I need no justification for my dislike of their killing that couple.
the fundamental mistake u make is that u replace the word moral with other words but u mean the same..
U say laws are made to protect the society and at the same time u say there is no such thing as right or wrong. so why is protecting ur society a good thing? where do u take that judgement from if there is no Moral ? And pls dont answer me with sth that has to do with Evolution
The fundamental mistake you make is that you think semantics have any importance whatsoever
We don't protect society because it's "morally correct" to do so. We protect ourselves because we infer we need to do that to survive.
and again u do the same mistake ... Why u want to survive ? mb cause its a good thing to live ??? U ALWAYS put in another moral value to explain me why we are protecting our socienty, or in other words why it is a good thing to do so and still u are saying there is nothing "good"....
No actually he wants to survive BECAUSE he wants to survive (due to evolution programming him to want that).
I'm sorry, I know there is a language barrier to your understanding our arguments, but you are still incorrect. Also you have to realize your presuppositions that are biasing your arguments.
This seems to be invalid ways to describe morals. The best thing to compare morals to, that we can fully grasp and encounter everyday are ethics. There are three trains of thought for ethics, which are Kantian, Utilitarian and Virtue ethics. Each have their own pros and cons, but Virtue ethics seems to be the strongest form we have, the reason it's not practical because it is at least 10 times more time consuming, along with much more brain power, to use. That's the bases of laws and acts to that effect. But for the sake of the poll, morals are subjective because they do not exist naturally. It is man made so it must be subjective.
On May 12 2011 12:09 VIB wrote: Proof this is truth is abundant: just look at our thousands of years of human history. Morals have always changed to adapt to our current needs.
Can you please provide a concrete example?
...really?
Yes, really. Just one. Thanks.
I gave one on first page, dozen others scattered around the thread. It's weird you'd ask that.
the fundamental mistake u make is that u replace the word moral with other words but u mean the same..
U say laws are made to protect the society and at the same time u say there is no such thing as right or wrong. so why is protecting ur society a good thing? where do u take that judgement from if there is no Moral ? And pls dont answer me with sth that has to do with Evolution
The fundamental mistake you make is that you think semantics have any importance whatsoever
We don't protect society because it's "morally correct" to do so. We protect ourselves because we infer we need to do that to survive.
and again u do the same mistake ... Why u want to survive ? mb cause its a good thing to live ??? U ALWAYS put in another moral value to explain me why we are protecting our socienty, or in other words why it is a good thing to do so and still u are saying there is nothing "good"....
You think surviving is good only because it's moral? If you do, I just think your definition of moral is too different from mine. We're not talking about the same thing. Your problem with me is not about morals, it's about semantics.
On May 12 2011 12:33 Traveler wrote: I would not immediately turn and run, my curiosity would probably get the better of me. But I am assuming that is not the answer you are looking for.
I would not consider another person a coward for doing so. I might think they are dumb, since that cry from help might yield advantages, but that is the way I see it.
Lets assume this cry for help is someone stuck in a bear trap when I go investigate. My decision to save them or not will only happen based on what I perceive the advantages or disadvantages to be.
I accept your answer, but I don't believe it is completely honest. And it is certainly not representative of the vast majority of people, even those that proclaim subjective morality from the hilltops.
I believe that, faced with that actual situation, if a child was stuck in that trap from whom you could not perceive any "advantages", you would still release that child. And if you did not, you would honestly feel like shit later on if you learned that he or she suffered hypothermia and died.
That's just me though, and I obviously don't know you.
Am I seeing this correctly? 30% of tlers think morality is objective? Really?
You guys realize that thinking "murder is wrong for most of the world, so it must be objective" is not really a valid criteria, right? And you guys realize this is asking what morality IS, not what you would like it to be, right?
On May 12 2011 12:20 Noak3 wrote: Well it really depends on whether you're religious or not, I think. What kind of objective morality can exist besides one based on the idea of a deity? Personally I don't believe in any kind of god so I chose subjective, but it really depends on beliefs.
Generally the most common defense of morality along these lines rests on an appeal to reason. For example, the golden rule. The existence of a god or gods does not change the validity of logic.
Golden rule is a fallacy. What do you do if a man loves to fight and walks into a bar? Give him a fight? Golden rule says you're obliged to walk up to him and punch him in the mouth to get things started.
Are you sure you even know what the Golden Rule is?
There are actual criticisms of it, but yours is not one of them.... lol.
On May 12 2011 12:20 Noak3 wrote: Well it really depends on whether you're religious or not, I think. What kind of objective morality can exist besides one based on the idea of a deity? Personally I don't believe in any kind of god so I chose subjective, but it really depends on beliefs.
Generally the most common defense of morality along these lines rests on an appeal to reason. For example, the golden rule. The existence of a god or gods does not change the validity of logic.
Golden rule is a fallacy. What do you do if a man loves to fight and walks into a bar? Give him a fight? Golden rule says you're obliged.
That doesn't make it a fallacy. It just makes it a questionable standard. And even still, your objection is only correct depending on how you decide to understand the golden rule. For example, if you interpret the golden rule as taking into the consideration of other peoples' interests there is no problem for someone who enjoys fighting.
However this is besides the point. I merely wanted to show Noak an example of how morality has been argued to be objective through intellectual faculties, not religious deference.
On May 12 2011 12:20 Noak3 wrote: Well it really depends on whether you're religious or not, I think. What kind of objective morality can exist besides one based on the idea of a deity? Personally I don't believe in any kind of god so I chose subjective, but it really depends on beliefs.
Generally the most common defense of morality along these lines rests on an appeal to reason. For example, the golden rule. The existence of a god or gods does not change the validity of logic.
Golden rule is a fallacy. What do you do if a man loves to fight and walks into a bar? Give him a fight? Golden rule says you're obliged to walk up to him and punch him in the mouth to get things started.
Are you sure you even know what the Golden Rule is?
There are actual criticisms of it, but yours is not one of them.... lol.
"He who has the gold, makes the rules."
Seriously yes and I'm a sado masochist so can I come torture you?
Point being the treat others ideal relies on everyone being on the same page of normative mores tenants of society which of course are subjective and indoctrinated.
On May 12 2011 12:33 Traveler wrote: I would not immediately turn and run, my curiosity would probably get the better of me. But I am assuming that is not the answer you are looking for.
I would not consider another person a coward for doing so. I might think they are dumb, since that cry from help might yield advantages, but that is the way I see it.
Lets assume this cry for help is someone stuck in a bear trap when I go investigate. My decision to save them or not will only happen based on what I perceive the advantages or disadvantages to be.
I accept your answer, but I don't believe it is completely honest. And it is certainly not representative of the vast majority of people, even those that proclaim subjective morality from the hilltops.
I believe that, faced with that actual situation, if a child was stuck in that trap from whom you could not perceive any "advantages", you would still release that child. And if you did not, you would honestly feel like shit later on if you learned that he or she suffered hypothermia and died.
That's just me though, and I obviously don't know you.
Well I tried to think of what I would do in Fallout, since that is the closest simulation I have experienced to a world without society. In Fallout there were plenty of times were I killed someone and took their stuff because I wanted it.
Now in real life, society I think has biased me to feel bad about that choice.
What if instead you knew that person was a murderer? What if you thought they would kill you? What if that person was a child? What if you thought you could raise that child and teach him so that he can help you on your travels.
It all depends on situation.
#Edit
To the guy above me: Yes, yes you can if you wanted to. Can = possible, can =/= may.
On May 12 2011 12:36 AlphaNoodle wrote: But for the sake of the poll, morals are subjective because they do not exist naturally. It is man made so it must be subjective.
You're assuming human beings aren't a part of nature. If however you accept human beings are just a part of the animal kingdom, and are just a part of the material universe, then surely everything they create, including their systems of morality, are in fact very much "natural" and thus as objective as the study of mating habits of marmots.
On May 12 2011 12:20 Noak3 wrote: Well it really depends on whether you're religious or not, I think. What kind of objective morality can exist besides one based on the idea of a deity? Personally I don't believe in any kind of god so I chose subjective, but it really depends on beliefs.
Generally the most common defense of morality along these lines rests on an appeal to reason. For example, the golden rule. The existence of a god or gods does not change the validity of logic.
Golden rule is a fallacy. What do you do if a man loves to fight and walks into a bar? Give him a fight? Golden rule says you're obliged to walk up to him and punch him in the mouth to get things started.
Are you sure you even know what the Golden Rule is?
There are actual criticisms of it, but yours is not one of them.... lol.
"He who has the gold, makes the rules."
Seriously yes and I'm a sado masochist so can I come torture you?
Or: "I'm gay, you'd be immoral to not let me fuck you in the butt"
Seriously, the golden rule is pretty silly. It completely ignore people have different points of view and history shows people's morals completely ignore that.
On May 12 2011 12:36 AlphaNoodle wrote: But for the sake of the poll, morals are subjective because they do not exist naturally. It is man made so it must be subjective.
You're assuming human beings aren't a part of nature. If however you accept human beings are just a part of the animal kingdom, and are just a part of the material universe, then surely everything they create, including their systems of morality, are in fact very much "natural" and thus as objective as the study of mating habits of marmots.
We define anything subjective as "of man".
Anything objective as independent "of man". (can still affect men)
If we were to use your definition we wouldn't have any use at all for the word "subjective".
So because we are part of nature does not make morality objective. In fact all morality is; is the amalgamation of the chemical signals in the brain, and we all have some form of it.
On May 12 2011 12:47 Traveler wrote: Well I tried to think of what I would do in Fallout, since that is the closest simulation I have experienced to a world without society. In Fallout there were plenty of times were I killed someone and took their stuff because I wanted it.
Now in real life, society I think has biased me to feel bad about that choice.
What if instead you knew that person was a murderer? What if you thought they would kill you? What if that person was a child? What if you thought you could raise that child and teach him so that he can help you on your travels.
It all depends on situation.
#Edit
To the guy above me: Yes, yes you can if you wanted to. Can = possible, can =/= may.
Yes it does depend a lot on situation, but that is over-complicating it because we would have to discuss a whole other set of morals or incentives for each situation. The example only works if you have no idea one way or another about that person. It's a pure choice.
I believe in objective morality, but I have no problem running people over in GTA or shooting at civilians in a war game. In a fantasy world, all bets are off because none of the decisions you make have any real repercussions. I guess immoral actions within a fantasy world could spill over and influence your decision-making in the real world, but I doubt it. These things are outlets for fantastical notions, and the only objective within them is to increase enjoyment. The real world is another story.
Anyways, nice talking to you.
To VIB: I actually like your example of slavery, as I do agree that slavery has persisted over thousands of years and ended completely only within the last 200. But I think that you're off when you say that the end of slavery was a pure product of economic convenience. It is certainly more economically convenient to still have slaves, is it not? Just as it is more economically convenient to have sweatshops, animal testing, and exploitation of resources. But the universal condemnation of these practices runs counter to your notion that all morality is influenced only by politics and economics.
Anyways, if people were truly morally subjective, there would be little basis to condemn such a practice with so much social utility. Economics would work a hell of a lot better if you could force people to work rather than hire and pay them. So then, why do we celebrate Abraham Lincoln for the extinction of slavery?
On May 12 2011 12:20 Noak3 wrote: Well it really depends on whether you're religious or not, I think. What kind of objective morality can exist besides one based on the idea of a deity? Personally I don't believe in any kind of god so I chose subjective, but it really depends on beliefs.
Religion is just another form of indoctrination. Gods laws as opposed to man made secular societies have. Either way both have morals, both are indoctrinated usually from a child, both use threats to keep you in line. Burning hell for religion, prison for secular society.
It's super common for our secular society to complain that religion is just some other common way to indoctrinate, but that doesn't mean that Noak3 is wrong. If there were a deity, that deity absolutely has the ability to serve as an objective source of moral codes. If some religion happened to be true, that religious belief may or may not "indoctrinate" it's adherents, but the God that religious belief serves would also almost necessarily function as a legitimate source of moral truth.
As far as I'm concerned, if tdt is right and no religion were true, there would be absolutely no purely secular reason to believe there are objective moral standards. Whether or not we believe that pain and suffering is "preferable" or not makes no difference in objective moral discussions. There is nothing in this material world, be it physical or rational, that forces us to conclude that there are universally applicable moral standards.
Either there is some sort of god or there are only social preferences. This board tends to be fairly a-religious, and loves to conclude on its own that, "hot dog! there must be no god." I wish I could see what moltke would say, this would probably be very interesting.
On May 12 2011 12:36 AlphaNoodle wrote: But for the sake of the poll, morals are subjective because they do not exist naturally. It is man made so it must be subjective.
You're assuming human beings aren't a part of nature. If however you accept human beings are just a part of the animal kingdom, and are just a part of the material universe, then surely everything they create, including their systems of morality, are in fact very much "natural" and thus as objective as the study of mating habits of marmots.
We define anything subjective as "of man".
Anything objective as independent "of man".
If we were to use your definition we wouldn't have any use at all for the word "subjective".
So because we are part of nature does not make morality objective. In fact all morality is is the amalgamation of the chemical signals in the brain, and we all have some form of it.
No, subjectivism (even in ethics) does not particularly refer to something that is "from man". The problem with Ethical Subjectivism (which is the theory most people that have argued for subjective morals in this thread have espoused) is that not all of what is considered moral has to do with attitudes or emotions. We don't stop the killing of innocent people always because we have an aversion, no, we stop it because it's wrong. Wrong because our biology (which isn't subjective, btw) makes us more inclined to choose to advance our own species than hinder it by mindless slaughter. Wrong because, in any sane person's logic, there can be no justification for the slaughter of people that it views as innocent.
On May 12 2011 12:36 AlphaNoodle wrote: But for the sake of the poll, morals are subjective because they do not exist naturally. It is man made so it must be subjective.
You're assuming human beings aren't a part of nature. If however you accept human beings are just a part of the animal kingdom, and are just a part of the material universe, then surely everything they create, including their systems of morality, are in fact very much "natural" and thus as objective as the study of mating habits of marmots.
We define anything subjective as "of man".
Anything objective as independent "of man".
If we were to use your definition we wouldn't have any use at all for the word "subjective".
So because we are part of nature does not make morality objective. In fact all morality is is the amalgamation of the chemical signals in the brain, and we all have some form of it.
Actually no. According to the OP the definitions of "subjective" and "objective" for this thread are based on whether one believes moral standards are merely something one invents for himself or universal, akin to mathematical proofs.
The post to which I replied however was asking a different question altogether: Is morality "a part of nature"? The asking of this question, and your response that lists things "of man" suggests there is some kind of mind/nature dichotomy that is incredibly suspect.
So yes, when talking about the ontological reality of the world I am suggesting that even the usage of the word "subjective" is without use. That human beings are a part of nature does indeed not prove the universal validity of any morality. But morality, as a set of beliefs humans hold, is an objective part of nature.
On May 12 2011 12:20 Noak3 wrote: Well it really depends on whether you're religious or not, I think. What kind of objective morality can exist besides one based on the idea of a deity? Personally I don't believe in any kind of god so I chose subjective, but it really depends on beliefs.
Religion is just another form of indoctrination. Gods laws as opposed to man made secular societies have. Either way both have morals, both are indoctrinated usually from a child, both use threats to keep you in line. Burning hell for religion, prison for secular society.
It's super common for our secular society to complain that religion is just some other common way to indoctrinate, but that doesn't mean that Noak3 is wrong. If there were a deity, that deity absolutely has the ability to serve as an objective source of moral codes. If some religion happened to be true, that religious belief may or may not "indoctrinate" it's adherents, but the God that religious belief serves would also almost necessarily function as a legitimate source of moral truth.
As far as I'm concerned, if tdt is right and no religion were true, there would be absolutely no purely secular reason to believe there are objective moral standards. Whether or not we believe that pain and suffering is "preferable" or not makes no difference in objective moral discussions. There is nothing in this material world, be it physical or rational, that forces us to conclude that there are universally applicable moral standards.
Either there is some sort of god or there are only social preferences. This board tends to be fairly a-religious, and loves to conclude on its own that, "hot dog! there must be no god." I wish I could see what moltke would say, this would probably be very interesting.
I'm not a-religious I recognize it for what it is, giving people hope, setting a tone/mores/tenants for society etc I have no real opinion on it because it's just another way of doing things. After enlightenment aka age of reason we chose to apply more man's law using what we call reason, I feel the same way about that too, just another way of doing things. This just goes to prove our ever changing morals if anything.
BTW all seek the best way for humans to get along. Being apex predators we'd kill each other off without morals. Recently as we understand more we have extended this to nature as well with environmental/endangered species morals.
If "morality" is subjective, then there is really no such thing as morals. Thus, it can't be definitively said that anyone, even Hitler was immoral.
This is obviously not the case. Morality is certainly objective. There are such things as right and wrong. Unfortunately, people today are so liberal and set on challenging the status quo that they often forget the basic fundamentals of life. Quite silly.
On May 12 2011 12:36 AlphaNoodle wrote: But for the sake of the poll, morals are subjective because they do not exist naturally. It is man made so it must be subjective.
You're assuming human beings aren't a part of nature. If however you accept human beings are just a part of the animal kingdom, and are just a part of the material universe, then surely everything they create, including their systems of morality, are in fact very much "natural" and thus as objective as the study of mating habits of marmots.
We define anything subjective as "of man".
Anything objective as independent "of man".
If we were to use your definition we wouldn't have any use at all for the word "subjective".
So because we are part of nature does not make morality objective. In fact all morality is is the amalgamation of the chemical signals in the brain, and we all have some form of it.
No, subjectivism (even in ethics) does not particularly refer to something that is "from man". The problem with Ethical Subjectivism (which is the theory most people that have argued for subjective morals in this thread have espoused) is that not all of what is considered moral has to do with attitudes or emotions. We don't stop the killing of innocent people always because we have an aversion, no, we stop it because it's wrong. Wrong because our biology (which isn't subjective, btw) makes us more inclined to choose to advance our own species than hinder it by mindless slaughter. Wrong because, in any sane person's logic, there can be no justification for the slaughter of people that it views as innocent.
Now you would be right, except that not everyone chooses to stop the slaughter of innocents.
Yes subjective is not limited to man (animals etc), but since the only form we really care about in relation to this debate is the subjective experience of men, then that definition is the one we are holding to. Since we don't have any non-human entities espousing what is moral (yes attitudes and emotions of humans are the only things we are getting) then Ethical Subjectivism is the form we are relegated to using.
Since subjective refers to the difference in experience, and since our biology does not universally cause the same things for all human beings, it is subjective in this context.
On May 12 2011 13:12 Applecakes wrote: Actually no. According to the OP the definitions of "subjective" and "objective" for this thread are based on whether one believes moral standards are merely something one invents for himself or universal, akin to mathematical proofs.
The post to which I replied however was asking a different question altogether: Is morality "a part of nature"? The asking of this question, and your response that lists things "of man" suggests there is some kind of mind/nature dichotomy that is incredibly suspect.
So yes, when talking about the ontological reality of the world I am suggesting that even the usage of the word "subjective" is without use. That human beings are a part of nature does indeed not prove the universal validity of any morality. But morality, as a set of beliefs humans hold, is an objective part of nature.
Basically all you are achieving is saying that morals are part of humans which are part of nature. It is pretty well known that all our thoughts are the results of chemical changes. So really you aren't stating anything new.
Since I kind of assumed everyone would know that fact, I was simplifying my definitions, when I was saying "of man" I am of course referring to the the differing experiences of different people... When I said "not of man" I was referring to things like gravity or deities that may or may not exist that can affect men. In other words "objective" would be transcending individual thought.
I believe there is a higher level of being besides us of some type, and I choose to link my morality to how I feel we are supposed to act; try to make everyone's life around us better.
On May 12 2011 13:03 j2choe wrote: But I think that you're off when you say that the end of slavery was a pure product of economic convenience. It is certainly more economically convenient to still have slaves, is it not?
No it isn't. Slaves don't buy products, paid workers do. Slaves are bad for the bourgeois, but good for land lords. When land lords were dominant, slavery was moral, because there was economic interest in it. When the bourgeois class arose and dominated feudal lords. There were now greater economic and political power against slavery. Then slavery become immoral. Nowadays it's illegal.
Morals have always changed and will keep changing according to our social, political and economic needs.
If we lived a few centuries ago. YOU would be telling slavery is obviously moral and how can anyone possibly disagree with that? Everyone knows slavery good. Well, except the black, but they're not really people.
You only think things are moral because you were taught that way. Were you taught different, you would think differently.
On May 12 2011 13:14 ClysmiC wrote: If "morality" is subjective, then there is really no such thing as morals. Thus, it can't be definitively said that anyone, even Hitler was immoral.
This is obviously not the case. Morality is certainly objective. There are such things as right and wrong. Unfortunately, people today are so liberal and set on challenging the status quo that they often forget the basic fundamentals of life. Quite silly.
Hilter was worshiped by crowds in videos I;ve seen. Today is a different time and place. Plus rest of the world and USA re-indoctrinated Germany and Japan after kicking their ass and killing bunches of them to the point of fearing annihilation. Goes back to what I said earlier about victor sets the tone.
If Germany and Japan had won, we'd still be worshiping Hitler and the Emperor in Japan.
On May 12 2011 12:20 Noak3 wrote: Well it really depends on whether you're religious or not, I think. What kind of objective morality can exist besides one based on the idea of a deity? Personally I don't believe in any kind of god so I chose subjective, but it really depends on beliefs.
Religion is just another form of indoctrination. Gods laws as opposed to man made secular societies have. Either way both have morals, both are indoctrinated usually from a child, both use threats to keep you in line. Burning hell for religion, prison for secular society.
It's super common for our secular society to complain that religion is just some other common way to indoctrinate, but that doesn't mean that Noak3 is wrong. If there were a deity, that deity absolutely has the ability to serve as an objective source of moral codes. If some religion happened to be true, that religious belief may or may not "indoctrinate" it's adherents, but the God that religious belief serves would also almost necessarily function as a legitimate source of moral truth.
As far as I'm concerned, if tdt is right and no religion were true, there would be absolutely no purely secular reason to believe there are objective moral standards. Whether or not we believe that pain and suffering is "preferable" or not makes no difference in objective moral discussions. There is nothing in this material world, be it physical or rational, that forces us to conclude that there are universally applicable moral standards.
Either there is some sort of god or there are only social preferences. This board tends to be fairly a-religious, and loves to conclude on its own that, "hot dog! there must be no god." I wish I could see what moltke would say, this would probably be very interesting.
If you believed God was the source of moral truths, then you have an interesting dilemma on your hands. Is what God says morally correct because he says it, or is it because it is right? If it because he says it, then it seems rather arbitrary. There's no particular reason for chopping off the tip of your son's dick at birth, but you do it anyway because God told you to. But if it's simply right, then that implies that there's something else, separate from God, that determines what is right? What could that be? Not... reason! No; God no! That can't be it.
Obviously, my point is that objective moral truth can only ever come from reason. We have to justify why a moral rule exists, because it is otherwise arbitrary and completely meaningless; and that is unacceptable. Now, you can certainly say that this sounds like subjectivism, but you'd be wrong. There are objective truths in reason, much like mathematics, that men come up with. Thus, while it may not appear to exist in our experienced world, the concept of objective moral truths most certainly can exist.
My argument is that they must, because there are obviously actions which can only lead to bad things, and things that are obviously reprehensible on a universally identifiable scale. For example, no one in the entire world thinks that the killing of innocent people without justification is right. It is forbidden in every country, and has been as long as society has existed. Such truths, while admittedly difficult to identify, certainly do exist. Call this argumentum ad populum, but it's verifiable with reason. Why would such an action be bad? Because by killing innocent people, you are proportionately stunting the potential of our entire race, which is bad in so many ways I can't even count. Reason, my friend, is the way.
On May 12 2011 12:52 ZessiM wrote: That poll is depessing me...
hah. It makes sense that TL would distribute in that way, moral relativism is the cool, hip, intellectual way to think about morality right? People who advocate strongly for objective moral truths are usually extremely religious so....
On May 12 2011 12:55 Traveler wrote: We define anything subjective as "of man".
Anything objective as independent "of man". (can still affect men)
If we were to use your definition we wouldn't have any use at all for the word "subjective".
So because we are part of nature does not make morality objective. In fact all morality is; is the amalgamation of the chemical signals in the brain, and we all have some form of it.
Subjective = "of man" ? I don't see why. It seems perfectly arbitrary to define subjective this way. Maybe you can explain your choice ? I ask because, normally, "objective" is defined "independent of one's cognition". So if we are to understand "subjective" as "dependent of one's cognition", what's actually going on in your physical brain is objective, because it is not determined by what you think (it would be the other way around). So i think the whole issue around ethics is whether it finds its roots in one's own subjective experience, or if it's grounded in an absolute cause that is completely independent of our particular and individual thoughts (like : God, the physical reality, even subjectivity itself). In the former case, we invent the rules, in the latter, we discover them.
To allow the masses to decide each what morals should be help up would result in utter chaos. The trick is to get them all to agree on a single code of morals.
But wait wouldn't that make it subjective but on a societical scale (thats right I just made up a word beacuse I'm a baller) would that make it objective or subjective?
On May 12 2011 12:52 ZessiM wrote: That poll is depessing me...
hah. It makes sense that TL would distribute in that way, moral relativism is the cool, hip, intellectual way to think about morality right? People who advocate strongly for objective moral truths are usually extremely religious so....
whats that suppose to mean? The church has been the foundation that modern law has been built on. If you learn things your way and I learn things my way it doesn't make them better then one another. Accept what is simply(as in non complex not an arrogant statement of that my way is the unarguable truth) best and not just for you.
Kant, anyone? Under metaethical standards, the use of practical reason allows us to establish objective standards for morality, which he dubs the categorical imperative. Certain metaethics like reason cannot be questioned - after all, to challenge the use of reason is to employ reason in that very attack, meaning that this forms the basis of any epistemology that is to follow.
[This part is not Kant, just my own thoughts building upon that]: Continuing upon that line of thought, recognition of our self as self-knowing/aware, or the Cartesian "I think, I am" means that the conscious mind and capacity to think is the basis for meaning in life. Through language and communication, we can recognize that other human beings possess this same capacity for thinking, so we reach our "objective" or universal consensus that this commonality of thinking between us two beings, which we then call "humanity," is valuable as the very connection and basis for us to embrace reason, embrace understanding, which is then what we protect via moral codes.
A more philosophic approach compared to the argument that "as biological machines, survival instincts tell us to adopt 'morals' as survival mechanisms."
On May 12 2011 12:36 AlphaNoodle wrote: But for the sake of the poll, morals are subjective because they do not exist naturally. It is man made so it must be subjective.
You're assuming human beings aren't a part of nature. If however you accept human beings are just a part of the animal kingdom, and are just a part of the material universe, then surely everything they create, including their systems of morality, are in fact very much "natural" and thus as objective as the study of mating habits of marmots.
We define anything subjective as "of man".
Anything objective as independent "of man".
If we were to use your definition we wouldn't have any use at all for the word "subjective".
So because we are part of nature does not make morality objective. In fact all morality is is the amalgamation of the chemical signals in the brain, and we all have some form of it.
No, subjectivism (even in ethics) does not particularly refer to something that is "from man". The problem with Ethical Subjectivism (which is the theory most people that have argued for subjective morals in this thread have espoused) is that not all of what is considered moral has to do with attitudes or emotions. We don't stop the killing of innocent people always because we have an aversion, no, we stop it because it's wrong. Wrong because our biology (which isn't subjective, btw) makes us more inclined to choose to advance our own species than hinder it by mindless slaughter. Wrong because, in any sane person's logic, there can be no justification for the slaughter of people that it views as innocent.
Now you would be right, except that not everyone chooses to stop the slaughter of innocents.
Yes subjective is not limited to man (animals etc), but since the only form we really care about in relation to this debate is the subjective experience of men, then that definition is the one we are holding to. Since we don't have any non-human entities espousing what is moral (yes attitudes and emotions of humans are the only things we are getting) then Ethical Subjectivism is the form we are relegated to using.
Since subjective refers to the difference in experience, and since our biology does not universally cause the same things for all human beings, it is subjective in this context.
1. Yes, anyone with the power to stop the killing of innocent people without justification certainly would. Whether they view the people being killed as innocent or not is up for question, but that isn't the point. You can point out exceptions you may know of, but those are rarities in the face of the realization that killing innocent people has been forbidden or punishable since the advent of society. I'm most certainly right.
2. Subjectivism refers to the individual, not to man in general. Morality is not subjective. People, in general, do not think that each and every person should be allowed what is right and wrong, because that is obviously false. There would be no way to stop things like murder or rape because they would be right in the assailant's eyes. I don't think anyone would advocate living in a world like that. Thus, there must be universally accepted truths that people adhere to in order for basic society to exist. Human biology even promotes this concept, because we don't generally go around killing innocents and stealing from people for no reason. When it happens, there is most certainly a reason that affects the judgement of the perpetrator, but that reason alone does not justify his action as morally correct.
3. You are absolutely wrong if you think biology is, in any way, subjective. The mere fact that we can study biology and come up with ANY meaningful conclusions immediately necessitates that it must be objective. The same chemical reactions create the same behavior in people universally, which is obviously objective. Everyone's heart beats in the same, everyone's lungs inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide the same, and everyone's intestines produce the same fecal matter. These things are objective.
On May 12 2011 13:35 sermokala wrote: To allow the masses to decide each what morals should be help up would result in utter chaos. The trick is to get them all to agree on a single code of morals.
But wait wouldn't that make it subjective but on a societical scale (thats right I just made up a word beacuse I'm a baller) would that make it objective or subjective?
On May 12 2011 12:52 ZessiM wrote: That poll is depessing me...
hah. It makes sense that TL would distribute in that way, moral relativism is the cool, hip, intellectual way to think about morality right? People who advocate strongly for objective moral truths are usually extremely religious so....
whats that suppose to mean? The church has been the foundation that modern law has been built on. If you learn things your way and I learn things my way it doesn't make them better then one another. Accept what is simply(as in non complex not an arrogant statement of that my way is the unarguable truth) best and not just for you.
wat? I just stated why the poll has the distribution it does. Most people who believe right and wrong do exist and believe in moral code, get them from religion (more specifically, people who devoutly follow Christianity/Judaism/Islam are more certain about moral objectivity). TL probably isn't a place with a high number of religious people (or at least devout religious people) and therefore the poll shows the results it does.
On May 12 2011 12:52 ZessiM wrote: That poll is depessing me...
hah. It makes sense that TL would distribute in that way, moral relativism is the cool, hip, intellectual way to think about morality right? People who advocate strongly for objective moral truths are usually extremely religious so....
I'm not religious at all, yet I believe in objective moral truths.
What NOW?! HUH?!
/sarcasm
But really, I've already discussed why this notion is rejected in the philosophy of ethics.
well we to answer this question one can take the side of HOBBES, which is that good is anything that increases pleasure and anything evil is that which increases pain. with this school of thought there is an inherent selfishness, or rational self interest. This in turn leads to a Social Contract, the natural state is conflict, increasing your pleasure (good) and preventing pain (evil), and in order to rise above this man comes to an agreement of social mores that allow coexistence. this is enforced by a governing authority (Leviathan), and whatever the leviathan sets as good and evil, is what good and evil is. HUME, on the other hand, has come down to the idea that morality is subjective to the individual, because everything devolves, in its most basic form, from a statement of fact (is) to a statement of preference (ought). One can also take the side of KANT in that "it is impossible for anything in the world to be good without qualification---except a good will." Now what makes a will good? there is acting from inclination, that is self interest, and acting from duty, which is acting in the INTEREST(intent) of doing something right. Only if one is acting from duty is one doing a good deed. One can also take the Utilitarian approach which is what is good is "greatest pleasure for the greatest number."
in all of these cases good and evil are subjective, either to a person or to the majority. Which i feel is close to the truth. Since what is determined is good is a Social idea that has been trained, and indoctrinated on us from birth. conscience is learned, not inherent, based upon the values and standards in which one has been raised.
(will accept pats on the back for not falling asleep during philosophy class)
On May 12 2011 13:39 yamato77 wrote: 1. Yes, anyone with the power to stop the killing of innocent people without justification certainly would. Whether they view the people being killed as innocent or not is up for question, but that isn't the point. You can point out exceptions you may know of, but those are rarities in the face of the realization that killing innocent people has been forbidden or punishable since the advent of society. I'm most certainly right.
2. Subjectivism refers to the individual, not to man in general. Morality is not subjective. People, in general, do not think that each and every person should be allowed what is right and wrong, because that is obviously false. There would be no way to stop things like murder or rape because they would be right in the assailant's eyes. I don't think anyone would advocate living in a world like that. Thus, there must be universally accepted truths that people adhere to in order for basic society to exist. Human biology even promotes this concept, because we don't generally go around killing innocents and stealing from people for no reason. When it happens, there is most certainly a reason that affects the judgement of the perpetrator, but that reason alone does not justify his action as morally correct.
3. You are absolutely wrong if you think biology is, in any way, subjective. The mere fact that we can study biology and come up with ANY meaningful conclusions immediately necessitates that it must be objective. The same chemical reactions create the same behavior in people universally, which is obviously objective. Everyone's heart beats in the same, everyone's lungs inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide the same, and everyone's intestines produce the same fecal matter. These things are objective.
1: No. There are exceptions, and those exceptions mean that not everyone thinks killing innocents as wrong. Yes the majority of society holds that murder is "wrong" but it is not everyone and thus not universal.
2. People in general think that they are right and others are wrong, then the majority bands together to defend themselves. Every man has a different experience, and thus their experience is subjective. There is a way to stop murder and rape, because the majority doesn't like them and thus put laws in place to try and prevent them from happening. No there do not have to be universally recognized truths for that to happen, and in fact the fact that murder and rape do happen is evidence against that. You are correct that everyone perpetrates their actions for a reason, and to him he does it despite what the majority says the morally correct choices are.
3. No. Show me 2 people who have the exact same DNA, and then I will let you get away with the notion that biology is not subjective... Everyone heart does not beat the same, everyone's lungs inhale oxygen and carbon dioxide differently, and everyones intestines produce different fecal matter. Please please have some intellectual integrity and accept that. Yes they work similarly, but they are not the SAME. Those things are different, and thus create different perspectives for different people. Which I believe would be... you guessed it, Subjective.
On May 12 2011 12:20 Noak3 wrote: Well it really depends on whether you're religious or not, I think. What kind of objective morality can exist besides one based on the idea of a deity? Personally I don't believe in any kind of god so I chose subjective, but it really depends on beliefs.
Religion is just another form of indoctrination. Gods laws as opposed to man made secular societies have. Either way both have morals, both are indoctrinated usually from a child, both use threats to keep you in line. Burning hell for religion, prison for secular society.
It's super common for our secular society to complain that religion is just some other common way to indoctrinate, but that doesn't mean that Noak3 is wrong. If there were a deity, that deity absolutely has the ability to serve as an objective source of moral codes. If some religion happened to be true, that religious belief may or may not "indoctrinate" it's adherents, but the God that religious belief serves would also almost necessarily function as a legitimate source of moral truth.
As far as I'm concerned, if tdt is right and no religion were true, there would be absolutely no purely secular reason to believe there are objective moral standards. Whether or not we believe that pain and suffering is "preferable" or not makes no difference in objective moral discussions. There is nothing in this material world, be it physical or rational, that forces us to conclude that there are universally applicable moral standards.
Either there is some sort of god or there are only social preferences. This board tends to be fairly a-religious, and loves to conclude on its own that, "hot dog! there must be no god." I wish I could see what moltke would say, this would probably be very interesting.
If you believed God was the source of moral truths, then you have an interesting dilemma on your hands. Is what God says morally correct because he says it, or is it because it is right? If it because he says it, then it seems rather arbitrary. There's no particular reason for chopping off the tip of your son's dick at birth, but you do it anyway because God told you to. But if it's simply right, then that implies that there's something else, separate from God, that determines what is right? What could that be? Not... reason! No; God no! That can't be it.
Obviously, my point is that objective moral truth can only ever come from reason. We have to justify why a moral rule exists, because it is otherwise arbitrary and completely meaningless; and that is unacceptable. Now, you can certainly say that this sounds like subjectivism, but you'd be wrong. There are objective truths in reason, much like mathematics, that men come up with. Thus, while it may not appear to exist in our experienced world, the concept of objective moral truths most certainly can exist.
My argument is that they must, because there are obviously actions which can only lead to bad things, and things that are obviously reprehensible on a universally identifiable scale. For example, no one in the entire world thinks that the killing of innocent people without justification is right. It is forbidden in every country, and has been as long as society has existed. Such truths, while admittedly difficult to identify, certainly do exist. Call this argumentum ad populum, but it's verifiable with reason. Why would such an action be bad? Because by killing innocent people, you are proportionately stunting the potential of our entire race, which is bad in so many ways I can't even count. Reason, my friend, is the way.
Reason is a fail too. Reason would have strong enslaving the weak wouldnt it? I mean no pay, 90 hr wk weeks, is, by all reason, a better deal, for those who have power over the weak, than minimum wage, 40 hr wk weeks and benefits? No?
Say a person was dying, and the government is able to save the person's life by spending 5 million dollars worth of labor and resources. Do you think saving the person is moral, or letting the person die is moral? What do you think most people in society's answer would be?
On May 12 2011 12:20 Noak3 wrote: Well it really depends on whether you're religious or not, I think. What kind of objective morality can exist besides one based on the idea of a deity? Personally I don't believe in any kind of god so I chose subjective, but it really depends on beliefs.
Religion is just another form of indoctrination. Gods laws as opposed to man made secular societies have. Either way both have morals, both are indoctrinated usually from a child, both use threats to keep you in line. Burning hell for religion, prison for secular society.
It's super common for our secular society to complain that religion is just some other common way to indoctrinate, but that doesn't mean that Noak3 is wrong. If there were a deity, that deity absolutely has the ability to serve as an objective source of moral codes. If some religion happened to be true, that religious belief may or may not "indoctrinate" it's adherents, but the God that religious belief serves would also almost necessarily function as a legitimate source of moral truth.
As far as I'm concerned, if tdt is right and no religion were true, there would be absolutely no purely secular reason to believe there are objective moral standards. Whether or not we believe that pain and suffering is "preferable" or not makes no difference in objective moral discussions. There is nothing in this material world, be it physical or rational, that forces us to conclude that there are universally applicable moral standards.
Either there is some sort of god or there are only social preferences. This board tends to be fairly a-religious, and loves to conclude on its own that, "hot dog! there must be no god." I wish I could see what moltke would say, this would probably be very interesting.
If you believed God was the source of moral truths, then you have an interesting dilemma on your hands. Is what God says morally correct because he says it, or is it because it is right? If it because he says it, then it seems rather arbitrary. There's no particular reason for chopping off the tip of your son's dick at birth, but you do it anyway because God told you to. But if it's simply right, then that implies that there's something else, separate from God, that determines what is right? What could that be? Not... reason! No; God no! That can't be it.
Obviously, my point is that objective moral truth can only ever come from reason. We have to justify why a moral rule exists, because it is otherwise arbitrary and completely meaningless; and that is unacceptable. Now, you can certainly say that this sounds like subjectivism, but you'd be wrong. There are objective truths in reason, much like mathematics, that men come up with. Thus, while it may not appear to exist in our experienced world, the concept of objective moral truths most certainly can exist.
My argument is that they must, because there are obviously actions which can only lead to bad things, and things that are obviously reprehensible on a universally identifiable scale. For example, no one in the entire world thinks that the killing of innocent people without justification is right. It is forbidden in every country, and has been as long as society has existed. Such truths, while admittedly difficult to identify, certainly do exist. Call this argumentum ad populum, but it's verifiable with reason. Why would such an action be bad? Because by killing innocent people, you are proportionately stunting the potential of our entire race, which is bad in so many ways I can't even count. Reason, my friend, is the way.
Reason is a fail too. Reason would have strong enslaving the weak wouldnt it? I mean no pay, 90 hr wk weeks, is, by all reason, a better deal, for those who have power over the weak, than minimum wage, 40 hr wk weeks and benefits? No?
that would depend on who you talk to, im sure factory owners would love to have that first option available
If morality was objective this thread wouldn't exist. Thus morality is not objective.
Objective moral truths are on a per person basis, thus they are subjective per person and not in reality objective.
On May 12 2011 13:56 Chairman Ray wrote: Say a person was dying, and the government is able to save the person's life by spending 5 million dollars worth of labor and resources. Do you think saving the person is moral, or letting the person die is moral? What do you think most people in society's answer would be?
Go look at any medical system in the world. The answer is the person dies. I think most people will ask you about the details of who the person is though. If you say an innocent child, they will say letting the person die is immoral, if it is Osama Bin Laden, they will say letting the person die is moral.
On May 12 2011 12:52 ZessiM wrote: That poll is depessing me...
hah. It makes sense that TL would distribute in that way, moral relativism is the cool, hip, intellectual way to think about morality right? People who advocate strongly for objective moral truths are usually extremely religious so....
I'm not religious at all, yet I believe in objective moral truths.
What NOW?! HUH?!
/sarcasm
But really, I've already discussed why this notion is rejected in the philosophy of ethics.
Dude hit show all and look up my posts in this thread (hint: we agree!) Haha, there are definitely less non religious people who advocate moral truth than those who advocate relativism. Mostly because moral skepticism is so simple and it makes arguing for moral truth in an intellectually honest way very time consuming and you have to be super careful with how you go about it. That and everyone feels smart going, "well thats just what you believe it doesn't mean you are right."
On May 12 2011 13:45 polysciguy wrote: well we to answer this question one can take the side of HOBBES, which is that good is anything that increases pleasure and anything evil is that which increases pain. with this school of thought there is an inherent selfishness, or rational self interest. This in turn leads to a Social Contract, the natural state is conflict, increasing your pleasure (good) and preventing pain (evil), and in order to rise above this man comes to an agreement of social mores that allow coexistence. this is enforced by a governing authority (Leviathan), and whatever the leviathan sets as good and evil, is what good and evil is. HUME, on the other hand, has come down to the idea that morality is subjective to the individual, because everything devolves, in its most basic form, from a statement of fact (is) to a statement of preference (ought). One can also take the side of KANT in that "it is impossible for anything in the world to be good without qualification---except a good will." Now what makes a will good? there is acting from inclination, that is self interest, and acting from duty, which is acting in the INTEREST(intent) of doing something right. Only if one is acting from duty is one doing a good deed. One can also take the Utilitarian approach which is what is good is "greatest pleasure for the greatest number."
in all of these cases good and evil are subjective, either to a person or to the majority. Which i feel is close to the truth. Since what is determined is good is a Social idea that has been trained, and indoctrinated on us from birth. conscience is learned, not inherent, based upon the values and standards in which one has been raised.
(will accept pats on the back for not falling asleep during philosophy class)
I slept and still got an A. Liberal arts FTW.. One thing I noticed is there are way more girls in them tho. (I;m an accounting major like zero girls) Edit okay 1 or 2 but nothing to look at.
BTW girls looks are NOT subjective. Fat sux period.
On May 12 2011 13:45 polysciguy wrote: well we to answer this question one can take the side of HOBBES, which is that good is anything that increases pleasure and anything evil is that which increases pain. with this school of thought there is an inherent selfishness, or rational self interest. This in turn leads to a Social Contract, the natural state is conflict, increasing your pleasure (good) and preventing pain (evil), and in order to rise above this man comes to an agreement of social mores that allow coexistence. this is enforced by a governing authority (Leviathan), and whatever the leviathan sets as good and evil, is what good and evil is. HUME, on the other hand, has come down to the idea that morality is subjective to the individual, because everything devolves, in its most basic form, from a statement of fact (is) to a statement of preference (ought). One can also take the side of KANT in that "it is impossible for anything in the world to be good without qualification---except a good will." Now what makes a will good? there is acting from inclination, that is self interest, and acting from duty, which is acting in the INTEREST(intent) of doing something right. Only if one is acting from duty is one doing a good deed. One can also take the Utilitarian approach which is what is good is "greatest pleasure for the greatest number."
in all of these cases good and evil are subjective, either to a person or to the majority. Which i feel is close to the truth. Since what is determined is good is a Social idea that has been trained, and indoctrinated on us from birth. conscience is learned, not inherent, based upon the values and standards in which one has been raised.
(will accept pats on the back for not falling asleep during philosophy class)
"in all of these cases good and evil are subjective"
That's not the conclusion derived from all those theories. Kant's conclusion is that through reasoned will, we create maxims through which we have duty, ie categorical imperatives that create universal, and hence objective, standards of morality. He is the one most attribute ethical theories of deontology, or absolute side-constraints of ethics (ie codes like 'it is never moral to kill an innocent person').
Your recount of Hobbes isn't an explanation for ethics, but an explanation for why we formed governments, the ethical part of that stems from Utilitarianism. Util does not imply subjectivity, ie many could argue that biological impulses indicate that pleasure is universal among all persons (in other words, this just collapses again to whether or not we can objectively identify things as "goods" and then proceed to maximize them).
Hume's argument of the is-ought fallacy only criticizes those who confuse descriptive foundations for prescriptive claims, ie he criticized ethical theories based on "natural law" because what nature only represented what is rather than what ought to be. That would indict things like biological explanations for morality, but I mentioned a Kantian version that does not rely on that in a previous post in this thread.
On May 12 2011 13:37 LlamaNamedOsama wrote: Kant, anyone? Under metaethical standards, the use of practical reason allows us to establish objective standards for morality, which he dubs the categorical imperative. Certain metaethics like reason cannot be questioned - after all, to challenge the use of reason is to employ reason in that very attack, meaning that this forms the basis of any epistemology that is to follow.
Kant's theory is well and good only if you accept his rather controversial claims about the bounds and scope of knowledge. Personally I'm not convinced that I have a "self" outside the bounds of space and time, that I cannot intuit nor cognise, but rather must accept simply as a presupposition for practical reason to justify rational autonomy hence any kind of imperative.
On May 12 2011 13:56 Chairman Ray wrote: Say a person was dying, and the government is able to save the person's life by spending 5 million dollars worth of labor and resources. Do you think saving the person is moral, or letting the person die is moral? What do you think most people in society's answer would be?
Go look at any medical system in the world. The answer is the person dies.
Yes exactly, but I'm certain that a large percentage of people will think about the person's family and say that saving the person's life is the morally right thing to do, making this a common real world example where morality is subjective.
On May 12 2011 13:20 VIB wrote: If we lived a few centuries ago. YOU would be telling slavery is obviously moral and how can anyone possibly disagree with that? Everyone knows slavery good. Well, except the black, but they're not really people.
You only think things are moral because you were taught that way. Were you taught different, you would think differently.
What I perceive you to be saying is that morals change in accordance to personally held beliefs. That may be true in a sense, but it still does not advance your argument much. Why? Because while beliefs might direct morals, they don't change their internal character. Hopefully I can explain this in a way that makes sense:
It's interesting that you mention "well, except the black, but they're not really people". That's a "belief" in the sense that I mentioned above; the belief that slaves were not people and hence not deserving of any moral consideration. Surely though, while the slave-owners held slaves, they still held a moral code in relation to one another? For instance, slave-owners might have thought slaves were not people, but they would still abide by the moral command that one cannot make a slave of anyone they wished. They knew that stealing another's slaves was wrong. Again, these are just a few examples. What I'm basically trying to say is that an objective morality did indeed function even amongst them, it was just not believed to apply to a slave. And indeed, isn't the key driver of the emancipation proclamation and its subsequent developments through the civil rights movement the very realization that slaves were in fact people? Once the mistaken belief was taken out of the way, slavery and racism towards blacks ceased to be morally acceptable.
In all of this, has any damage been done to the morally objective idea that we should treat others as we should treat ourselves? Slavery appears to be more of a result of a mistaken and regrettable belief in who should be included in the definition of "others". If we lived in a world where we could be served by robots, we would see no moral deficit in exploiting them because we believe they aren't people. I believe this type of logic was unfortunately adopted by slave-owners at those times. To think of them as people would be as ridiculous as us today thinking of robots as people. But that does not mean that morality in general has changed.
You speak of the economic reasons behind the abolition of slavery. Now, I'm no expert, and what you're saying could very well be true. Perhaps the real motivation driving those in power to release the slaves was to turn them into consumers. Does this, however, explain the popular support in the North for Negroes during that period? Were those people who "woke up" and realized blacks were no different from them similarly motivated by such insidious aspirations? Did the whites who risked their lives in the underground railroad or rose up and joined the marches during the MLK era have anything to gain? Your economic example only goes so far--economics may change the face of society for those who stand to gain, but it does nothing to explain away the moral attitude of a public that does not similarly benefit.
I mentioned before the difference between convention and morality. I believe slavery was a convention: a practice guided by a mistaken belief. It has nothing to do with objective morality, which are the principles that exist independent of our individual beliefs. Show me a true example of a society that upholds deviant morals. Show me a society that praises treachery, celebrates cowards, encourages people to deceive each other, or rejoices when a man rejects everyone who has ever been kind to him.
On May 12 2011 14:12 j2choe wrote: Show me a true example of a society that upholds deviant morals. Show me a society that praises treachery, celebrates cowards, encourages people to deceive each other, or rejoices when a man rejects everyone who has ever been kind to him.
How about those same people that traded the slaves to the white man in the first place. The African tribes. They seemed to have no issue with enslaving people and peddling them off as goods.
Even now human trafficking is a regular thing in those areas.
On May 12 2011 13:37 LlamaNamedOsama wrote: Kant, anyone? Under metaethical standards, the use of practical reason allows us to establish objective standards for morality, which he dubs the categorical imperative. Certain metaethics like reason cannot be questioned - after all, to challenge the use of reason is to employ reason in that very attack, meaning that this forms the basis of any epistemology that is to follow.
Kant's theory is well and good only if you accept his rather controversial claims about the bounds and scope of knowledge. Personally I'm not convinced that I have a "self" outside the bounds of space and time, that I cannot intuit nor cognise, but rather must accept simply as a presupposition for practical reason to justify rational autonomy hence any kind of imperative.
Well that then becomes a question of ontology and whether you'd accept dualism. The alternative to not believing in that type of dualism is pure materialism, which isn't really persuasive either. I personally view epistemology as a prior question to identity, and I generally agree with Descartes in rationalism, so I favor the more abstract approach to understanding the self. Either way, though, I don't think Kant's ideas are necessarily incompatible with materialism/the idea that matter, or time and space, may influence the rationalism of this self, as many advocates of dualism do not justify their positions with parallelism, accepting a relationship between physical brain and abstract mind/self.
On May 12 2011 13:39 yamato77 wrote: 1. Yes, anyone with the power to stop the killing of innocent people without justification certainly would. Whether they view the people being killed as innocent or not is up for question, but that isn't the point. You can point out exceptions you may know of, but those are rarities in the face of the realization that killing innocent people has been forbidden or punishable since the advent of society. I'm most certainly right.
2. Subjectivism refers to the individual, not to man in general. Morality is not subjective. People, in general, do not think that each and every person should be allowed what is right and wrong, because that is obviously false. There would be no way to stop things like murder or rape because they would be right in the assailant's eyes. I don't think anyone would advocate living in a world like that. Thus, there must be universally accepted truths that people adhere to in order for basic society to exist. Human biology even promotes this concept, because we don't generally go around killing innocents and stealing from people for no reason. When it happens, there is most certainly a reason that affects the judgement of the perpetrator, but that reason alone does not justify his action as morally correct.
3. You are absolutely wrong if you think biology is, in any way, subjective. The mere fact that we can study biology and come up with ANY meaningful conclusions immediately necessitates that it must be objective. The same chemical reactions create the same behavior in people universally, which is obviously objective. Everyone's heart beats in the same, everyone's lungs inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide the same, and everyone's intestines produce the same fecal matter. These things are objective.
1: No. There are exceptions, and those exceptions mean that not everyone thinks killing innocents as wrong. Yes the majority of society holds that murder is "wrong" but it is not everyone and thus not universal.
2. People in general think that they are right and others are wrong, then the majority bands together to defend themselves. Every man has a different experience, and thus their experience is subjective. There is a way to stop murder and rape, because the majority doesn't like them and thus put laws in place to try and prevent them from happening. No there do not have to be universally recognized truths for that to happen, and in fact the fact that murder and rape do happen is evidence against that. You are correct that everyone perpetrates their actions for a reason, and to him he does it despite what the majority says the morally correct choices are.
3. No. Show me 2 people who have the exact same DNA, and then I will let you get away with the notion that biology is not subjective... Everyone heart does not beat the same, everyone's lungs inhale oxygen and carbon dioxide differently, and everyones intestines produce different fecal matter. Please please have some intellectual integrity and accept that. Yes they work similarly, but they are not the SAME. Those things are different, and thus create different perspectives for different people. Which I believe would be... you guessed it, Subjective.
Before you get into an argument about subjectivism and objectivism (moral realism), you ought to know what they are.
Subjectivism does not exist in any science. They all believe in empirically identifiable and reproducible systems of cause and effect. Thus, since biology is a science, it is, by definition, not subjective. It is objective. The flowchart below demonstrates how the sciences relate to one another, and also serves to prove the point that they are ALL objective.
Also convenient is the idea that things don't have to include every single person to be considered universal. It only requires a large enough majority that outliers are considered basically irrelevant. I have the entirety of human history on my side when I say that the killing of innocent people is objectively morally wrong. What do you have, Charles Manson? Hah.
On May 12 2011 14:12 j2choe wrote: Show me a true example of a society that upholds deviant morals. Show me a society that praises treachery, celebrates cowards, encourages people to deceive each other, or rejoices when a man rejects everyone who has ever been kind to him.
How about those same people that traded the slaves to the white man in the first place. The African tribes. They seemed to have no issue with enslaving people and peddling them off as goods.
Even now human trafficking is a regular thing in those areas.
True. But those types of activities are essentially motivated by greed and other unsavoury aspirations. These are the types of things that lead people to abandon their morals. I would highly doubt, however, that they would consider peddling off their own countrymen for pecuniary gain an honourable activity in and of itself.
If life is inherently meaningless can I ask you what's the point in a starting a thread on the internet and conversing with meaningless human beings?
In fact I'll go on further to ask you why are you even alive? why bother with what life throws at you? in the end our lives amount to absolutely nothing and that there is nothing wrong with chopping off peoples heads because its all meaningless. Or do you believe there is something wrong with chopping peoples heads off? If not, why not do to your parents or your siblings after all they're meaningless too aren't they?
On May 12 2011 14:12 j2choe wrote: Show me a true example of a society that upholds deviant morals. Show me a society that praises treachery, celebrates cowards, encourages people to deceive each other, or rejoices when a man rejects everyone who has ever been kind to him.
How about those same people that traded the slaves to the white man in the first place. The African tribes. They seemed to have no issue with enslaving people and peddling them off as goods.
Even now human trafficking is a regular thing in those areas.
You imply that slavery is objectively morally wrong.
On May 12 2011 14:34 unionbank wrote: If life is inherently meaningless can I ask you what's the point in a starting a thread on the internet and conversing with meaningless human beings?
In fact I'll go on further to ask you why are you even alive? why bother with what life throws at you? in the end our lives amount to absolutely nothing and that there is nothing wrong with chopping off peoples heads because its all meaningless. Or do you believe there is something wrong with chopping peoples heads off? If not, why not do to your parents or your siblings after all they're meaningless too aren't they?
Well for one blood kinda grosses me out.....
In all seriousness the 'you don't matter, life has no meaning' argument is true at face value. But where does that leave us? I'm here, I do things and observe things that I make me feel good, I do things and observe things that make me suffer. I try to maximize the former and minimize the latter...what kind of answer are you looking for??
On May 12 2011 14:35 imagine7xy wrote: Subjective, however I am very thankful that anyone foolish enough to think that they are objective does so.
What does that even mean?
It means if morals are subjective then we decide them ourselves, but you wouldn't want to give a foolish person that responsibility. Natural selection ftw Objective morals are a stepping stone to enlightment
On May 12 2011 14:35 imagine7xy wrote: Subjective, however I am very thankful that anyone foolish enough to think that they are objective does so.
What does that even mean?
It means if morals are subjective then we decide them ourselves, but you wouldn't want to give a foolish person that responsibility.
Well if you think someone is foolish, then obviously you judge actions based on something that isn't "well if he thinks so, it must be right"! That's what subjectivism would say. I don't think you actually agree.
On May 12 2011 14:35 imagine7xy wrote: Subjective, however I am very thankful that anyone foolish enough to think that they are objective does so.
What does that even mean?
It means if morals are subjective then we decide them ourselves, but you wouldn't want to give a foolish person that responsibility. Natural selection ftw Objective morals are a stepping stone to enlightment
If morality is truly subjective, then giving an idiot the responsibility of determining his own moral code is no different than giving a complete and utter ethical genius the responsibility of determining a moral code. (because everything is subjective, one cannot be related to the other in any sort of objective comparison) So the fact that you even say 'you wouldn't want to' projects that you believe there are at least SOME objective truths to be known about morality.
On May 12 2011 14:12 j2choe wrote: Show me a true example of a society that upholds deviant morals. Show me a society that praises treachery, celebrates cowards, encourages people to deceive each other, or rejoices when a man rejects everyone who has ever been kind to him.
How about those same people that traded the slaves to the white man in the first place. The African tribes. They seemed to have no issue with enslaving people and peddling them off as goods.
Even now human trafficking is a regular thing in those areas.
True. But those types of activities are essentially motivated by greed and other unsavoury aspirations. These are the types of things that lead people to abandon their morals. I would highly doubt, however, that they would consider peddling off their own countrymen for pecuniary gain an honourable activity in and of itself.
I think this is the problem of many arguments in this thread:
Your argument is something a long these lines(correct me please if I am wrong): Morality is objective, but there are certain motivators that can make people break their morality, they know what they are doing is immoral, but the benefits of being immoral outweigh the benefits of being moral.
Many people say: Because those people are being immoral when they know what they are doing is immoral, yet they are willing to put their morality aside, thus morality is subjective.
Now its a question of point of view. We have really been conditioned since birth that certain things are right and wrong. This has been going on for a long time(thousands of years).
One can argue that morality is a sort of social contract in this case right?
Now the argument turns to what constitutes objective morals. It seems to me that many peoples argument revolves around arguing what exactly constitutes objective morals, and what makes morals objective is going to be subjective from person to person.
Edit: saw a mention of natural selection is this case. Humans are a social species, could it be possible that natural selection worked out in the favor of those with better morals, as they were trusted more in society and were more willing to help each other survive than not?
On May 12 2011 13:39 yamato77 wrote: 1. Yes, anyone with the power to stop the killing of innocent people without justification certainly would. Whether they view the people being killed as innocent or not is up for question, but that isn't the point. You can point out exceptions you may know of, but those are rarities in the face of the realization that killing innocent people has been forbidden or punishable since the advent of society. I'm most certainly right.
2. Subjectivism refers to the individual, not to man in general. Morality is not subjective. People, in general, do not think that each and every person should be allowed what is right and wrong, because that is obviously false. There would be no way to stop things like murder or rape because they would be right in the assailant's eyes. I don't think anyone would advocate living in a world like that. Thus, there must be universally accepted truths that people adhere to in order for basic society to exist. Human biology even promotes this concept, because we don't generally go around killing innocents and stealing from people for no reason. When it happens, there is most certainly a reason that affects the judgement of the perpetrator, but that reason alone does not justify his action as morally correct.
3. You are absolutely wrong if you think biology is, in any way, subjective. The mere fact that we can study biology and come up with ANY meaningful conclusions immediately necessitates that it must be objective. The same chemical reactions create the same behavior in people universally, which is obviously objective. Everyone's heart beats in the same, everyone's lungs inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide the same, and everyone's intestines produce the same fecal matter. These things are objective.
1: No. There are exceptions, and those exceptions mean that not everyone thinks killing innocents as wrong. Yes the majority of society holds that murder is "wrong" but it is not everyone and thus not universal.
2. People in general think that they are right and others are wrong, then the majority bands together to defend themselves. Every man has a different experience, and thus their experience is subjective. There is a way to stop murder and rape, because the majority doesn't like them and thus put laws in place to try and prevent them from happening. No there do not have to be universally recognized truths for that to happen, and in fact the fact that murder and rape do happen is evidence against that. You are correct that everyone perpetrates their actions for a reason, and to him he does it despite what the majority says the morally correct choices are.
3. No. Show me 2 people who have the exact same DNA, and then I will let you get away with the notion that biology is not subjective... Everyone heart does not beat the same, everyone's lungs inhale oxygen and carbon dioxide differently, and everyones intestines produce different fecal matter. Please please have some intellectual integrity and accept that. Yes they work similarly, but they are not the SAME. Those things are different, and thus create different perspectives for different people. Which I believe would be... you guessed it, Subjective.
Before you get into an argument about subjectivism and objectivism (moral realism), you ought to know what they are.
Subjectivism does not exist in any science. They all believe in empirically identifiable and reproducible systems of cause and effect. Thus, since biology is a science, it is, by definition, not subjective. It is objective. The flowchart below demonstrates how the sciences relate to one another, and also serves to prove the point that they are ALL objective.
Also convenient is the idea that things don't have to include every single person to be considered universal. It only requires a large enough majority that outliers are considered basically irrelevant. I have the entirety of human history on my side when I say that the killing of innocent people is objectively morally wrong. What do you have, Charles Manson? Hah.
First off, for some perspective on me: I am an engineering major at a top 20 school. I know the sciences are objective in their studies.
Fourth: Unfortunately you don't have the entirety of human history on your side, you don't even have the past year on your side... considering what is happening in Syria, Libya, and other nations in the past month. (I watched a video where a protesting man has his entire jaw blown off by police who opened fire on the protesters) Also, if you are also an engineer or scientist, you should know better, outliers cannot just be rejected, you have to explain them, and if you cannot explain their presence, it means your model is wrong. This has been a large driving force for modern particle physics experiments, in fact I just visited Fermilab, and they said the exact same thing. So please explain the outliers to me if you wish to disregard them.
I think this is the problem of many arguments in this thread:
Your argument is something a long these lines(correct me please if I am wrong): Morality is objective, but there are certain motivators that can make people break their morality, they know what they are doing is immoral, but the benefits of being immoral outweigh the benefits of being moral.
Many people say: Because those people are being immoral when they know what they are doing is immoral, yet they are willing to put their morality aside, thus morality is subjective.
Then "many people" are unfortunately wrong. Subjective morality is not the rejection of one's morals, but the lack of standard morals outright. If you're rejecting a moral command that is pressing on you, and you realize that the moral command is there and that you did not create it, then you believe in objective morality.
In a nutshell, the objective moralist feels the weight of his conscience but chooses to reject it for whatever reason. The subjective moralist lacks a conscience at all; since whatever action he or she so chooses automatically becomes part of his or her morality (i.e. if I chose it, then that makes it right).
On May 12 2011 14:35 imagine7xy wrote: Subjective, however I am very thankful that anyone foolish enough to think that they are objective does so.
What does that even mean?
It means if morals are subjective then we decide them ourselves, but you wouldn't want to give a foolish person that responsibility. Natural selection ftw Objective morals are a stepping stone to enlightment
If morality is truly subjective, then giving an idiot the responsibility of determining his own moral code is no different than giving a complete and utter ethical genius the responsibility of determining a moral code. (because everything is subjective, one cannot be related to the other in any sort of objective comparison) So the fact that you even say 'you wouldn't want to' projects that you believe there are at least SOME objective truths to be known about morality.
When I say 'you would not want to' I am speaking from the point of view of natural selection, which is running simulations to determine what maximizes survival for genes. In the infancy of civilization objective morals would have utility because it abstracts the tool. The species and individuals within benefit from morals like "do not steal" and decide it right because "it just is the right thing to do - I was told by God, etc."
On May 12 2011 13:39 yamato77 wrote: 1. Yes, anyone with the power to stop the killing of innocent people without justification certainly would. Whether they view the people being killed as innocent or not is up for question, but that isn't the point. You can point out exceptions you may know of, but those are rarities in the face of the realization that killing innocent people has been forbidden or punishable since the advent of society. I'm most certainly right.
2. Subjectivism refers to the individual, not to man in general. Morality is not subjective. People, in general, do not think that each and every person should be allowed what is right and wrong, because that is obviously false. There would be no way to stop things like murder or rape because they would be right in the assailant's eyes. I don't think anyone would advocate living in a world like that. Thus, there must be universally accepted truths that people adhere to in order for basic society to exist. Human biology even promotes this concept, because we don't generally go around killing innocents and stealing from people for no reason. When it happens, there is most certainly a reason that affects the judgement of the perpetrator, but that reason alone does not justify his action as morally correct.
3. You are absolutely wrong if you think biology is, in any way, subjective. The mere fact that we can study biology and come up with ANY meaningful conclusions immediately necessitates that it must be objective. The same chemical reactions create the same behavior in people universally, which is obviously objective. Everyone's heart beats in the same, everyone's lungs inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide the same, and everyone's intestines produce the same fecal matter. These things are objective.
1: No. There are exceptions, and those exceptions mean that not everyone thinks killing innocents as wrong. Yes the majority of society holds that murder is "wrong" but it is not everyone and thus not universal.
2. People in general think that they are right and others are wrong, then the majority bands together to defend themselves. Every man has a different experience, and thus their experience is subjective. There is a way to stop murder and rape, because the majority doesn't like them and thus put laws in place to try and prevent them from happening. No there do not have to be universally recognized truths for that to happen, and in fact the fact that murder and rape do happen is evidence against that. You are correct that everyone perpetrates their actions for a reason, and to him he does it despite what the majority says the morally correct choices are.
3. No. Show me 2 people who have the exact same DNA, and then I will let you get away with the notion that biology is not subjective... Everyone heart does not beat the same, everyone's lungs inhale oxygen and carbon dioxide differently, and everyones intestines produce different fecal matter. Please please have some intellectual integrity and accept that. Yes they work similarly, but they are not the SAME. Those things are different, and thus create different perspectives for different people. Which I believe would be... you guessed it, Subjective.
Before you get into an argument about subjectivism and objectivism (moral realism), you ought to know what they are.
Subjectivism does not exist in any science. They all believe in empirically identifiable and reproducible systems of cause and effect. Thus, since biology is a science, it is, by definition, not subjective. It is objective. The flowchart below demonstrates how the sciences relate to one another, and also serves to prove the point that they are ALL objective.
Also convenient is the idea that things don't have to include every single person to be considered universal. It only requires a large enough majority that outliers are considered basically irrelevant. I have the entirety of human history on my side when I say that the killing of innocent people is objectively morally wrong. What do you have, Charles Manson? Hah.
First off, for some perspective on me: I am an engineering major at a top 20 school. I know the sciences are objective in their studies.
Fourth: Unfortunately you don't have the entirety of human history on your side, you don't even have the past year on your side... considering what is happening in Syria, Libya, and other nations in the past month. (I watched a video where a protesting man has his entire jaw blown off by police who opened fire on the protesters) Also, if you are also an engineer or scientist, you should know better, outliers cannot just be rejected, you have to explain them, and if you cannot explain their presence, it means your model is wrong. This has been a large driving force for modern particle physics experiments, in fact I just visited Fermilab, and they said the exact same thing. So please explain the outliers to me if you wish to disregard them.
I don't care about what you major in or what school you don't go to. I guarantee that there are valedictorians that went to Harvard and graduated Summa Cum Laude that don't know what subjectivism or moral realism are.
I don't know why you posted essentially the same things I did, but moral realism (which is the opposite of ethical subjectivism and decidedly based on objectivism) does not necessitate a completely universal acceptance of moral rules for them to be objective. Perhaps people just don't know of the rules? Perhaps they have other, selfish motivations that lead them to act immorally, as other people tend to? I could say the same things about the governments that kill protestors; they certainly justify their actions, however selfish they may be.
After all, the point of discussing ethics isn't to argue about why people do what they do, it is to ague about what people ought to do. We can certainly, with our reason, come to objective moral truths that people ought to follow. We can also see that most people seem to agree with this moral reasoning in most situations. It does happen. Arguing against it is to ignore the development of the human race from nomads to the large-scale societies we now live as a part of. This happened because people agreed on moral rules that were objectively true, like not killing innocent people for no reason.
if something requires human beings to agree on it in order to make it objectively true then it is not objectively true.
Unless you are arguing that human beings happened to agree on moral rules that were, luck would have it, precicely in concordance with the pervading moral law. In the latter case you would be wrong, or at least there is no evidential basis to believe such is true.
On May 12 2011 13:39 yamato77 wrote: 1. Yes, anyone with the power to stop the killing of innocent people without justification certainly would. Whether they view the people being killed as innocent or not is up for question, but that isn't the point. You can point out exceptions you may know of, but those are rarities in the face of the realization that killing innocent people has been forbidden or punishable since the advent of society. I'm most certainly right.
2. Subjectivism refers to the individual, not to man in general. Morality is not subjective. People, in general, do not think that each and every person should be allowed what is right and wrong, because that is obviously false. There would be no way to stop things like murder or rape because they would be right in the assailant's eyes. I don't think anyone would advocate living in a world like that. Thus, there must be universally accepted truths that people adhere to in order for basic society to exist. Human biology even promotes this concept, because we don't generally go around killing innocents and stealing from people for no reason. When it happens, there is most certainly a reason that affects the judgement of the perpetrator, but that reason alone does not justify his action as morally correct.
3. You are absolutely wrong if you think biology is, in any way, subjective. The mere fact that we can study biology and come up with ANY meaningful conclusions immediately necessitates that it must be objective. The same chemical reactions create the same behavior in people universally, which is obviously objective. Everyone's heart beats in the same, everyone's lungs inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide the same, and everyone's intestines produce the same fecal matter. These things are objective.
1: No. There are exceptions, and those exceptions mean that not everyone thinks killing innocents as wrong. Yes the majority of society holds that murder is "wrong" but it is not everyone and thus not universal.
2. People in general think that they are right and others are wrong, then the majority bands together to defend themselves. Every man has a different experience, and thus their experience is subjective. There is a way to stop murder and rape, because the majority doesn't like them and thus put laws in place to try and prevent them from happening. No there do not have to be universally recognized truths for that to happen, and in fact the fact that murder and rape do happen is evidence against that. You are correct that everyone perpetrates their actions for a reason, and to him he does it despite what the majority says the morally correct choices are.
3. No. Show me 2 people who have the exact same DNA, and then I will let you get away with the notion that biology is not subjective... Everyone heart does not beat the same, everyone's lungs inhale oxygen and carbon dioxide differently, and everyones intestines produce different fecal matter. Please please have some intellectual integrity and accept that. Yes they work similarly, but they are not the SAME. Those things are different, and thus create different perspectives for different people. Which I believe would be... you guessed it, Subjective.
Before you get into an argument about subjectivism and objectivism (moral realism), you ought to know what they are.
Subjectivism does not exist in any science. They all believe in empirically identifiable and reproducible systems of cause and effect. Thus, since biology is a science, it is, by definition, not subjective. It is objective. The flowchart below demonstrates how the sciences relate to one another, and also serves to prove the point that they are ALL objective.
Also convenient is the idea that things don't have to include every single person to be considered universal. It only requires a large enough majority that outliers are considered basically irrelevant. I have the entirety of human history on my side when I say that the killing of innocent people is objectively morally wrong. What do you have, Charles Manson? Hah.
It's not entirely clear that social science is entirely objective like your purport it to be. You might wanna check out Ernest Nagel's work called The Value-Oriented Bias of Social Inquiry.
Lot harder to read than wikipedia though, I warn you.
On May 12 2011 15:21 XeliN wrote: if something requires human beings to agree on it in order to make it objectively true then it is not objectively true.
Unless you are arguing that human beings happened to agree on moral rules that were, luck would have it, precicely in concordance with the pervading moral law. In the latter case you would be wrong, or at least there is no evidential basis to believe such is true.
Something can be objectively true regardless of whether or not someone agrees, accepts, or believes it. Logic and mathematics prove things objectively, regardless of the opinions of individuals (or even the majority).
Edit, I don't think it's even that though, its not that something can be objectively true independant of belief or acceptance, it's that by the nature of objectivity, if something is to be considered objectively true it MUST be so independant of acceptance, knowledge, belief etc.
On May 12 2011 15:14 yamato77 wrote: I don't care about what you major in or what school you don't go to. I guarantee that there are valedictorians that went to Harvard and graduated Summa Cum Laude that don't know what subjectivism or moral realism are.
I don't know why you posted essentially the same things I did, but moral realism (which is the opposite of ethical subjectivism and decidedly based on objectivism) does not necessitate a completely universal acceptance of moral rules for them to be objective. Perhaps people just don't know of the rules? Perhaps they have other, selfish motivations that lead them to act immorally, as other people tend to? I could say the same things about the governments that kill protestors; they certainly justify their actions, however selfish they may be.
After all, the point of discussing ethics isn't to argue about why people do what they do, it is to ague about what people ought to do. We can certainly, with our reason, come to objective moral truths that people ought to follow. We can also see that most people seem to agree with this moral reasoning in most situations. It does happen. Arguing against it is to ignore the development of the human race from nomads to the large-scale societies we now live as a part of. This happened because people agreed on moral rules that were objectively true, like not killing innocent people for no reason.
Good, I am glad you don't care, that means you will take my arguments based on their merit, even if I was homeless or in prison. (Atleast I hope this is what you would do)
I posted those things because it shows that in order for something to be objective it must exist independent just the realm of thought. Since morality appears to only exist as the products of thoughts, and it not universally the same, then for all intents and purposes we can call it subjective. Why would we call morality objective, and then say that perhaps those people with different views on it are just wrong or don't know what is right? Occam's razor necessitates that in the absence of a better explanation, morality is subjective because of those "exceptions".
I disagree that we can use reason to come up with Objective Moral Truths. Circumstances always change, and what we have know is largely a product of maximizing well-being for a majority. Despite the fact that most people agree with this moral reasoning (they have also largely been indoctrinated by religion to believe that we need morals) that does not make that moral reasoning objective. People agreed on those moral rules, but only in selfishness or because they believed it would benefit them, and this is why our society has developed those certain rules... however this is not what would define them as objective.
This debate at Notre Dame has not yet been posted and I think it is a must watch as it discusses Morality specifically in relation to whether or not it can be provided by god or whether an objective morality can be provided in the absence of god.
(don't be fooled by the title, this debate is mostly about morality)
This debate at Notre Dame has not yet been posted and I think it is a must watch as it discusses Morality specifically in relation to whether or not it can be provided by god or whether an objective morality can be provided in the absence of god.
Funny you should post that, I got into an argument with Harris right after the debate about objective morality. Also I got to personally experience how much WLC's worldview disgusts me.
Also, the question the girl on the balcony asks was one I was going to ask (similar enough), and I was sitting behind her so I had to go sit back down
This debate at Notre Dame has not yet been posted and I think it is a must watch as it discusses Morality specifically in relation to whether or not it can be provided by god or whether an objective morality can be provided in the absence of god.
Funny you should post that, I got into an argument with Harris right after the debate about objective morality. Also I got to personally experience how much WLC's worldview disgusts me.
Also, the question the girl on the balcony asks was one I was going to ask (similar enough), and I was sitting behind her so I had to go sit back down
Oh wow. thats pretty awesome man. Would you mind sharing your discussion with Harris? If not here then in a PM? I am quite interested O.o
Say you had a village untouched by modern times. And let's say that in that village, one's parents were held in the utmost respect. So much so, that it was considered the duty of the sons and daughters to euthanize their parents before they become senile, as it might tarnish the memory of the parents during their prime. In their eyes, the killing of their parents is a sign of respect.
So, here's my perspective. Regardless of whether or not a place like this ever existed, it is possible to conceive of it being the case. In their eyes, killing someone was not against their moral code. Therefore, I'd say morality is subjective.
Also, while coming up with this, I had another thought. If morality was objective, than all laws would be basically the same, and there wouldn't be any major differences between cultures on what is "right" and what is "wrong". But, there are many examples of this not being the case. For instance, Sharia law, wherein it is morally wrong to be homosexual (or rather, engage in homosexual acts, eg sodomy.) Or, the Cow in Hinduism. In most of the world, it is completely fine to eat beef, but for Hindu's, it is morally wrong.
On May 12 2011 15:49 Fyodor wrote: Please stop posting sam harris. He's like the Husky of Philosophy.
It seems quite stupid to have this discussion right now without at least acknowledging his work. He is providing a pretty big and significant philosophical idea and trying to address the problem in a very new way. I mean if you have problems with his arguments then by all means, post them. But just posting "lol harris is just a dummy who appeals to the masses" seems quite silly and by most measures inaccurate because he actually does not appeal to the masses and he has done a ton of work in philosophy and morality in general...
On May 12 2011 15:49 Fyodor wrote: Please stop posting sam harris. He's like the Husky of Philosophy.
Atleast he still destroys William Lane Craig in that area... I have seen the Kalam Cosmological Argument and it presupposes several of its premises and then makes a bunch of logical errors in order to justify the existence of a deity.
Also my view of philosophy is similar to that of Wittgenstein's: He argues that philosophical problems are bewitchments that arise from philosophers' misguided attempts to consider the meaning of words independently of their context, usage, and grammar, what he called "language gone on holiday."
Took a class on Philosophy last semester and my professor had a straight forward perspective on morality.
Morality in its firm basis Objective that's why we have morality, if morality was purely subjective then there will be no questions about morality, heck morality the word itself wouldn't exist if morality was purely subjective. Everyone knows its wrong to Lie/Cheat/Kill/Have an Affair/steal/etc. Those morals are known by everyone throughout the world even by criminals. If you talk to any criminal in prison and ask them question about morality 100% of the answers will be the same. Human Traffickers know its wrong to traffic people, murderers know its wrong to murder. They might think its lucrative/fun, but its still wrong and those criminals know it is.
IF IN SOME CASES a civilization genuinely have a complete different set of morality then they're either extinct OR pretty much living in the dark age.
Then my professor said that 99% of subjectivity discussions comes up on the degree to follow these moral laws. Do you believe that killing is 100% wrong 100% of the time? do you believe that you always have to tell the truth? Individuals/cultures/religion will disagree on degree of how often we can break these rules, but they'll never disagree on if these rules are right/wrong. So therefore he says that 99% of discussions on subjectivity itself is approached incorrectly.
So the basis of Morality is objective, we know whats right and wrong and everyone generally agrees with it. The real question comes from what's our degree of breaking these rules.
Example that I'm personally guilty of.
I downloaded a game off of torrent site. I say, "hey its game, they're ripping me off, I'm too poor to buy it, I might not like it, etc." Now everyone will agree that stealing is bad, but what about how MUCH? or how often? or price?profit? etc. That's where everyone has their beliefs, but in the end I'm stealing from the developer of that game and even the most ardent Torrent Supporter will understand that and try to come up with lame excuse to cover his butt.
Now to truly approach the question on subjectivity is nearly impossible and too advance for my the level I'm taking. My professor believes that 99.99% of the world shouldn't even discuss about this topic because of the fact that 99.99% of the world isn't (poker analogy) Phil Ivey, instead they're those who wants to become like Phil Ivey. Morality for 99.99% of the world should be simply objective and for those .01% could be a little bit subjective.
Oh forgot to put this, sorry for the troll, I love SC and been visiting teamliquid for 4 years and was looking for a translation to an SKT vs STX interview and saw this thread and couldn't help myself
On May 12 2011 16:01 jiykong wrote: Took a class on Philosophy last semester and my professor had a straight forward perspective on morality.
Morality in its firm basis Objective that's why we have morality, if morality was purely subjective then there will be no questions about morality, heck morality the word itself wouldn't exist if morality was purely subjective. Everyone knows its wrong to Lie/Cheat/Kill/Have an Affair/steal/etc. Those morals are known by everyone throughout the world even by criminals. If you talk to any criminal in prison and ask them question about morality 100% of the answers will be the same. Human Traffickers know its wrong to traffic people, murderers know its wrong to murder. They might think its lucrative/fun, but its still wrong and those criminals know it is.
IF IN SOME CASES a civilization genuinely have a complete different set of morality then they're either extinct OR pretty much living in the dark age.
Then my professor said that 99% of subjectivity discussions comes up on the degree to follow these moral laws. Do you believe that killing is 100% wrong 100% of the time? do you believe that you always have to tell the truth? Individuals/cultures/religion will disagree on degree of how often we can break these rules, but they'll never disagree on if these rules are right/wrong. So therefore he says that 99% of discussions on subjectivity itself is approached incorrectly.
So the basis of Morality is objective, we know whats right and wrong and everyone generally agrees with it. The real question comes from what's our degree of breaking these rules.
Example that I'm personally guilty of.
I downloaded a game off of torrent site. I say, "hey its game, they're ripping me off, I'm too poor to buy it, I might not like it, etc." Now everyone will agree that stealing is bad, but what about how MUCH? or how often? or price?profit? etc. That's where everyone has their beliefs, but in the end I'm stealing from the developer of that game and even the most ardent Torrent Supporter will understand that and try to come up with lame excuse to cover his butt.
Now to truly approach the question on subjectivity is nearly impossible and too advance for my the level I'm taking. My professor believes that 99.99% of the world shouldn't even discuss about this topic because of the fact that 99.99% of the world isn't (poker analogy) Phil Ivey, instead they're those who wants to become like Phil Ivey. Morality for 99.99% of the world should be simply objective and for those .01% could be a little bit subjective.
On May 12 2011 16:01 jiykong wrote: Took a class on Philosophy last semester and my professor had a straight forward perspective on morality.
Morality in its firm basis Objective that's why we have morality, if morality was purely subjective then there will be no questions about morality, heck morality the word itself wouldn't exist if morality was purely subjective. Everyone knows its wrong to Lie/Cheat/Kill/Have an Affair/steal/etc.
It is perfectly possible to have questions about subjective things.
Do you think people are unable to have a discussion about why they think one television show is better than another, or one game is better than another, unless there is a definitive correct and objectively true answer?
On May 12 2011 15:14 yamato77 wrote: I don't care about what you major in or what school you don't go to. I guarantee that there are valedictorians that went to Harvard and graduated Summa Cum Laude that don't know what subjectivism or moral realism are.
I don't know why you posted essentially the same things I did, but moral realism (which is the opposite of ethical subjectivism and decidedly based on objectivism) does not necessitate a completely universal acceptance of moral rules for them to be objective. Perhaps people just don't know of the rules? Perhaps they have other, selfish motivations that lead them to act immorally, as other people tend to? I could say the same things about the governments that kill protestors; they certainly justify their actions, however selfish they may be.
After all, the point of discussing ethics isn't to argue about why people do what they do, it is to ague about what people ought to do. We can certainly, with our reason, come to objective moral truths that people ought to follow. We can also see that most people seem to agree with this moral reasoning in most situations. It does happen. Arguing against it is to ignore the development of the human race from nomads to the large-scale societies we now live as a part of. This happened because people agreed on moral rules that were objectively true, like not killing innocent people for no reason.
Good, I am glad you don't care, that means you will take my arguments based on their merit, even if I was homeless or in prison. (Atleast I hope this is what you would do)
I posted those things because it shows that in order for something to be objective it must exist independent just the realm of thought. Since morality appears to only exist as the products of thoughts, and it not universally the same, then for all intents and purposes we can call it subjective. Why would we call morality objective, and then say that perhaps those people with different views on it are just wrong or don't know what is right? Occam's razor necessitates that in the absence of a better explanation, morality is subjective because of those "exceptions".
I disagree that we can use reason to come up with Objective Moral Truths. Circumstances always change, and what we have know is largely a product of maximizing well-being for a majority. Despite the fact that most people agree with this moral reasoning (they have also largely been indoctrinated by religion to believe that we need morals) that does not make that moral reasoning objective. People agreed on those moral rules, but only in selfishness or because they believed it would benefit them, and this is why our society has developed those certain rules... however this is not what would define them as objective.
Let's just agree to disagree. We've both made our points. I can see how you see the world that way, but I don't think it is that way. I think there are things that are right and wrong, and that saying that they are right or wrong can also be a statement that is right or wrong. I may not know everything that is right or wrong, or be able to explain why people do things that are right or wrong, but I'm fairly sure that doesn't exclude the possibility of there being things that are right or wrong, in an objective sense.
Thanks for the discussion. It certainly has made me be much more specific in what I mean and actually develop a coherent way to express what I think. But, as it is, I am going to bed. I hope I've been as intellectually stimulating as you have been to talk with.
I believe there is a fundamental set, a 'kernel' if you will, of morals that are entirely objective and tend to be linked to instincts. We know and practice upon these morals not because we were taught them, but because our minds beg for them to be addressed. These tend to be the important ones, such as not killing another human being.
There are, indeed, many levels of morality that are layered on as a result of our family, religion, education, etc. that are likely subjective because, well, we had to be taught them after all. If we were taught differently, we might understand these morals differently.
On May 12 2011 16:01 jiykong wrote: Took a class on Philosophy last semester and my professor had a straight forward perspective on morality.
Morality in its firm basis Objective that's why we have morality, if morality was purely subjective then there will be no questions about morality, heck morality the word itself wouldn't exist if morality was purely subjective. Everyone knows its wrong to Lie/Cheat/Kill/Have an Affair/steal/etc.
It is perfectly possible to have questions about subjective things.
Do you think people are unable to have a discussion about why they think one television show is better than another, or one game is better than another, unless there is a definitive correct and objectively true answer?
No I believe that people are able to have subjective discussions, but when it comes to morality it must be approached with caution because its a very difficult and really annoying topic to deal with.
99% of the time I find these conversations in forums end up as a Bisu Fan vs Flash Fan base war
On May 12 2011 15:14 yamato77 wrote: I don't care about what you major in or what school you don't go to. I guarantee that there are valedictorians that went to Harvard and graduated Summa Cum Laude that don't know what subjectivism or moral realism are.
I don't know why you posted essentially the same things I did, but moral realism (which is the opposite of ethical subjectivism and decidedly based on objectivism) does not necessitate a completely universal acceptance of moral rules for them to be objective. Perhaps people just don't know of the rules? Perhaps they have other, selfish motivations that lead them to act immorally, as other people tend to? I could say the same things about the governments that kill protestors; they certainly justify their actions, however selfish they may be.
After all, the point of discussing ethics isn't to argue about why people do what they do, it is to ague about what people ought to do. We can certainly, with our reason, come to objective moral truths that people ought to follow. We can also see that most people seem to agree with this moral reasoning in most situations. It does happen. Arguing against it is to ignore the development of the human race from nomads to the large-scale societies we now live as a part of. This happened because people agreed on moral rules that were objectively true, like not killing innocent people for no reason.
Good, I am glad you don't care, that means you will take my arguments based on their merit, even if I was homeless or in prison. (Atleast I hope this is what you would do)
I posted those things because it shows that in order for something to be objective it must exist independent just the realm of thought. Since morality appears to only exist as the products of thoughts, and it not universally the same, then for all intents and purposes we can call it subjective. Why would we call morality objective, and then say that perhaps those people with different views on it are just wrong or don't know what is right? Occam's razor necessitates that in the absence of a better explanation, morality is subjective because of those "exceptions".
I disagree that we can use reason to come up with Objective Moral Truths. Circumstances always change, and what we have know is largely a product of maximizing well-being for a majority. Despite the fact that most people agree with this moral reasoning (they have also largely been indoctrinated by religion to believe that we need morals) that does not make that moral reasoning objective. People agreed on those moral rules, but only in selfishness or because they believed it would benefit them, and this is why our society has developed those certain rules... however this is not what would define them as objective.
Let's just agree to disagree. We've both made our points. I can see how you see the world that way, but I don't think it is that way. I think there are things that are right and wrong, and that saying that they are right or wrong can also be a statement that is right or wrong. I may not know everything that is right or wrong, or be able to explain why people do things that are right or wrong, but I'm fairly sure that doesn't exclude the possibility of there being things that are right or wrong, in an objective sense.
Thanks for the discussion. It certainly has made me be much more specific in what I mean and actually develop a coherent way to express what I think. But, as it is, I am going to bed. I hope I've been as intellectually stimulating as you have been to talk with.
Thanks too, we disagree, but at least we weren't afraid to each make cases for what we believe. Yeah it was intellectually stimulating, and let me get better at articulating my views.
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.
I'll jump in here...
While the core argument - that it is possible to discuss ethics without any reference to transcendent (or even contra-factual) premises - is solid, it should also be noted that this concept is older than dirt. However, that doesn't mean that it's wrong to repeat it once more, because apparently some people still have a hard time comprehending this. Hence, in this regard, Harris is a good journalist, but a bad philosopher, since he succeeds in spreading an idea, but he doesn't substantially increase the overall pool of insights on this idea. On a sidenote, in his criticism of religion, Harris even falls behind the level of discussion of the 18th Century. Criticism of religion must always be criticism of the conditions of society; Harris' methodological individualism just doesn't cut it.
The main problem that at least I have with Harris (and people like him) though is that his style of writing and arguing borders on demagogy. For example, he uses the topical subjects of torture, intervention and terrorism to grab attention, while none of this is important for his core argument. Unfortunately, his "adversaries" are also approaching demagogy, and for them it is really easy to reduce the advocatus diaboli of torture to the advocate of torture. In other words, unfortunately in public debate it is rather common to attack an opponent at his weakest point. And when a demagoge is going to argue against secular ethics, Harris is a much easier target than e.g. Leibniz, Kant, Jaspers, or even Rawls...
" Scientific theories does not radically change in opposite direction"
yeah and neither do Moral theories.. It is in fact the other way around if u want to bring in some empirical arguments. Overall the world u still read Aristotels or Kant and so on if it comes to Ethics and Moral, while rly noone reads Gallilei anymore. To Murder ur own child is beeing wrong since ever ( dont come with isolated stories), 500 years ago ppl still though the earth is flat =)
and to ur second Point: Just read my last sentence...
"but if you are to argue that morality is objective you really need to present where that law is coming from"
if u can explain me where ur "natural law" comes from. Since Popper it is known that u cant make any sentence with scientific value that hasnt some theoretical Terms in it so what u call objective is highly dependant on other things then pure empirical data.
I am not saying i can proof that Moral is Objective, all i say is that no one can proof the opposite. Casue all arguemts i read are based upon a totally wrong comprehension of science
A lot of Christians would argue that abortion is murdering your own child, yet that is not "wrong" in a lot of western countries.
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."
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."
We are bound to maximizing well-being, that is what natural selection does. That is where it enters the realm of the physical.
On May 12 2011 12:36 AlphaNoodle wrote: But for the sake of the poll, morals are subjective because they do not exist naturally. It is man made so it must be subjective.
You're assuming human beings aren't a part of nature. If however you accept human beings are just a part of the animal kingdom, and are just a part of the material universe, then surely everything they create, including their systems of morality, are in fact very much "natural" and thus as objective as the study of mating habits of marmots.
We define anything subjective as "of man".
Anything objective as independent "of man".
If we were to use your definition we wouldn't have any use at all for the word "subjective".
So because we are part of nature does not make morality objective. In fact all morality is is the amalgamation of the chemical signals in the brain, and we all have some form of it.
No, subjectivism (even in ethics) does not particularly refer to something that is "from man". The problem with Ethical Subjectivism (which is the theory most people that have argued for subjective morals in this thread have espoused) is that not all of what is considered moral has to do with attitudes or emotions. We don't stop the killing of innocent people always because we have an aversion, no, we stop it because it's wrong. Wrong because our biology (which isn't subjective, btw) makes us more inclined to choose to advance our own species than hinder it by mindless slaughter. Wrong because, in any sane person's logic, there can be no justification for the slaughter of people that it views as innocent.
Biologically programmed does not make it objective. Objective would be if the universe were made in such a way that any possible being (limit it to sentient, if you prefer) would be biologically programmed with the same (or similar) morality.
However, as it is, saying the biological programming is objective is the same as saying that there is an objective need for a liver: there is obviously not. It is simply one of the possible ways of filtering poison from your body.
The same could be the case for morality, in fact, looking at animals: there are plenty of species that practice cannibalism. The large majority of humans have a "biologically programmed" aversion to eating other humans and thus we call it wrong. However, there's no "objective" reason to call it wrong, it's just rather bad for survival of the species (there's evidence that it increases the risk of prion diseases).
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."
We are bound to maximizing well-being, that is what natural selection does. That is where it enters the realm of the physical.
That isn't really a coherent idea. What does "bound" mean? "Bound" in the same sense that we are bound to eat food? But certainly this is false - we aren't physically incapable of performing immoral acts.
Do you mean natural selection has somehow placed moral obligations on us that transcend our inclinations?
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."
We are bound to maximizing well-being, that is what natural selection does. That is where it enters the realm of the physical.
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."
We are bound to maximizing well-being, that is what natural selection does. That is where it enters the realm of the physical.
That isn't really a coherent idea. What does "bound" mean? "Bound" in the same sense that we are bound to eat food? But certainly this is false - we aren't physically incapable of performing immoral acts.
Do you mean natural selection has somehow placed moral obligations on us that transcend our inclinations?
Bound in the Homeward Bound sense, as Headed or intending to head in a specified direction. Yes, that is what natural selection wants, to survive. It gives you a nervous system so you can sense pain and avoid danger for instance. Harris's morality is subjective in the sense that it is up to us to determine individual or collectively what maximizes well being. It's a scientific approach to morality that takes into account our evolutionary origins as well.
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."
We are bound to maximizing well-being, that is what natural selection does. That is where it enters the realm of the physical.
That isn't really a coherent idea. What does "bound" mean? "Bound" in the same sense that we are bound to eat food? But certainly this is false - we aren't physically incapable of performing immoral acts.
Do you mean natural selection has somehow placed moral obligations on us that transcend our inclinations?
Bound in the Homeward Bound sense, as Headed or intending to head in a specified direction. Yes, that is what natural selection wants, to survive. It gives you a nervous system so you can sense pain and avoid danger for instance. Harris's morality is subjective in the sense that it is up to us to determine individual or collectively what maximizes well being. It's a scientific approach to morality that takes into account our evolutionary origins as well.
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.
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."
We are bound to maximizing well-being, that is what natural selection does. That is where it enters the realm of the physical.
That isn't really a coherent idea. What does "bound" mean? "Bound" in the same sense that we are bound to eat food? But certainly this is false - we aren't physically incapable of performing immoral acts.
Do you mean natural selection has somehow placed moral obligations on us that transcend our inclinations?
Bound in the Homeward Bound sense, as Headed or intending to head in a specified direction. Yes, that is what natural selection wants, to survive. It gives you a nervous system so you can sense pain and avoid danger for instance. Harris's morality is subjective in the sense that it is up to us to determine individual or collectively what maximizes well being. It's a scientific approach to morality that takes into account our evolutionary origins as well.
Natural selection wants nothing.
Yes, technically, but natural selection is running simulations that maximize the survival of genes... No?
On May 12 2011 05:50 D10 wrote: Theres 2 things in the bible and other religions that stand out to me as moral constants in the universe.
Love the others as you love yourself, which means, do not to the other what you wouldnt want done in yourself (basically, dont get other people in shit, give em shit, hurt em, blind fanatics trying to opress people with religious views wouldnt exacly qualify in my view, as being correct as much as they disagree)
Thats a powerfull message right there, bigger and broader than any religion, but people fail to see it for what it is
I think "do onto others as you would have done to yourself" is a good mantra, but it cant be applied inflexibly to everything, I mean, is it good to hurt a masochist? Probably yes, but I wouldn't want to be spanked. lol.
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."
We are bound to maximizing well-being, that is what natural selection does. That is where it enters the realm of the physical.
That isn't really a coherent idea. What does "bound" mean? "Bound" in the same sense that we are bound to eat food? But certainly this is false - we aren't physically incapable of performing immoral acts.
Do you mean natural selection has somehow placed moral obligations on us that transcend our inclinations?
Bound in the Homeward Bound sense, as Headed or intending to head in a specified direction. Yes, that is what natural selection wants, to survive. It gives you a nervous system so you can sense pain and avoid danger for instance. Harris's morality is subjective in the sense that it is up to us to determine individual or collectively what maximizes well being. It's a scientific approach to morality that takes into account our evolutionary origins as well.
There's a bit of a gap in your logic here. I'll give you the idea that natural selection binds us to moral actions (let's say, for the sake of argument, entirely and universally), but it's an error to assume that we can expand this class of actions with scientific research. The things natural selection binds us to may fit into a certain class (maximizing well-being), but that does not mean we are bound to all actions in that class. Scientific investigation might help us find out more things that maximize well-being, but we are not actually bound (by natural selection, at least) to do these things.
Take a couple examples of moral cases. One example of a moral good from natural selection is feeding starving people. Clearly it's advantageous for a species to give some food to people who are about to die. Now, for a scientifically discovered moral good, let's take the example of stem cell therapies (assume that they work 100%, if you don't mind). It generally increases well-being to take unused stem cells from aborted fetuses or what-have-you (we don't need to do that any more, but this is a half-hypothetical example) and to give those stem cells to Alzheimer's patients/quadraplegics/I don't have any more examples. But we run into a problem after we acknowledge this - a lot of people don't actually approve of stem cell research. Many people don't feel an obligation to support stem cell research, even though it increases well-being, and a few people even actively try to hinder it.
So we can see that even if we might say that natural selection is trying to point us in the direction of a certain class of actions, all it can actually bind us to are things which could be discovered during the evolutionary process (forgive my bad terminology). Natural selection has no way to bind us to things we found out after it's been completed, e.g. any scientific discoveries. There is, of course, another class of argument which could say our inherited inclinations have nothing to do with morality (you can argue this from an objective or a subjective viewpoint), but that's an entirely differently thing.
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."
We are bound to maximizing well-being, that is what natural selection does. That is where it enters the realm of the physical.
That isn't really a coherent idea. What does "bound" mean? "Bound" in the same sense that we are bound to eat food? But certainly this is false - we aren't physically incapable of performing immoral acts.
Do you mean natural selection has somehow placed moral obligations on us that transcend our inclinations?
Bound in the Homeward Bound sense, as Headed or intending to head in a specified direction. Yes, that is what natural selection wants, to survive. It gives you a nervous system so you can sense pain and avoid danger for instance. Harris's morality is subjective in the sense that it is up to us to determine individual or collectively what maximizes well being. It's a scientific approach to morality that takes into account our evolutionary origins as well.
Natural selection wants nothing.
Yes, technically, but natural selection is running simulations that maximize the survival of genes... No?
I dunno. I think you're still talking as if there is some entity called "natural selection" and it has agency. "Natural selection" is just a phrase. It's just a model for explaining certain aspects of biology. The phenomena to which "natural selection" refers has no purpose. It has no goal. It's not wanting or giving or running anything.
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."
We are bound to maximizing well-being, that is what natural selection does. That is where it enters the realm of the physical.
That isn't really a coherent idea. What does "bound" mean? "Bound" in the same sense that we are bound to eat food? But certainly this is false - we aren't physically incapable of performing immoral acts.
Do you mean natural selection has somehow placed moral obligations on us that transcend our inclinations?
Bound in the Homeward Bound sense, as Headed or intending to head in a specified direction. Yes, that is what natural selection wants, to survive. It gives you a nervous system so you can sense pain and avoid danger for instance. Harris's morality is subjective in the sense that it is up to us to determine individual or collectively what maximizes well being. It's a scientific approach to morality that takes into account our evolutionary origins as well.
Natural selection wants nothing.
Yes, technically, but natural selection is running simulations that maximize the survival of genes... No?
I dunno. I think you're still talking as if there is some entity called "natural selection" and it has agency. "Natural selection" is just a phrase. It's just a model for explaining certain aspects of biology. The phenomena to which "natural selection" refers has no purpose. It has no goal. It's not wanting or giving or running anything.
No, you misunderstood me. I was simply referring to the fact that natural selection tries to maximize survival. Whether you want to use the term purpose or agency is a matter of semantics.
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."
We are bound to maximizing well-being, that is what natural selection does. That is where it enters the realm of the physical.
That isn't really a coherent idea. What does "bound" mean? "Bound" in the same sense that we are bound to eat food? But certainly this is false - we aren't physically incapable of performing immoral acts.
Do you mean natural selection has somehow placed moral obligations on us that transcend our inclinations?
Bound in the Homeward Bound sense, as Headed or intending to head in a specified direction. Yes, that is what natural selection wants, to survive. It gives you a nervous system so you can sense pain and avoid danger for instance. Harris's morality is subjective in the sense that it is up to us to determine individual or collectively what maximizes well being. It's a scientific approach to morality that takes into account our evolutionary origins as well.
There's a bit of a gap in your logic here. I'll give you the idea that natural selection binds us to moral actions (let's say, for the sake of argument, entirely and universally), but it's an error to assume that we can expand this class of actions with scientific research. The things natural selection binds us to may fit into a certain class (maximizing well-being), but that does not mean we are bound to all actions in that class. Scientific investigation might help us find out more things that maximize well-being, but we are not actually bound (by natural selection, at least) to do these things.
Take a couple examples of moral cases. One example of a moral good from natural selection is feeding starving people. Clearly it's advantageous for a species to give some food to people who are about to die. Now, for a scientifically discovered moral good, let's take the example of stem cell therapies (assume that they work 100%, if you don't mind). It generally increases well-being to take unused stem cells from aborted fetuses or what-have-you (we don't need to do that any more, but this is a half-hypothetical example) and to give those stem cells to Alzheimer's patients/quadraplegics/I don't have any more examples. But we run into a problem after we acknowledge this - a lot of people don't actually approve of stem cell research. Many people don't feel an obligation to support stem cell research, even though it increases well-being, and a few people even actively try to hinder it.
So we can see that even if we might say that natural selection is trying to point us in the direction of a certain class of actions, all it can actually bind us to are things which could be discovered during the evolutionary process (forgive my bad terminology). Natural selection has no way to bind us to things we found out after it's been completed, e.g. any scientific discoveries. There is, of course, another class of argument which could say our inherited inclinations have nothing to do with morality (you can argue this from an objective or a subjective viewpoint), but that's an entirely differently thing.
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."
We are bound to maximizing well-being, that is what natural selection does. That is where it enters the realm of the physical.
That isn't really a coherent idea. What does "bound" mean? "Bound" in the same sense that we are bound to eat food? But certainly this is false - we aren't physically incapable of performing immoral acts.
Do you mean natural selection has somehow placed moral obligations on us that transcend our inclinations?
Bound in the Homeward Bound sense, as Headed or intending to head in a specified direction. Yes, that is what natural selection wants, to survive. It gives you a nervous system so you can sense pain and avoid danger for instance. Harris's morality is subjective in the sense that it is up to us to determine individual or collectively what maximizes well being. It's a scientific approach to morality that takes into account our evolutionary origins as well.
Natural selection wants nothing.
Yes, technically, but natural selection is running simulations that maximize the survival of genes... No?
I dunno. I think you're still talking as if there is some entity called "natural selection" and it has agency. "Natural selection" is just a phrase. It's just a model for explaining certain aspects of biology. The phenomena to which "natural selection" refers has no purpose. It has no goal. It's not wanting or giving or running anything.
No, you misunderstood me. I was simply referring to the fact that natural selection tries to maximize survival. Whether you want to use the term purpose or agency is a matter of semantics.
I may have misunderstood you, but there exists the possibility that you misunderstood me or that we misunderstood one another. At any rate, I don't know how helpful the "you're just talking semantics" tack is at this point.
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."
We are bound to maximizing well-being, that is what natural selection does. That is where it enters the realm of the physical.
That isn't really a coherent idea. What does "bound" mean? "Bound" in the same sense that we are bound to eat food? But certainly this is false - we aren't physically incapable of performing immoral acts.
Do you mean natural selection has somehow placed moral obligations on us that transcend our inclinations?
Bound in the Homeward Bound sense, as Headed or intending to head in a specified direction. Yes, that is what natural selection wants, to survive. It gives you a nervous system so you can sense pain and avoid danger for instance. Harris's morality is subjective in the sense that it is up to us to determine individual or collectively what maximizes well being. It's a scientific approach to morality that takes into account our evolutionary origins as well.
There's a bit of a gap in your logic here. I'll give you the idea that natural selection binds us to moral actions (let's say, for the sake of argument, entirely and universally), but it's an error to assume that we can expand this class of actions with scientific research. The things natural selection binds us to may fit into a certain class (maximizing well-being), but that does not mean we are bound to all actions in that class. Scientific investigation might help us find out more things that maximize well-being, but we are not actually bound (by natural selection, at least) to do these things.
Take a couple examples of moral cases. One example of a moral good from natural selection is feeding starving people. Clearly it's advantageous for a species to give some food to people who are about to die. Now, for a scientifically discovered moral good, let's take the example of stem cell therapies (assume that they work 100%, if you don't mind). It generally increases well-being to take unused stem cells from aborted fetuses or what-have-you (we don't need to do that any more, but this is a half-hypothetical example) and to give those stem cells to Alzheimer's patients/quadraplegics/I don't have any more examples. But we run into a problem after we acknowledge this - a lot of people don't actually approve of stem cell research. Many people don't feel an obligation to support stem cell research, even though it increases well-being, and a few people even actively try to hinder it.
So we can see that even if we might say that natural selection is trying to point us in the direction of a certain class of actions, all it can actually bind us to are things which could be discovered during the evolutionary process (forgive my bad terminology). Natural selection has no way to bind us to things we found out after it's been completed, e.g. any scientific discoveries. There is, of course, another class of argument which could say our inherited inclinations have nothing to do with morality (you can argue this from an objective or a subjective viewpoint), but that's an entirely differently thing.
Again, semantics around the word bound.
Yeah, Lixler, quit bringing your semantics into a philosophical discussion.
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."
We are bound to maximizing well-being, that is what natural selection does. That is where it enters the realm of the physical.
That isn't really a coherent idea. What does "bound" mean? "Bound" in the same sense that we are bound to eat food? But certainly this is false - we aren't physically incapable of performing immoral acts.
Do you mean natural selection has somehow placed moral obligations on us that transcend our inclinations?
Bound in the Homeward Bound sense, as Headed or intending to head in a specified direction. Yes, that is what natural selection wants, to survive. It gives you a nervous system so you can sense pain and avoid danger for instance. Harris's morality is subjective in the sense that it is up to us to determine individual or collectively what maximizes well being. It's a scientific approach to morality that takes into account our evolutionary origins as well.
There's a bit of a gap in your logic here. I'll give you the idea that natural selection binds us to moral actions (let's say, for the sake of argument, entirely and universally), but it's an error to assume that we can expand this class of actions with scientific research. The things natural selection binds us to may fit into a certain class (maximizing well-being), but that does not mean we are bound to all actions in that class. Scientific investigation might help us find out more things that maximize well-being, but we are not actually bound (by natural selection, at least) to do these things.
Take a couple examples of moral cases. One example of a moral good from natural selection is feeding starving people. Clearly it's advantageous for a species to give some food to people who are about to die. Now, for a scientifically discovered moral good, let's take the example of stem cell therapies (assume that they work 100%, if you don't mind). It generally increases well-being to take unused stem cells from aborted fetuses or what-have-you (we don't need to do that any more, but this is a half-hypothetical example) and to give those stem cells to Alzheimer's patients/quadraplegics/I don't have any more examples. But we run into a problem after we acknowledge this - a lot of people don't actually approve of stem cell research. Many people don't feel an obligation to support stem cell research, even though it increases well-being, and a few people even actively try to hinder it.
So we can see that even if we might say that natural selection is trying to point us in the direction of a certain class of actions, all it can actually bind us to are things which could be discovered during the evolutionary process (forgive my bad terminology). Natural selection has no way to bind us to things we found out after it's been completed, e.g. any scientific discoveries. There is, of course, another class of argument which could say our inherited inclinations have nothing to do with morality (you can argue this from an objective or a subjective viewpoint), but that's an entirely differently thing.
Again, semantics around the word bound.
I apologize, but I feel like those semantics are crucial in saying that natural selection establishes any kind of system of morality. What word would you say best fits the relationship between natural selection and morality?
On May 12 2011 07:12 THE_DOMINATOR wrote: Morality is by definition an abstract societal construct. Since morality is only(at the present) created by and used by human beings and since human beings are subjective in nature morality is therefore subjective and only constructed by a subjective mind.
No, morality is, by definition, a concept of right and wrong. Whether it is a societal construct or something much greater than that is the subject of debate.
whoop de doo doesn't change anything in my argument
I think morals are inherently objective, but later on in one's life, they become influenced by the people around them and they start to have more of a subjective view on morals.
On May 12 2011 07:12 THE_DOMINATOR wrote: Morality is by definition an abstract societal construct. Since morality is only(at the present) created by and used by human beings and since human beings are subjective in nature morality is therefore subjective and only constructed by a subjective mind.
Morality is by definition an abstract societal construct.
Not so sure about that.
Since morality is only(at the present) created by and used by human beings
Irrelevant?
human beings are subjective in nature
Since when? I think your computer would have great difficulty processing information if that were true.
since human beings are subjective in nature morality is therefore subjective and only constructed by a subjective mind.
I guess the inference is valid somewhat but your premises are beyond ridiculous. Untenable conclusion.
Build me a physical manifestation of morality and we'll talk
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."
We are bound to maximizing well-being, that is what natural selection does. That is where it enters the realm of the physical.
That isn't really a coherent idea. What does "bound" mean? "Bound" in the same sense that we are bound to eat food? But certainly this is false - we aren't physically incapable of performing immoral acts.
Do you mean natural selection has somehow placed moral obligations on us that transcend our inclinations?
Bound in the Homeward Bound sense, as Headed or intending to head in a specified direction. Yes, that is what natural selection wants, to survive. It gives you a nervous system so you can sense pain and avoid danger for instance. Harris's morality is subjective in the sense that it is up to us to determine individual or collectively what maximizes well being. It's a scientific approach to morality that takes into account our evolutionary origins as well.
Natural selection wants nothing.
Yes, technically, but natural selection is running simulations that maximize the survival of genes... No?
I dunno. I think you're still talking as if there is some entity called "natural selection" and it has agency. "Natural selection" is just a phrase. It's just a model for explaining certain aspects of biology. The phenomena to which "natural selection" refers has no purpose. It has no goal. It's not wanting or giving or running anything.
No, you misunderstood me. I was simply referring to the fact that natural selection tries to maximize survival. Whether you want to use the term purpose or agency is a matter of semantics.
Natural selection in and of itself wants nothing. Just like breathing wants nothing. it is just the description of a process. During natural selection however the most succesfull genes are passed on. If theses involve cooperation, then something like morality is passed on and would be universal. However, the fact that Xenophobia is also part of Human nature and violence is a big part of human history, i would not go so far and state that morality is universal. As we can see in the difference between cultures(Taliban vs. the "Western" culture), where totally different forms of moral exist. This indicates that the form of Moral you follow is subjective, morality in and of itself, if we define it as the ability to create a way that you are supposed to act in, is however universal. Concluding i would reason that the ability to have Moral is universal, but what is acceptable within your form of moral is subjective however. If something about my train of thoughts is unclear, please tell me cause i am not a native speaker so my thoughts might not be understandable
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."
We are bound to maximizing well-being, that is what natural selection does. That is where it enters the realm of the physical.
That isn't really a coherent idea. What does "bound" mean? "Bound" in the same sense that we are bound to eat food? But certainly this is false - we aren't physically incapable of performing immoral acts.
Do you mean natural selection has somehow placed moral obligations on us that transcend our inclinations?
Bound in the Homeward Bound sense, as Headed or intending to head in a specified direction. Yes, that is what natural selection wants, to survive. It gives you a nervous system so you can sense pain and avoid danger for instance. Harris's morality is subjective in the sense that it is up to us to determine individual or collectively what maximizes well being. It's a scientific approach to morality that takes into account our evolutionary origins as well.
There's a bit of a gap in your logic here. I'll give you the idea that natural selection binds us to moral actions (let's say, for the sake of argument, entirely and universally), but it's an error to assume that we can expand this class of actions with scientific research. The things natural selection binds us to may fit into a certain class (maximizing well-being), but that does not mean we are bound to all actions in that class. Scientific investigation might help us find out more things that maximize well-being, but we are not actually bound (by natural selection, at least) to do these things.
Take a couple examples of moral cases. One example of a moral good from natural selection is feeding starving people. Clearly it's advantageous for a species to give some food to people who are about to die. Now, for a scientifically discovered moral good, let's take the example of stem cell therapies (assume that they work 100%, if you don't mind). It generally increases well-being to take unused stem cells from aborted fetuses or what-have-you (we don't need to do that any more, but this is a half-hypothetical example) and to give those stem cells to Alzheimer's patients/quadraplegics/I don't have any more examples. But we run into a problem after we acknowledge this - a lot of people don't actually approve of stem cell research. Many people don't feel an obligation to support stem cell research, even though it increases well-being, and a few people even actively try to hinder it.
So we can see that even if we might say that natural selection is trying to point us in the direction of a certain class of actions, all it can actually bind us to are things which could be discovered during the evolutionary process (forgive my bad terminology). Natural selection has no way to bind us to things we found out after it's been completed, e.g. any scientific discoveries. There is, of course, another class of argument which could say our inherited inclinations have nothing to do with morality (you can argue this from an objective or a subjective viewpoint), but that's an entirely differently thing.
Again, semantics around the word bound.
I apologize, but I feel like those semantics are crucial in saying that natural selection establishes any kind of system of morality. What word would you say best fits the relationship between natural selection and morality?
The relationship is that following certain morals directly affects our behavior, and that behavior directly affects our survival. Ideas concerning morality propagate mainly through indoctrination, but those ideas origins are from human minds. The net effect of those ideas have severe consequences on survival.
If you had to guess if there was a civilization of people who believed its OK to kill children, and a civilization that decided its NOT OK, which one will continue to EXIST? Thus, a simulation is occurring, and TODAY after tens of thousands of years MORALITY is getting FINE-TUNED through natural selection. That is a very extreme example, but we have limited time, but do not underestimate time duration and net effects of morality.
The tricky thing is, do we have to LET NATURAL SELECTION run a simulation to find good morality, or can we do so scientifically. Well first, lets look at what took place in the example above... What is natural selection doing? It is maximizing survival, ie a big part of well-being.
So when I say we are "We are bound to maximizing well-being" perhaps you are closer to understanding the context, aside from the semantics. Keep in mind, there is a reason he uses "maximize well-being" and not "maximize survival". Well-being is more appropriate because it hints at ideas about what helps human flourish in sophisticated contexts, and conditions, or having nervous systems and feelings, and all that jazz built into us on the long journey here... I don't have enough time to go into all of it right now but realize in the end its subjective morality. It is by no means completely objective, you can't explain to an extra terrestrial why its wrong to physically torture if they are in a body that doesn't feel physical pain for some reason (as an extreme example.)
and at the same time its not appropriate to say evolution has nothing to do with morality.
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."
We are bound to maximizing well-being, that is what natural selection does. That is where it enters the realm of the physical.
That isn't really a coherent idea. What does "bound" mean? "Bound" in the same sense that we are bound to eat food? But certainly this is false - we aren't physically incapable of performing immoral acts.
Do you mean natural selection has somehow placed moral obligations on us that transcend our inclinations?
Bound in the Homeward Bound sense, as Headed or intending to head in a specified direction. Yes, that is what natural selection wants, to survive. It gives you a nervous system so you can sense pain and avoid danger for instance. Harris's morality is subjective in the sense that it is up to us to determine individual or collectively what maximizes well being. It's a scientific approach to morality that takes into account our evolutionary origins as well.
There's a bit of a gap in your logic here. I'll give you the idea that natural selection binds us to moral actions (let's say, for the sake of argument, entirely and universally), but it's an error to assume that we can expand this class of actions with scientific research. The things natural selection binds us to may fit into a certain class (maximizing well-being), but that does not mean we are bound to all actions in that class. Scientific investigation might help us find out more things that maximize well-being, but we are not actually bound (by natural selection, at least) to do these things.
Take a couple examples of moral cases. One example of a moral good from natural selection is feeding starving people. Clearly it's advantageous for a species to give some food to people who are about to die. Now, for a scientifically discovered moral good, let's take the example of stem cell therapies (assume that they work 100%, if you don't mind). It generally increases well-being to take unused stem cells from aborted fetuses or what-have-you (we don't need to do that any more, but this is a half-hypothetical example) and to give those stem cells to Alzheimer's patients/quadraplegics/I don't have any more examples. But we run into a problem after we acknowledge this - a lot of people don't actually approve of stem cell research. Many people don't feel an obligation to support stem cell research, even though it increases well-being, and a few people even actively try to hinder it.
So we can see that even if we might say that natural selection is trying to point us in the direction of a certain class of actions, all it can actually bind us to are things which could be discovered during the evolutionary process (forgive my bad terminology). Natural selection has no way to bind us to things we found out after it's been completed, e.g. any scientific discoveries. There is, of course, another class of argument which could say our inherited inclinations have nothing to do with morality (you can argue this from an objective or a subjective viewpoint), but that's an entirely differently thing.
Again, semantics around the word bound.
I apologize, but I feel like those semantics are crucial in saying that natural selection establishes any kind of system of morality. What word would you say best fits the relationship between natural selection and morality?
The relationship is that following certain morals directly affects our behavior, and that behavior directly affects our survival. Ideas concerning morality propagate mainly through indoctrination, but those ideas origins are from human minds. The net effect of those ideas have severe consequences on survival.
If you had to guess if there was a civilization of people who believed its OK to kill children, and a civilization that decided its NOT OK, which one will continue to EXIST? Thus, a simulation is occurring, and TODAY after tens of thousands of years MORALITY is getting FINE-TUNED through natural selection. That is a very extreme example, but we have limited time, but do not underestimate time duration and net effects of morality.
The tricky thing is, do we have to LET NATURAL SELECTION run a simulation to find good morality, or can we do so scientifically. Well first, lets look at what took place in the example above... What is natural selection doing? It is maximizing survival, ie well being.
So when I say we are "We are bound to maximizing well-being" perhaps you are closer to understanding the context, aside from the semantics.
I'm terribly sorry, but I asked you what the relationship was between natural selection and morality. It might look like "morality" and "well-being/survival" mean the same thing, but that assumption is what the argument is about. Why is morality defined by "promoting survival?"
I understand the basic point here - an appeal to morality as a sort of shared concept throughout humanity which was developed through environmental pressures - but I think the question that is being asked is what about that concept of morality makes it "objective?" Subjectivists are trying to ask something like "Why should I do moral actions?" and I don't think the answer "Natural selection has prodded you in that direction" is what they are looking for.
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."
We are bound to maximizing well-being, that is what natural selection does. That is where it enters the realm of the physical.
That isn't really a coherent idea. What does "bound" mean? "Bound" in the same sense that we are bound to eat food? But certainly this is false - we aren't physically incapable of performing immoral acts.
Do you mean natural selection has somehow placed moral obligations on us that transcend our inclinations?
Bound in the Homeward Bound sense, as Headed or intending to head in a specified direction. Yes, that is what natural selection wants, to survive. It gives you a nervous system so you can sense pain and avoid danger for instance. Harris's morality is subjective in the sense that it is up to us to determine individual or collectively what maximizes well being. It's a scientific approach to morality that takes into account our evolutionary origins as well.
There's a bit of a gap in your logic here. I'll give you the idea that natural selection binds us to moral actions (let's say, for the sake of argument, entirely and universally), but it's an error to assume that we can expand this class of actions with scientific research. The things natural selection binds us to may fit into a certain class (maximizing well-being), but that does not mean we are bound to all actions in that class. Scientific investigation might help us find out more things that maximize well-being, but we are not actually bound (by natural selection, at least) to do these things.
Take a couple examples of moral cases. One example of a moral good from natural selection is feeding starving people. Clearly it's advantageous for a species to give some food to people who are about to die. Now, for a scientifically discovered moral good, let's take the example of stem cell therapies (assume that they work 100%, if you don't mind). It generally increases well-being to take unused stem cells from aborted fetuses or what-have-you (we don't need to do that any more, but this is a half-hypothetical example) and to give those stem cells to Alzheimer's patients/quadraplegics/I don't have any more examples. But we run into a problem after we acknowledge this - a lot of people don't actually approve of stem cell research. Many people don't feel an obligation to support stem cell research, even though it increases well-being, and a few people even actively try to hinder it.
So we can see that even if we might say that natural selection is trying to point us in the direction of a certain class of actions, all it can actually bind us to are things which could be discovered during the evolutionary process (forgive my bad terminology). Natural selection has no way to bind us to things we found out after it's been completed, e.g. any scientific discoveries. There is, of course, another class of argument which could say our inherited inclinations have nothing to do with morality (you can argue this from an objective or a subjective viewpoint), but that's an entirely differently thing.
Again, semantics around the word bound.
I apologize, but I feel like those semantics are crucial in saying that natural selection establishes any kind of system of morality. What word would you say best fits the relationship between natural selection and morality?
The relationship is that following certain morals directly affects our behavior, and that behavior directly affects our survival. Ideas concerning morality propagate mainly through indoctrination, but those ideas origins are from human minds. The net effect of those ideas have severe consequences on survival.
If you had to guess if there was a civilization of people who believed its OK to kill children, and a civilization that decided its NOT OK, which one will continue to EXIST? Thus, a simulation is occurring, and TODAY after tens of thousands of years MORALITY is getting FINE-TUNED through natural selection. That is a very extreme example, but we have limited time, but do not underestimate time duration and net effects of morality.
The tricky thing is, do we have to LET NATURAL SELECTION run a simulation to find good morality, or can we do so scientifically. Well first, lets look at what took place in the example above... What is natural selection doing? It is maximizing survival, ie well being.
So when I say we are "We are bound to maximizing well-being" perhaps you are closer to understanding the context, aside from the semantics.
I'm terribly sorry, but I asked you what the relationship was between natural selection and morality. It might look like "morality" and "well-being/survival" mean the same thing, but that assumption is what the argument is about. Why is morality defined by "promoting survival?"
I understand the basic point here - an appeal to morality as a sort of shared concept throughout humanity which was developed through environmental pressures - but I think the question that is being asked is what about that concept of morality makes it "objective?" Subjectivists are trying to ask something like "Why should I do moral actions?" and I don't think the answer "Natural selection has prodded you in that direction" is what they are looking for.
There is no reason you should NOT personally kill, steal, lie, or decide as a dictator (instead of democratically) that you will create an Orwellian society, but after the shit hits the wall, the cards turn, the dice settle, whatever, certain things will EXIST or NOT EXIST. Since you happen to live in a world full of life that is billions of years old you reap the benefits of the blind watchmaker. However, what exactly are you trying to avoid by not walking into a bank and robbing it, what environmental pressures are you avoiding?
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."
We are bound to maximizing well-being, that is what natural selection does. That is where it enters the realm of the physical.
That isn't really a coherent idea. What does "bound" mean? "Bound" in the same sense that we are bound to eat food? But certainly this is false - we aren't physically incapable of performing immoral acts.
Do you mean natural selection has somehow placed moral obligations on us that transcend our inclinations?
Bound in the Homeward Bound sense, as Headed or intending to head in a specified direction. Yes, that is what natural selection wants, to survive. It gives you a nervous system so you can sense pain and avoid danger for instance. Harris's morality is subjective in the sense that it is up to us to determine individual or collectively what maximizes well being. It's a scientific approach to morality that takes into account our evolutionary origins as well.
Natural selection wants nothing.
Yes, technically, but natural selection is running simulations that maximize the survival of genes... No?
I dunno. I think you're still talking as if there is some entity called "natural selection" and it has agency. "Natural selection" is just a phrase. It's just a model for explaining certain aspects of biology. The phenomena to which "natural selection" refers has no purpose. It has no goal. It's not wanting or giving or running anything.
No, you misunderstood me. I was simply referring to the fact that natural selection tries to maximize survival. Whether you want to use the term purpose or agency is a matter of semantics.
Natural selection in and of itself wants nothing. Just like breathing wants nothing. it is just the description of a process. During natural selection however the most succesfull genes are passed on. If theses involve cooperation, then something like morality is passed on and would be universal. However, the fact that Xenophobia is also part of Human nature and violence is a big part of human history, i would not go so far and state that morality is universal. As we can see in the difference between cultures(Taliban vs. the "Western" culture), where totally different forms of moral exist. This indicates that the form of Moral you follow is subjective, morality in and of itself, if we define it as the ability to create a way that you are supposed to act in, is however universal. Concluding i would reason that the ability to have Moral is universal, but what is acceptable within your form of moral is subjective however. If something about my train of thoughts is unclear, please tell me cause i am not a native speaker so my thoughts might not be understandable
We agree with eachother! Wonderful!
Again, it was a semantic problem. When I say "natural selection wants to survive" you certainly were incapable of understanding the context. I thought it was pretty obvious to anyone who understood evolution. I didn't mean it in the "natural selection wants a diet coke" sense. I'll make sure I'm more clear next time, akay?
I actually find this definition of morality by natural selection and possibly scientific research quite scary... Do you actually think the world is entirely determined? That I have actually no liberty? If you don't you cannot hold on this position. Actually, proposing that *eventually* moral will be *perfected* goes even beyond science and puts back a real finality of the world and moreover a finality that would be of human nature. This is just shifting from "God made the Man to rule the world " to "Natural Selection slowly perfect the Man so that he eventually rules it". I personally think that all this should be considered neutral and random. That's for the deeper implications of what you propose.
But actually let's admit it for a second and look at what moral you propose : eventually, you have a world of robot that acts "according to what has been shown working". Science has these two limitations : first it cannot actually help me in my personal dilemma as its rules are general and second if it actually reaches its goal, there is no humanity left. Just mechanics
Mandrakel
PS: I wont quote every single quotation, it would be ridiculous, the "you" I'm criticizing is whoever feels that Nature has a finality and that we should find the rules of *human actions* in *nature's direction*
OK, here is why Sam Harris uses the term maximize well-being instead of maximize survival. BECAUSE the term well-being is subjective. He leaves it up to us to determine what our well-being is, which natural selection origins would determine as survival being an influence.
On an overview we know morality is conduct between parties, so that brings in the picture of the collective. Now - what maximizes well being for the collective? It has to be a democratic process and subjective inherently.
I'll first actually agree with the well-being thing if this is close to what Spinoza or Nietzsche stated in there own work. Some kind of an aim to be as "awesome" as possible (I genuinely think that "awesome" is a legitimate term if you take aside some the Barney-stinsonism that has colored it)
I however find it quite interesting that you ultimately give a definition of well-being that is ours (democracy). And in my opinion it reflects the final problem of this position : it ultimately aims at stagnation. And I will not agree with this because, and I have Bergson, Nietzsche, Spinoza and Arendt by my side as I say it : life is movement and change. How convenient is it that democracy happens to be *the* good system... I'm not saying that I am against democracy at the moment but seeing how history is moving especially these days, saying that the system in itself is "the one" lies more in the realm of faith than in that of rationality.
Two centuries ago, democracy *was* the solution to the problems of human society. I think that the moral thing to do is to look for *new* solution which might not be democracy or might be a totally changed,reformed democracy. I am not per se against what your Sam Harris (that I have not [yet] had time to fully listen at) but against any ethnocentrical idea that ,whether it be grounded on god, survival, well-being or pokemons, we have reached a final achievement or ever will. The next solution will bring new problems that we have to be delt with and so on.
On May 12 2011 20:07 Mandrakel wrote: I'll first actually agree with the well-being thing if this is close to what Spinoza or Nietzsche stated in there own work. Some kind of an aim to be as "awesome" as possible (I genuinely think that "awesome" is a legitimate term if you take aside some the Barney-stinsonism that has colored it)
I however find it quite interesting that you ultimately give a definition of well-being that is ours (democracy). And in my opinion it reflects the final problem of this position : it ultimately aims at stagnation. And I will not agree with this because, and I have Bergson, Nietzsche, Spinoza and Arendt by my side as I say it : life is movement and change. How convenient is it that democracy happens to be *the* good system... I'm not saying that I am against democracy at the moment but seeing how history is moving especially these days, saying that the system in itself is "the one" lies more in the realm of faith than in that of rationality.
Two centuries ago, democracy *was* the solution to the problems of human society. I think that the moral thing to do is to look for *new* solution which might not be democracy or might be a totally changed,reformed democracy. I am not per se against what your Sam Harris (that I have not [yet] had time to fully listen at) but against any ethnocentrical idea that ,whether it be grounded on god, survival, well-being or pokemons, we have reached a final achievement or ever will. The next solution will bring new problems that we have to be delt with and so on.
Morals (morality) are just personal conduct. We can decide our goal is to maximize well-being (subjective) for the individual TO THE collective (spectrum.) However, since conduct is a personal decision, all we can really do is spread awareness or promote certain ideas on morality. Also science would be concerned about the process of DISCOVERY in KNOWLEDGE not DICTATING morals like a 1984.
Now if you get into other questions like "What is the purpose of life?" in the context of morality then its actually as bad as asking "What is the purpose of a mountain?" and more unrelated "What is the color of jealousy?" It turns out just because you can phrase something in the form of a question it doesn't mean it deserves an answer.
OK, here is why Sam Harris uses the term maximize well-being instead of maximize survival. BECAUSE the term well-being is subjective. He leaves it up to us to determine what our well-being is, which natural selection origins would determine as survival being an influence.
Wrong, he uses well beeing because he speaks of the state in which that human is what he means is the sum of his/her physical mental and emotional health. Survival only has 2 states alive or dead.
Morality is something objective there is no doubt to that, just as a human beeing is something objective, however the opinion and our perception of it is completely subjective, every1 sees it in a different way.
Why's democracy even in the discussion i wonder, not like there aren't perfectly functional moral societies that don't use it, political systems have no role to play in morality, it's the political leader who does. Be it an "enlightened" dictator, democracy or hell knows what.
OK, here is why Sam Harris uses the term maximize well-being instead of maximize survival. BECAUSE the term well-being is subjective. He leaves it up to us to determine what our well-being is, which natural selection origins would determine as survival being an influence.
Wrong, he uses well beeing because he speaks of the state in which that human is what he means is the sum of his/her physical mental and emotional health. Survival only has 2 states alive or dead.
Morality is something objective there is no doubt to that, just as a human beeing is something objective, however the opinion and our perception of it is completely subjective, every1 sees it in a different way.
Why's democracy even in the discussion i wonder, not like there aren't perfectly functional moral societies that don't use it, political systems have no role to play in morality, it's the political leader who does. Be it an "enlightened" dictator, democracy or hell knows what.
You said its both objective and subjective in the same post.
On May 12 2011 17:38 Jameser wrote: morality is obviously subjective by definition
ethics however can be constructed to have an arbitrary set of laws, in which case it can become objective
If it's constructed with a set of laws made by humans, how can it be objective? Name one ethical rule that you consider objective (not that you consider should be but which actually is).
On another note. If murder is ethically wrong and an objective moral rule, why do we have death penalty and euthanasia and self defense and how come the interpretation can be so skewed that some see them as different things? Could it be because it's just an opinion that murder is wrong or that death penalty is murder or that euthanasia is murder? Under than same rule wars are wrong yet all soldiers are taught is how to kill more efficiently, and they've been taught that since the beginning of time. Then how can murder be wrong when it's considered good in so many cases.
Ethics are just the way societies find to manage to live in groups, the ones with influence just make up what they think is right or wrong and force it on everyone else.
What is objective is that you either find ways to live in society or are thrown out (in one way or another). I have never felt I have rules imposed, I just have to behave in such a way as to not piss other people off or find ways to avoid them altogether.
i think many people dont get what "objective" means, someone should give a definition or else this thread is going nowhere
and second, people should not mix things up, only cause death penalty exists in the USA or any unmoral thing exist anywhere does not mean there is no moral code or its wrong.
I think it`s objective, because even if you believe its the right thing to do, doesn`t make it the right thing to do. Like for example, Nazi Germany. Many German Nazi`s sincerely believed that they were doing the world a great justice by killing Jews, but that does not change the fact that they believed in and committed murder.
On May 12 2011 21:01 Cyba wrote: Do not harm others just because you feel like it.
Sounds like a sound example.
Not exactly a rule. There's plenty of people that feel pleasure in harming others/feel good when they show the little guy who's tougher. I think this one is one of the least worthy of being called objective. At this point I wouldn't even agree on "Do not kill others just because you feel like it." considering some of the war time clips you get to see about recent wars. When you see people enjoying killing, yeah, no chance.
On May 12 2011 21:23 MeteorRise wrote: I think it`s objective, because even if you believe its the right thing to do, doesn`t make it the right thing to do. Like for example, Nazi Germany. Many German Nazi`s sincerely believed that they were doing the world a great justice by killing Jews, but that does not change the fact that they believed in and committed murder.
What? No. For one we think they committed murder, they didn't, your word against theirs and trust me, currently your word is better only because you/we won. For another I do not see killing someone as wrong, I mean I wouldn't do it but for humanity it doesn't really seem to be something wrong.
I think it's mostly objective, but somewhat subjective. Numerous experiments have been done with people from all over the world, religious people, non-religious people, people from remote tribes etc. and they all broadly have the same moral system. There are Darwinian reasons for altruism and morality.
On May 12 2011 21:23 MeteorRise wrote: I think it`s objective, because even if you believe its the right thing to do, doesn`t make it the right thing to do. Like for example, Nazi Germany. Many German Nazi`s sincerely believed that they were doing the world a great justice by killing Jews, but that does not change the fact that they believed in and committed murder.
Which is, in fact, a great example of why morality is subjective: they believed they were doing the right thing. We believe they were doing the wrong thing. We also think that their framework of morality (and justifying beliefs) is flawed, but the only way we can say that is by comparing it to our own framework of morality. If there is a "true morality" how can we distinguish it from all the different "false moralities" that various cultures (or individuals) use to varying degrees of success (and justify in completely rational ways).
I won't go into the semiotics of morality in general (and whether it even exists), or the evolution of morality (which in my opinion is the only way of even discussing "universal" morality and you will soon see that there is a human-wide set of ethics which are evolutionary "good ideas", but this is not even species-wide, let alone valid for other species): this thread already contains ample discussion from both sides on the matter and you should read it (or rather, read the work by actual philosophers who worded it much better, but aren't as easily accessible as the posts in this thread ).
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.
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.
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."
That's all the golden rule is.
Did you happen to catch my response to your slavery argument? I'd like to hear your response if I could, since I did think you made a good point. I'm still not convinced that societies have diverged so vastly in their morals over history as you claim.
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.
Well, you just stating that doesn't worry me.
Depending on how you define it and depending on if it is the golden, silver or platinum version, humans seem to be genetically prepositioned to them, according to scientists that do measurements as opposed to people like Nietzsche that just say whatever they want to say, without any constraints.
I suspect this is one of the cases like with pedagogy when a very large majority of the population takes a view that strongly opposes the scientific consensus because of gut feeling. There people don't accept animals and humans don't learn through positive and negative reinforcement when those in the field that supported those theories actually themselves proved it was wrong after the field as a whole already moved on.
I remember FakeSteve here once banning people because they called him out on his support for beating children.
Also, I have observed how you debate, VIB, it is my opinion you can't debate constructively.
Many of our genetic and evoltionary traits are considered immoral across many conceptions on what is "moral", to build a justification for *edit objective * morality based upon our genetic or evolutionary predispositions, would justify a selfish, brutish and deplorable form of morality.
Or at least a form of morality that many would describe as such, however as is blatantly obvious to anyone who is prepared to think about this issue without falling prey to the delusion of hope, or preffering something because it seems nicer to them, morality is by its nature, as a human invention, subjective and can never be more so, no matter how stringently we define it.
As I was one who brought up genetics and morality, that's not at all what I am saying.
First off all, can you show us something that the genes would promote and that can't be shown to be immoral in other ways?
Secondly, the genetics part is important because of what exactly is human nature. If we talk about if humans should have the universal right of democracy of creativity of free speech, this has all to do with human nature. A strong argument right now can already be made that a democratic society is more compatible with human nature than any other one.
That genes in humans resulted in undemocratic societies is something else. Just because a dictator hungers for power and becomes corrupted by it doesn't mean the society as a whole is more compatible with human nature. We can see that war is universal to humans. So are hereditary monarchies. But we also know both individuals and societies as a whole are better off in a different kind of society. This doesn't ignore genetics at all. Also we know civilization can overrule primitive instinct just fine.
Also, humans have a contradiction of morality within them that it needs to solve. The trick is ingroup and outgroup, which is well studied in humans and chimps. Outgroup are not considered humans, which of course is factually false, and this helps humans lift the moral constraints that are there.
Well, you point to no real sources. That google link tells me nothing. Of course there are a few scientists who believe in some sort of objective moral, but that doesn't make it any more scientific than your sentiments about listening to your heart to find the answer.
I asked about your definitions about morality and ethics because it's really strange to call one of them subjective and the other objective. They are so closely related that it really doesn't make any sense. You also never explained it and I still don't see any arguments for your position at all nor why my arguments were wrong.
The arguments I see are: 1) scholars say it, 2) it makes moral values arbitrary (which doesn't relate to the question of if it is arbitrary) 3) Humans are genetically predispositioned to things (genetical predisposition = morals? reason? "It is understood and doesn't have to be explained") , and yet you talk about fallacies?
Also subjective morals =/= complete relativism. I still buy the concept of a world that objectively exists. It's morals that was created by humans.
edit: saw you tried to explain the last one. Science, Ingroup / outgroup etc as the anwser., do you really think it's possible to do any kind of real quantative analysis of human behaviour at such a level that it would be able to predict 'good' outcomes for entire societies? Even if we were able to make such an analysis we would still need to put a subjective question to analyse it. And apart from that I can tell you for sure that science is nowhere close to that. Also you argument doesn't even appear to be about morals anymore, but about how objective science can be.
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.
Hmm, I understand better now. But accepting subjective equality would result in chaos unless some core principles are applied. And objective morality wouldn't fit to every situation.
I'll admit I didn't read much of the thread so I apologize in advance if this was already discussed. The terms subjective and objective are equally true and equally relevant, similar to how the color terms "black" and "white" can be used to describe a greyscale picture. No man is an island and even if Descartes is right humans are social creatures at the core. Moral is neither something for every man to decide for himself nor does it origin from an all knowing god, moral is decided upon between humans beings - moral is social.
If moral was anything but social it wouldn't be worth talking about, it wouldn't be regulated in law and we wouldn't even need the word "moral" to describe the phenomenon. I'll even go so far as to say that if we didn't have morals we wouldn't be social creatures at all, without a basic rule set which helps us interact with each other and organize ourselves any group efforts would just break down. That is just what moral is, a socially decided upon set of rules that guides interaction between people.
Yes, morality is subjective: it depends on who and where you are (and what rules your group use). Yes, morality is objective: it must be fashioned after constraints from the reality of being human.
On May 12 2011 13:20 VIB wrote: If we lived a few centuries ago. YOU would be telling slavery is obviously moral and how can anyone possibly disagree with that? Everyone knows slavery good. Well, except the black, but they're not really people.
You only think things are moral because you were taught that way. Were you taught different, you would think differently.
What I perceive you to be saying is that morals change in accordance to personally held beliefs. That may be true in a sense, but it still does not advance your argument much. Why? Because while beliefs might direct morals, they don't change their internal character. Hopefully I can explain this in a way that makes sense:
It's interesting that you mention "well, except the black, but they're not really people". That's a "belief" in the sense that I mentioned above; the belief that slaves were not people and hence not deserving of any moral consideration. Surely though, while the slave-owners held slaves, they still held a moral code in relation to one another? For instance, slave-owners might have thought slaves were not people, but they would still abide by the moral command that one cannot make a slave of anyone they wished. They knew that stealing another's slaves was wrong. Again, these are just a few examples. What I'm basically trying to say is that an objective morality did indeed function even amongst them, it was just not believed to apply to a slave. And indeed, isn't the key driver of the emancipation proclamation and its subsequent developments through the civil rights movement the very realization that slaves were in fact people? Once the mistaken belief was taken out of the way, slavery and racism towards blacks ceased to be morally acceptable.
In all of this, has any damage been done to the morally objective idea that we should treat others as we should treat ourselves? Slavery appears to be more of a result of a mistaken and regrettable belief in who should be included in the definition of "others". If we lived in a world where we could be served by robots, we would see no moral deficit in exploiting them because we believe they aren't people. I believe this type of logic was unfortunately adopted by slave-owners at those times. To think of them as people would be as ridiculous as us today thinking of robots as people. But that does not mean that morality in general has changed.
You speak of the economic reasons behind the abolition of slavery. Now, I'm no expert, and what you're saying could very well be true. Perhaps the real motivation driving those in power to release the slaves was to turn them into consumers. Does this, however, explain the popular support in the North for Negroes during that period? Were those people who "woke up" and realized blacks were no different from them similarly motivated by such insidious aspirations? Did the whites who risked their lives in the underground railroad or rose up and joined the marches during the MLK era have anything to gain? Your economic example only goes so far--economics may change the face of society for those who stand to gain, but it does nothing to explain away the moral attitude of a public that does not similarly benefit.
I mentioned before the difference between convention and morality. I believe slavery was a convention: a practice guided by a mistaken belief. It has nothing to do with objective morality, which are the principles that exist independent of our individual beliefs. Show me a true example of a society that upholds deviant morals. Show me a society that praises treachery, celebrates cowards, encourages people to deceive each other, or rejoices when a man rejects everyone who has ever been kind to him.
I don't think we can move forward in this argument. It's just a matter of semantics. I constructed my argument that morals are subjective based on what I think most people's definition of the word "morality" is. According to that definition. Morality is all that tells you wheter slavery is bad or not. And since that changed through history, therefore morality isn't universal. It's pretty simple.
But then you come and say "your argument makes sense, BUT that's not what I think morality is". Well, if you don't think that's what morality is, then you don't think that's what morality is. Nothing I can do about.
I think any naming is subjective. Language is subjective. It's just words, it means whatever you want. If morality means that for you. Then morality means that for you. I'm not gonna argue that you're wrong. All I can say is that your definition of the word is different from the one I was using. We can't compare apples to oranges.
Morality is purely subjective. The wrong next step after thinking that morality is subjective is to believe that this implies that rape, murder, and other heinous thing become okay under certain circumstances. This is not the correct conclusion.
I highly recommend this video for this topic:
The bottom of the line falls down to evidence. To claim that morality comes from something that isn't us implies that this other entity exists, but I see no real evidence for that. Occam's razor would then lead me to believe that morality is subjective.
On May 13 2011 06:00 Cenecia wrote: Morality is purely subjective. The wrong next step after thinking that morality is subjective is to believe that this implies that rape, murder, and other heinous thing become okay under certain circumstances. This is not the correct conclusion.
So morality is purely subjective, but some actions are objectively immoral.
On May 13 2011 06:00 Cenecia wrote: Morality is purely subjective. The wrong next step after thinking that morality is subjective is to believe that this implies that rape, murder, and other heinous thing become okay under certain circumstances. This is not the correct conclusion.
So morality is purely subjective, but some actions are objectively immoral.
This thread gets more lol with every post.
That's not what I meant at all. I meant that these things just very likely will never be okay, let alone moral. Think about everything you know about life on Earth. When would these things ever become okay? Likely never. Does that mean that they are objectively immoral? No. The subjectivity is that you are a human being contemplating your current understanding of life.
On May 13 2011 06:00 Cenecia wrote: Morality is purely subjective. The wrong next step after thinking that morality is subjective is to believe that this implies that rape, murder, and other heinous thing become okay under certain circumstances. This is not the correct conclusion.
So morality is purely subjective, but some actions are objectively immoral.
This thread gets more lol with every post.
That's not what I meant at all. I meant that these things just very likely will never be okay, let alone moral. Think about everything you know about life on Earth. When would these things ever become okay? Likely never. Does that mean that they are objectively immoral? No. The subjectivity is that you are a human being contemplating your current understanding of life.
Someone who chooses to subjectively deny the existence of morality would reach the conclusion that ANY action is "okay." In fact, it would render the notion of something being "okay" and "not okay" completely meaningless.
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.
If it's objective it's genetically coded.
If it's subjective it has to do with your upbringing and the values of society.
That's where "morality comes from".
__________________
Anyway, I definently believe there's a moral core ingrained in us that we are born with but not only can it be "overwritten" while growing up by the way society shapes us but I also believe there's basically morality added to the core, making it more complete (stemming from society). Oh, and there's this thing called compassion (sympathy) - might want to ponder that for a while.
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.
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)
Ok, I see what you're getting at. These quotes leave no doubt that you're right that Nietzsche wouldn't want to agree with Harris at all. Point taken... especially in regard to the primacy of art and wisdom over "mundane" gratification.
However, in regard to Nietzsche I still think it is important to note the difference between fostering somebody else's well-being (which Nietzsche rejects because it robs the person of their chance to do it themselves - for example in your quote from BGE 270, Nietzsche is arguing against compassion (Mitleid) and the unmanliness of Christian values and culture, if I'm not totally mistaken) and promoting your own well-being - which, according to Nietzsche, isn't a virtue by itself, but incidentally coincides with the goal of the "will to power". So, while well-being surely is not an end to Nietzsche's thoughts on morals, overcoming obstacles for the sake of empowerment will still eventually lead to well-being... the trick is to become well by denying it a target.
Edit: On second thought, even though he would contradict himself, Nietzsche would probably still agree with Harris... just to piss off religious functionaries.
On May 13 2011 05:23 VIB wrote: I don't think we can move forward in this argument. It's just a matter of semantics. I constructed my argument that morals are subjective based on what I think most people's definition of the word "morality" is. According to that definition. Morality is all that tells you wheter slavery is bad or not. And since that changed through history, therefore morality isn't universal. It's pretty simple.
But then you come and say "your argument makes sense, BUT that's not what I think morality is". Well, if you don't think that's what morality is, then you don't think that's what morality is. Nothing I can do about.
I think any naming is subjective. Language is subjective. It's just words, it means whatever you want. If morality means that for you. Then morality means that for you. I'm not gonna argue that you're wrong. All I can say is that your definition of the word is different from the one I was using. We can't compare apples to oranges.
That makes sense to me. If you're defining subjective morality in that way, then I agree with you that morality (in your sense) is very much guided by things like politics, economics and fashion. My definition of morality is much more basic and fundamental--it's more along the lines of things like the cardinal virtues. Anyways, thanks for taking the time to read at least.
Craig is a professional debater. Harris is a scientist. For a scientist not to 'lose' a debate against a professional debater, she or he needs to be a bad scientist.
That Harris lost the debate only speaks in his favour.
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.
Harris and Craig are nobodies in the bigger picture of things. Nietzsche and Dostoevsky have much better dialogues in their own writings. On a less grand and more contemporary scale, Alvin Plantinga and David Bentley Hart have some good thoughts on those who would try and attach morality to health and pleasure (which is at time a very sickenning project).
A Random Speculation: The debate between objective morals and subjective morals has no importance unless it is also a debate about immortality and justice. Here is why I say this:
If human beings cease to exist forever more at death then I believe the following is true: If say the human race is to become extinct in a couple million years it will not matter in any moral or teleological sense of the word that Jews were gassed in the holocost, that children were abused by their parents, and other such atrocities. Atoms were simply interacting with oneother in predetermined ways due to arbitrary natural laws, and most importantly no one would be conscious of any moral dimension to history and life and so it wouldn't matter because literally no one would care because literally no one will exist.
On the other hand we can consider the main alternative: The Judeo-Christian view that human beings were intended to exist forever enjoying eachother, creation, and the creator. Actions continue to matter because people continue to exist in relation to one another and to God. Actions in the past will be brought to justice and virtue exalted. If people were to live together forever without justice morality wouldn't matter only power would.
I am not in this post arguing for one view or the other, simply laying out the idea that the argument about objective morality has always seemed to me like an argument about immortality and justice.
If you ask me both Nietzsche and Dostoevsky only tried to deliberately distort the debate on this issue. Both were fiction writers are nothing more. Modern philosophers shouldn't generally be respected, but by acting either of them were philosophers you give them way too much credit.
As for the Harris and Craig debate. There is no universal disputable definition of what morality is. Defining what morality is already answers what is moral and what is immoral. The question is what morality is.
Harris his answer is in terms of well-being of conscious entities.
Craig his answer is that good is what god wants and bad is what god doesn't want and that what is free from free will happens because it is part of god's plan and therefore good.
Sava Fischer, as for your argument, why do you think future events are more important than past events when it comes to morality. You believe suffering that has happened in the past becomes 'unsuffered' when time passes on? This is silly. We think we know the universe will expand into complete nothingness. The works of Bach will one day be gone. But you really think they have no value? You really think that it matters how much we value let's say the fugues of Bach depending on if dark energy beats out gravity 5 billion years from now?
Suffering is real no matter if there is evidence left for it at the end. If you truly believe this line of argument then when you can wipe out all evidence of a murder, it is no longer immoral because retrospectively the suffering of the victim and violation of human rights no longer happened.
On May 13 2011 09:18 Suisen wrote: If you ask me both Nietzsche and Dostoevsky only tried to deliberately distort the debate on this issue. Both were fiction writers are nothing more. Modern philosophers shouldn't generally be respected, but by acting either of them were philosophers you give them way too much credit.
As for the Harris and Craig debate. There is no universal disputable definition of what morality is. Defining what morality is already answers what is moral and what is immoral. The question is what morality is.
Harris his answer is in terms of well-being of conscious entities.
Craig his answer is that good is what god wants and bad is what god doesn't want and that what is free from free will happens because it is part of god's plan and therefore good.
Sava Fischer, as for your argument, why do you think future events are more important than past events when it comes to morality. You believe suffering that has happened in the past becomes 'unsuffered' when time passes on? This is silly. We think we know the universe will expand into complete nothingness. The works of Bach will one day be gone. But you really think they have no value? You really think that it matters how much we value let's say the fugues of Bach depending on if dark energy beats out gravity 5 billion years from now?
Suffering is real no matter if there is evidence left for it at the end. If you truly believe this line of argument then when you can wipe out all evidence of a murder, it is no longer immoral because retrospectively the suffering of the victim and violation of human rights no longer happened.
I never said nor do I believe that suffering that has happened in the past becomes "unsuffered." It simply doesn't matter anymore. The only beings it mattered to will be gone and with the them the feelings and thoughts they associated with the sufferings of themselves and other. If indeed beings who appreciate Bach's music become extinct, they will no longer have value. Because no one would be ascribing any value to them. What does a carbon atom care for Bach? Nothing. You are misunderstanding my point. What is a violation of a human right? What is a human right? Is it like gravity? Or is it a mass of opinions held by people who exist in certain times and places who desire people be treated in certain ways? The authority of morality and human rights exists only insofar as beings can enforce them (unless you want to talk about a platonic/Christian sense of morality in which evil is a privation of being).
I 100% agree that suffering is real whether or not people know about it. I never said it isn't real. It simply isn't important if no one exists to care about it. If the person who suffered is dead and so is everyone who could potentially care for the well-being of another human are dead, no one would care so it wouldn't be important.
If you want my personal belief, I think people will continue to exist in a meaningful sense so Bach's music and the suffering of others will forever be important or matter.
Also calling Nietzsche and Dostoevsky "only fiction writers nothing more" is one of the best ways to communicate to people two things: 1. That you have never seriously read either of them. 2. You are self-important and not very smart (Nietzsche didn't even write fiction, he was a philologist (classicist).
On May 13 2011 09:18 Suisen wrote: If you ask me both Nietzsche and Dostoevsky only tried to deliberately distort the debate on this issue. Both were fiction writers are nothing more. Modern philosophers shouldn't generally be respected, but by acting either of them were philosophers you give them way too much credit.
As for the Harris and Craig debate. There is no universal disputable definition of what morality is. Defining what morality is already answers what is moral and what is immoral. The question is what morality is.
Harris his answer is in terms of well-being of conscious entities.
Craig his answer is that good is what god wants and bad is what god doesn't want and that what is free from free will happens because it is part of god's plan and therefore good.
Sava Fischer, as for your argument, why do you think future events are more important than past events when it comes to morality. You believe suffering that has happened in the past becomes 'unsuffered' when time passes on? This is silly. We think we know the universe will expand into complete nothingness. The works of Bach will one day be gone. But you really think they have no value? You really think that it matters how much we value let's say the fugues of Bach depending on if dark energy beats out gravity 5 billion years from now?
Suffering is real no matter if there is evidence left for it at the end. If you truly believe this line of argument then when you can wipe out all evidence of a murder, it is no longer immoral because retrospectively the suffering of the victim and violation of human rights no longer happened.
Sava's point is more of why suffering is wrong/morality in general. He's making the point that if there is no consciousness, there is no meaning for morality.
The Judeo-Christian view then is that conscious grounding of morality is in God/immortal humans, allowing it to be significant regardless of the time that passes.
However, there are other points. Morality can be objective, like the Earth-Sun distance, but still change with time, or have no impact on you.
The big problem with objective morality is how it impacts our lives. In a purely naturalistic explanation of the universe, "morality" can only be 'those set of social rules most likely to be followed by a species that continues to exist'. Which means there is no Reason to follow it. You probably will follow it, because that "morality" will probably be forced on you thrrough social and genetic programming. And it is objective, but it is not "good" it is only "what is" ie might makes right.
In any of the in any part non-naturalistic explanations of the universe, something like consciousness has an independent identity, and can therefore things like purpose/should/good have real meanings. And that morality then has a potential way to impact you.
Let me ask you this. In a purely naturalistic world view, can universal objective and transcendental laws of logic exist? Are they more than just human concepts? Do they exist without humans?
If your answer is 'yes', why is morality different? If your answer is 'no', how can you have naturalism without logical principles you can trust?
On May 13 2011 10:01 Suisen wrote: Let me ask you this. In a purely naturalistic world view, can universal objective and transcendental laws of logic exist? Are they more than just human concepts? Do they exist without humans?
If your answer is 'yes', why is morality different? If your answer is 'no', how can you have naturalism without logical principles you can trust?
"laws of logic" are how we Understand things.
the "Law of gravity" does not keep the planets orbiting, because the "law of gravity" is just a human concept various bits of matter alter space-time or emit gravitons or something (we don't know for sure yet) happens and we describe the result using Our "law of gravity".
So in a purely naturalistic system "morality" does not exist. "Morals" are just our way to describe describe our own reactions to other humans interactions. Our interactions, disgust, shunning punishment, praise, reward, etc. are what is actually happening.
If We are purely naturalistic, then the "Law of gravity" "freedom" "morality" "algebra" "French grammar" is just an association of neural impulses. Now those associations of neural impulses have big effects on our own associations of neural impulses. But the interaction is all the "reality" those things have.
So a purely naturalistic system is definitely possible without "logic". (of course a purely naturalistic system might also cease to exist, just because it did)
I am confused why you switched the argument to gravity because then in my view it destroys my argument and turns it into a straw man.
Do you really believe logic is a physical force that operates on objects like like gravity does? Because I don't think logic and gravity are the same. I think logic and morality are the same. The law of gravity is physical and part of the universe. The laws of logic is not physical and not constrained by the universe.
Also, morality is not how we respond to human interactions. Morality is what is good and what is bad. The question is if a judgment on what is good and bad is purely a personal opinion that has no objective value or if there are universal principles we all agree on exactly because they are universal. If morality is subjective there is no basis to dispute someone else's ethical behavior because then each ethical system is just as good as any other.
Sava Fischer, do you really believe humans are immortal? I assumed it was an argument ad absurdum. It ought to be.
Nietzsche did write fiction. Maybe you didn't read them. Also, I never said their works are meritless. I said that both distorted a honest debate about morality. And both probably did deliberately. Both were mentally ill. I don't think we should look up to mentally ill people to authorities of morality because we know that one trait of mentally ill people is that their sense of morality is distorted.
On May 13 2011 10:27 Bidu wrote: The fact that this is an arguement proves that morality is subjective in that were morality objective, you would be able to prove it irrevocably.
You want to apply this to everything or just to morality? If you want to apply it to just morality, why? If you want to apply it to everything, why don't you see the absurdity of that?
The laws of logic are contingent upon the existence of grammar. Gravity's existence is contingent upon the existence of matter. Grammar goes away once humans do, so will morality. Without moral beings, morality is pointless. It seems matter will be here much longer than humans.
I am curious to know your opinion of something. Why should anyone care, in your opinion, if an action they commit is good or bad? What are the consequences?
Also niether Nietzsche or Dostoevsky were mentally ill when they wrote their major works and as far as I know Dostoevsky was never mentally ill...I'd like to see a legitimate reference before conceding that.
If you believe logic is contingent on grammar, we are lost and further debate seems pointless. I think very very few people believe this and if it is true logic is useless and all benefits we get from it ought not to be real.
I have never said anyone should care especially because of actions 'they', whoever they are, commit is good or bad.
I don't know if Nietzsche was not mentally ill when he wrote some of his works. I just know he was at some point. But you can't separate Nietzsche's personality with his eventual mental illness.
As for Dostoevsky he had hallucinations and probably Temporal Lobe Epilepsy is the diagnosis, though one can never make that diagnosis.. In his case his mental state surely deeply and profoundly influenced his works. He describes his attacks in his novels and this form of mental illness is even informally named after him.
The laws of logic are not found anywhere apart from language. They do not manifest themselves in any other way or medium. That doesn't mean they can't be applied to many things quite well, but you will not find a syllogism except metaphorically in nature. Mathematics is the same way. It is a system you can apply to nature, however imperfectly (physics), but it is a human system. Morality makes no sense without human beings.
I have no idea why you wouldn't be able to seperate someones mental illness from their works if you think you can seperate morality from human beings. =P But in all seriousness you are committing a logical fallacy trying to invalidate an arguments by attacking their sources. You can learn a lot from them even if they are extreme.
But you seem to be confused and not meaning what you said.
The application of logic only exists in thought and through language. But if we take the law of identity for example, a tree is a tree and not not a tree. This is true even if language doesn't exist. If you remove language and people, something can't suddenly be in contradiction with itself.
This simple examples shows that at least some principles of logic have to transcend the material universe. This line of argument is exactly what people didn't want to accept for morality. So it's not surprising that somehow a way of escape is to be found when presented with this argument. But rather maybe one should be convinced by the argument.
If Dostoevsky was a deeply areligious person, would he have written the exact same works? If you don't think so, why do you fault me for not accepting views on morality that were directly induced by mental illness and would not have been expressed without it? Nietzsche is more tricky, but my comment was in the same spirit as yours; a bit over the top.
I do mean what I said. I never said you can argue without logic. When did I say that? I am not confused.
You are correct that a tree is a tree and it is not not a tree. You are wrong if you think anyone will ever formulate that rule, that sentence, that thought, or that care without existing.
1+1 still equals 2 without human beings. It simply doesn't exist. There is no platonic realm where equations and laws of logic float around and its not like they are inscribed in some sort of DNA for every object that can be identified. They are the products of human systems of thought.
Why does it have to be formulated for it to be true? How can something that doesn't exist be true? You say yourself the law of identity would still be true without humans. So you accept this logical principle exists but aren't physical. They don't float around somewhere, but they are still true even without conscious being conceiving them? So will you now also accept that in the same way moral principles could exist?
If logic is a product of language it is arbitrary or at least subjective and quite useless. But you don't actually seem to have meant this, so let's ignore it.
btw, 1+1=2 is different. It is only true by definition and only exists and is true after you have said so. It is axiomatic.
On May 13 2011 09:53 Sava Fischer wrote: Also calling Nietzsche and Dostoevsky "only fiction writers nothing more" is one of the best ways to communicate to people two things: 1. That you have never seriously read either of them. 2. You are self-important and not very smart (Nietzsche didn't even write fiction, he was a philologist (classicist).
Thus spoke Zarathustra is fiction dude. But yeah most of his stuff is essays, aphorisms and such.
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.
On May 13 2011 11:03 Suisen wrote: If you believe logic is contingent on grammar, we are lost and further debate seems pointless. I think very very few people believe this and if it is true logic is useless and all benefits we get from it ought not to be real.
I have never said anyone should care especially because of actions 'they', whoever they are, commit is good or bad.
I don't know if Nietzsche was not mentally ill when he wrote some of his works. I just know he was at some point. But you can't separate Nietzsche's personality with his eventual mental illness.
As for Dostoevsky he had hallucinations and probably Temporal Lobe Epilepsy is the diagnosis, though one can never make that diagnosis.. In his case his mental state surely deeply and profoundly influenced his works. He describes his attacks in his novels and this form of mental illness is even informally named after him.
Nietzsche was sick most of his life. He also did hard drugs.
( but rejecting someone's thoughts based on their state of health is a logical fallacy, no doubt about that, you're being quite ridiculous suisen)
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.
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).
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.
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 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?"
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!
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!
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 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!
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.
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 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!
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).
Subjective morality, obviously. Morals can only exist if there is a thinking involved. Morals are a form of thought. Therefore if thought can't exist w.o a thinker, it can't be objective.
Objective morality suggests that morals exist beyond the idea of thought.
This is the danger of talking in metaphysics. You can run circles around each other all day and nobody can prove anything. Are morals objective or subjective? Who cares, its a meaningless question. If you want to prove that a specific moral is objective, how on earth would you do that? If you want to test whether a statement like "killing is wrong" is an objective truth, how on earth would you ever gather any empirical evidence? Instead, you can ask questions like "which morals are more likely to help an individual/society survive?" That is something you can actually test, but has absolutely nothing to do with morals being objective/subjective.
However, just because you can't prove morals to be objective doesn't mean that they are by default subjective. I think that the initial definitions are rather confused. Suppose there are universal "rights" and "wrongs," it would still be entirely possible to make up your own morals anyways. Our best knowledge tells us that the sky is blue, but I am perfectly entitled to believe that it's purple instead.
The statement "there is no set moral code which we all live by" is also pretty confused. This has nothing to do with morals being objective or subjective. There is obviously some sort of universal moral code - murder, rape are wrong, sharing is good, ect. - but this code exists in the same way as our laws exist. You are perfectly entitled to be existential and believe that murder is moral in the same way that you can believe that you can drive twice the speed limit. Create your own meaning in life all you want, you're still going to get sent to jail for killing somebody.
To ask whether morals are objective or subjective is to me a completely meaningless question. You might as well ask if traffic laws are objective or subjective. I'll bet if you asked this question in a poll, most people would answer objective instead of subjective, even though it would be in essence the exact same question. There is simply no way to actually answer this question, and the world wouldn't care even if you could come up with an answer.
On May 14 2011 16:58 Rammblin Man wrote: If you want to prove that a specific moral is objective, how on earth would you do that? If you want to test whether a statement like "killing is wrong" is an objective truth, how on earth would you ever gather any empirical evidence? Instead, you can ask questions like "which morals are more likely to help an individual/society survive?" That is something you can actually test, but has absolutely nothing to do with morals being objective/subjective.
Why not? If you ask me that is exactly what morality is and exactly why it is objective, though hard to figure out and possibly unknowable.
Now you didn't define it very elegantly, but if morals are not what you hint at, what are they? Why do people still have a religious concept about morality when they already abandoned religion?
I think it is just silly to saw it's a silly question. It's like before people tried to figure out what pi is saying that it is silly to try to figure it out. It's not silly and morality is of extreme important.
As for traffic laws, they have clear goals that are hard to challenge. Some rules are objectively and measurable better than others. It's all just the same. In economy there are good policies, bad policies and grey policies. When we have perfect knowledge the grey will probably be gone. Why is morality different from everything else?
All you people who say you believe morality is subjective define morality in a way that can only be subjective while on the side you still believe in something else that you do recognize as objective but just don't call it that way when you really ought to.
I believe some elements of morality are part of the basis of the human brain. No matter what part of the world you're from, stealing is looked down on, murdering is bad, infidelity is bad, etc. When it gets to why people perform these actions, then it starts to get a little more subjective. Stealing food from someone may objectively be bad, but in subjective context, it could be on the good side of morality because he wants to share that food with the poor, Robin Hood style.
"Morals can only exist if there is a thinking involved. Morals are a form of thought. Therefore if thought can't exist w.o a thinker, it can't be objective."
The idea that objectivity means your not thinking is completely wrong. The whole idea of subjective thought, of subjective morality, is that you are looking through the veil of your own eyes and that what you measure as wrong or moral depends on your own views and experiences. The problem with that is you are looking through a veil, and depending on how that veil distorts your view, some people can come to some pretty unrealistic or shitty conclusions all the while believing that they're correct.
Thinking objectively means you can look at something, a choice, an idea, an action, and determine whether or not that action exists as moral or immoral, right or wrong. This is usually done by analyzing an actions effect on a person, society, ect. It is the idea that moral and wrong are standalone concepts that exist independently of the person viewing them. Whether you act on these views of right and wrong are up to you, but the fact you can see them clearly means you are at least able to think objectively. (In other words, being objective means you can see right and wrong, but not necessarily that you will always act accordingly).
Being objective, however, doesn't mean that you are always right in your views. It just means you tried to make an accurate judgement on the reality in front of you, using your senses to the best of their abilities, and your tool of thought to come up with your view point. (read: Objectivism)
Being subjective, in this aspect, means that you did/thought what you 'felt' was right, or what seemed right at the time; without actually looking at the consequences and trying to predict the results of that action.
All in all, thinking objectively is important, and despite what the poll says, I think most of the people in this thread think objectively (definitely most of the time at least) and are just confused with what subjectivity really is.
On May 14 2011 18:21 drwiggles wrote: "Morals can only exist if there is a thinking involved. Morals are a form of thought. Therefore if thought can't exist w.o a thinker, it can't be objective."
The idea that objectivity means your not thinking is completely wrong. The whole idea of subjective thought, of subjective morality, is that you are looking through the veil of your own eyes and that what you measure as wrong or moral depends on your own views and experiences. The problem with that is you are looking through a veil, and depending on how that veil distorts your view, some people can come to some pretty unrealistic or shitty conclusions all the while believing that they're correct.
Thinking objectively means you can look at something, a choice, an idea, an action, and determine whether or not that action exists as moral or immoral, right or wrong. This is usually done by analyzing an actions effect on a person, society, ect. It is the idea that moral and wrong are standalone concepts that exist independently of the person viewing them. Whether you act on these views of right and wrong are up to you, but the fact you can see them clearly means you are at least able to think objectively. (In other words, being objective means you can see right and wrong, but not necessarily that you will always act accordingly).
Being objective, however, doesn't mean that you are always right in your views. It just means you tried to make an accurate judgement on the reality in front of you, using your senses to the best of their abilities, and your tool of thought to come up with your view point. (read: Objectivism)
Being subjective, in this aspect, means that you did/thought what you 'felt' was right, or what seemed right at the time; without actually looking at the consequences and trying to predict the results of that action.
All in all, thinking objectively is important, and despite what the poll says, I think most of the people in this thread think objectively (definitely most of the time at least) and are just confused with what subjectivity really is.
You are conflating two different definitions of objective. Thinking objectively is when you try to think rationally, as in without emotion or prejudice. Objective morality has to do with morals that exist regardless of time or circumstance.
"In other words, being objective means you can see right and wrong, but not necessarily that you will always act accordingly" What it really means is that you can make a rational judgement. Seeing "right and wrong" assumes that a right and wrong exists. When people like myself say that they believe in subjective morality, it is because we do not believe that right and wrong exist, just that they are human made concepts.
I think this is something that is also confusing to many people. Just because a concept has been active for most of human history, does not mean that it relates to objective morality. All it means is that it is a possibility. It is also a possibility that human beings have certain genetic and biological tendencies that make it so that incest is less likely to be accepted, for example. In philosophy (and this is a philosophical argument), a genetic predisposition is not really an argument for objective morality. It is an argument for a state of being.
Speaking of which, that is another thing that I think people are confusing in this thread. Moral philosophy deals with the difference between "ought/should" and "is" statements, or "normative" and "positive" statements. "Is" statements are factual, how things are, so for example "murder has been illegal in many countries and is illegal today in many countries" is a positive, "is" statement because it is a fact. "Murder ought to be illegal because it is wrong" is a normative, or "ought" statement since it gives a value judgement.
This is important to note because even if everyone in the world followed one moral code, no one lied or killed, and everyone in the world agreed in every argument, that would not be a philosophical basis for a moral philosophy since it would just describe a positive situation rather than a normative argument.
huh? It's both subjective and objective i guess depending on how far you stretch the definitions. Since we all have our subjective moralities from genetics and life experiences, and we are all born as humans, which means we all have pretty similar morals, at least when you compare us to a preying mantis, or even a rock.
morality is an invention by nature, and Men have come to argue what morality is because of their own small differences. female preying mantis have an objective morality, its ok to kill eat your husband after fucking him. rocks have an objective morality: its nothing.
i really dont get why so much thought needs to be put into this subject. I really don't. maybe someone can explain to me why.
it is obvious though, that everyone has their own set of morals, which is similar but different to everyone elses because we are all humans.
a code of right and wrong is obviously different to each person but they are similar, or quite similar when you compare us to strange creatures and inanimate objects. And the fact that i can tell that humans have similar morals does bring objectivity to the argument.
On May 14 2011 18:41 Stroggoz wrote: morality is an invention by nature, and Men have come to argue what morality is because of their own small differences. female preying mantis have an objective morality, its ok to kill eat your husband after fucking him. rocks have an objective morality: its nothing.
I hope I do not sound condescending when I say this, but an introductory philosophy class would really help here. A preying mantis killing its husband after intercourse is not morality, subjective or objective. It is a biological action. In the same way, my need to eat food and breathe air is not any part of objective morality. Rocks do not have an morality, and until we figure out the capacity of the preying mantis, they as well do not have morality. Morality implies a value judgement. To use your example "killing my husband after sex is good/bad" would be part of a moral statement. Just killing him is not a moral statement.
a code of right and wrong is obviously different to each person but they are similar, or quite similar when you compare us to strange creatures and inanimate objects. And the fact that i can tell that humans have similar morals does bring objectivity to the argument.
No it does not. As I mentioned in the post literally above you, even if everyone had the exact same morals, it still would not be a good argument for objective morality. I can use an easier example for you. If you objectively believe that slavery is wrong, then you cannot base that on the fact that most people today believe that slavery is wrong. You have to make a different argument since thousands of years ago the majority of the human population thought slavery was not wrong.
On May 14 2011 16:58 Rammblin Man wrote: This is the danger of talking in metaphysics.
QFT. On a skeptical metaphysical level, it can be even argued that a continuous self doesn't exist, let alone morality attached to the actions or thoughts of that self. Wittgensteing would facepalm at this thread, but the question posed remains, and as such it better to dissolve it, if it cannot be solved.
On May 14 2011 18:34 flowSthead wrote: You are conflating two different definitions of objective. Thinking objectively is when you try to think rationally, as in without emotion or prejudice. Objective morality has to do with morals that exist regardless of time or circumstance.
"In other words, being objective means you can see right and wrong, but not necessarily that you will always act accordingly" What it really means is that you can make a rational judgement. Seeing "right and wrong" assumes that a right and wrong exists. When people like myself say that they believe in subjective morality, it is because we do not believe that right and wrong exist, just that they are human made concepts.
I think you quoted me for being wrong.. and than said some of what I said. Anyway..
Rationality =/= objectivity. Rationality is a subjective view point. eg. "Spraying battery acid on those girls seemed like the rational thing to do because I don't believe girls should go to school here in Afghanistan."
That is what a Al-Qaeda soldier would say to himself and he would be 'right' in terms of his subjective view point.
But the rest of the world can look at that (even subjectively) and determine that his actions were obviously immoral. Except the other Al-Qaeda soldiers who will look at his action behind their subjective view points and see what he did as right.
So as you can see, people thinking subjectively (in terms of their feelings, personal views towards girls studying) can be either right or wrong when it comes to spraying school girls with battery acid. But objectively, you can say: "You shouldn't hurt other people", and therefore spraying girls with battery acid will be called definitely an immoral action.
You can even measure that soldiers actions effect on society and find that yes, indeed that society would be better off if girls were free to go to school without fear. This idea of a measurement and an accurate one at that, is objectivity. The idea that right and wrong exist, and just have to be found..
I do agree that you believe that right and wrong are human made concepts. If aliens looked at two people spraying battery acid on each other they wouldn't know whether it was an act of evil, or just our culture. But despite this, I know that right and wrong exist, independently of what we all think, and that even though an outside observer doesn't know right or wrong for us humans, these ideas can be determined and measured by seeing the effects on the girls, and the effects on society because of those actions. So that even aliens can determine the morality of an action by being objective and viewing that action's results and consequences.
Anyway it's late. The topic asked "Is morality subjective or objective". I say its objective because although it exists subjectively to everyone, these subjective thinkers can be either right or wrong. By looking at an action objectively and finding out whether it was good or bad, moral or immoral, by seeing its consequences over time, or by trying to accurately predict them in the first place, we can find a true answer for right or wrong that is independent of what we thought, felt, believed at that time.
On May 14 2011 18:41 Stroggoz wrote: morality is an invention by nature, and Men have come to argue what morality is because of their own small differences. female preying mantis have an objective morality, its ok to kill eat your husband after fucking him. rocks have an objective morality: its nothing.
I hope I do not sound condescending when I say this, but an introductory philosophy class would really help here. A preying mantis killing its husband after intercourse is not morality, subjective or objective. It is a biological action. In the same way, my need to eat food and breathe air is not any part of objective morality. Rocks do not have an morality, and until we figure out the capacity of the preying mantis, they as well do not have morality. Morality implies a value judgement. To use your example "killing my husband after sex is good/bad" would be part of a moral statement. Just killing him is not a moral statement.
a code of right and wrong is obviously different to each person but they are similar, or quite similar when you compare us to strange creatures and inanimate objects. And the fact that i can tell that humans have similar morals does bring objectivity to the argument.
No it does not. As I mentioned in the post literally above you, even if everyone had the exact same morals, it still would not be a good argument for objective morality. I can use an easier example for you. If you objectively believe that slavery is wrong, then you cannot base that on the fact that most people today believe that slavery is wrong. You have to make a different argument since thousands of years ago the majority of the human population thought slavery was not wrong.
there is no difference with morality in the entire world believing slavery is right and and no one believing it right though, because morality isn't actually real it's just an invention by nature to keep people from doing stupid shit.
On May 14 2011 18:34 flowSthead wrote: You are conflating two different definitions of objective. Thinking objectively is when you try to think rationally, as in without emotion or prejudice. Objective morality has to do with morals that exist regardless of time or circumstance.
"In other words, being objective means you can see right and wrong, but not necessarily that you will always act accordingly" What it really means is that you can make a rational judgement. Seeing "right and wrong" assumes that a right and wrong exists. When people like myself say that they believe in subjective morality, it is because we do not believe that right and wrong exist, just that they are human made concepts.
I think you quoted me for being wrong.. and than said some of what I said. Anyway..
Rationality =/= objectivity. Rationality is a subjective view point. eg. "Spraying battery acid on those girls seemed like the rational thing to do because I don't believe girls should go to school here in Afghanistan."
That is what a Al-Qaeda soldier would say to himself and he would be 'right' in terms of his subjective view point.
But the rest of the world can look at that (even subjectively) and determine that his actions were obviously immoral. Except the other Al-Qaeda soldiers who will look at his action behind their subjective view points and see what he did as right.
So as you can see, people thinking subjectively (in terms of their feelings, personal views towards girls studying) can be either right or wrong when it comes to spraying school girls with battery acid. But objectively, you can say: "You shouldn't hurt other people", and therefore spraying girls with battery acid will be called definitely an immoral action.
You can even measure that soldiers actions effect on society and find that yes, indeed that society would be better off if girls were free to go to school without fear. This idea of a measurement and an accurate one at that, is objectivity. The idea that right and wrong exist, and just have to be found..
I do agree that you believe that right and wrong are human made concepts. If aliens looked at two people spraying battery acid on each other they wouldn't know whether it was an act of evil, or just our culture. But despite this, I know that right and wrong exist, independently of what we all think, and that even though an outside observer doesn't know right or wrong for us humans, these ideas can be determined and measured by seeing the effects on the girls, and the effects on society because of those actions. So that even aliens can determine the morality of an action by being objective and viewing that action's results and consequences.
Anyway it's late. The topic asked "Is morality subjective or objective". I say its objective because although it exists subjectively to everyone, these subjective thinkers can be either right or wrong. By looking at an action objectively and finding out whether it was good or bad, moral or immoral, by seeing its consequences over time, or by trying to accurately predict them in the first place, we can find a true answer for right or wrong that is independent of what we thought, felt, believed at that time.
No, see again you are using words differently from what their definitions are within the context of a philosophical discussion. You cannot objectively say "You shouldn't hurt other people" unless you have already decided that that is an objective moral standpoint. I am saying that that statement is not self evident. Even the sentence "people thinking subjectively...can either be right or wrong" already assumes an objective morality. I can understand your viewpoint, but you are not understanding mine.
I can approach this topic from an objective viewpoint, the way you are, and discuss what that objective morality might entail. But to approach the topic from a subjective viewpoint you cannot say statements like "can be right or wrong" because they do not make sense subjectively.
Measuring as well has nothing to do with right and wrong, because measurements are imperfect. If I were to cut off your arm while cutting off my own finger, you would assume that one of us has more pain than the other. I make no assumptions. Perhaps our pain is equal. Pain between two people is not something is measurable both because the sensory experience is not easily communicable, and because language is an imperfect communication tool. Even figuring out how much nerve damage was done would not answer the questions since different brains interpret nerve damage in different ways. Do you see why the physical world is a poor measurement for even something as simple as the amount of harm on a persons body? It would be even more difficult to extrapolate on a society, or on the whole human race.
For that matter, the entire idea of objectively measuring morality is a little silly to me. It is the reason I cannot take anything Sam Harris says seriously. Morality is not a science. It is a philosophy. It involves making logical, rational arguments, not experiments with theses. You cannot prove that murder is wrong, you have to establish it.
As an example, you can make an argument from God, which is a fairly easy and solid argument for objective morality. You could make a Kantian argument that we should not use people as means because it is logically inconsistent. That argument is more difficult and I and others have problems with it, but it is at least an argument.
Just to point out that you yourself are not exempt from this, if you read your own words back:
But despite this, I know that right and wrong exist, independently of what we all think
How can you know something independently of yourself?
Morality is a bit like common sense, everybody has his own slight notion of it, however the true common point is where the notions converge. And they do converge in pretty much every culture exept for slight details and ways of punishing wrong doing.
Even though the essence of it will most likely turn out to be something very primitive around the lines if you do damage to something/some1 you'll pay for it one way or another.
Subjective, but with a few premises set down it can become very objective. However, given cultural differences, people never agree on (all) the premises.
I know at this point its been beaten to death but morality will always be a subjective subject. Morality is just an opinion of the times, by society, by the individual. Morality changes with each millennium, century, generation.. the moral fiber of an act can change bi weekly. I can't see how morality would ever be an objective state without morality being an eternal state which, religious beliefs aside- is hilarious.
The idea that we humans, in an intelligent civilization for a mere 100 centuries, grasped a notion that always has been and always will be? That is the only objective state I accept.
I'm sorry I'm very tired and realized I'm making an argument for the silliness behind the infinite shades of subjectivity while holding only pure objective reasoning to one level. At this rate only voids will be objective and even then most will be posers with a few stray quarks hanging out in them.
Morality is just a word. Morals are just the feel good views of the times. Picking your nose is okay when you're 4 but not 40. Murdering your neighbor for eating your food was alright in 400 bce but now its rather frowned upon.
I'd say it can be treated the same as a mathematical function, or say a neural network.
Get a set of input situations/actions, a set of outputs which is the result of those situations/actions. Depending on the results of certain actions you gage if their good or bad. Let's take revenge killings, asume we wouldn't know the result, after it happens you see that the revenge keeps going from both sides forever, clearly it's a bad thing and should not be allowed.
This way after everything happens once, you start being able to tell what can or can't be done by looking at the past and seeing the repercusions that result.
The function changes while society changes but it will always keep improving asuming you don't forget what you learned before. Some backwards societies will have a less powerfull function, that doesn't mean their morality is different in their culture, it just means their behind in the evolution process of it.
Am I the only one that questioned the question? Is baby powder subjective or objective? Tall or short? Good or evil?
Our brains generally have a strong preference for black or white thinking. Formulating questions like these to give the impression that there are two possible answers stimulates this weakness. If that is what you want to achieve that's fine but I don't think that was the purpose of the thread.
Skimming through 20-40 posts I only see people discussing what objectivity, subjectivity and morality is. So perhaps the topic should be about what morality is and the meaning of subjective and objective - because that is what people appear to be discussing.
Am I the only one that questioned the question? Is baby powder subjective or objective? Tall or short? Good or evil?
Our brains generally have a strong preference for black or white thinking. Formulating questions like these to give the impression that there are two possible answers stimulates this weakness. If that is what you want to achieve that's fine but I don't think that was the purpose of the thread.
Skimming through 20-40 posts I only see people discussing what objectivity, subjectivity and morality is. So perhaps the topic should be about what morality is and the meaning of subjective and objective - because that is what people appear to be discussing.
A fair point, personally i asumed it was crappy wording for is morality the same everywhere or not.
It kind of drives me crazy to even participate in conversations like this because the depth of philosophical literature is SO deep, and most people aren't even slightly familiar with it.
The question of subjective/objective morals is still something that's very much OPEN, even among the leading thinkers, so how productive do you think a forum debate will be, especially when, like I said, probably no one here has familiarize themselves with contemporary philosophical discussion.
I mean, not to discourage you guys from asking these questions... most people don't even know where to go to LOOK for answers. But if you REALLY want to look into these questions, you have to read the literature.
For an especially well developed view of morality as being "objective" you might look to Cornell Realism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornell_realism ). The most "subjective" argument I can think of is Mackie's Error theory ( http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-anti-realism/moral-error-theory.html ) though it's not taken very seriously in contemporary metaethics. Then on the other hand you have theories like Blackburn's Quasi-realism, which holds that ethical statements CAN be appropriately described as true or false, despite the fact that such claims actually fail to correspond to objectively existing moral facts ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-realism ). Is that an "objective" account or a "subjective" account?
On May 15 2011 04:33 Fighter wrote: It kind of drives me crazy to even participate in conversations like this because the depth of philosophical literature is SO deep, and most people aren't even slightly familiar with it.
Welcome to TL? so are there many supporters of the "objective" view? i see they got votes but i don't see them much in the thread
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!
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.
Semantics are relevant when you are mislabeling his argument.
Note the mentioned sentence DIRECTLY BEFORE the line you quoted: "Arguments that appeal to ignorance rely merely on the fact that the veracity of the proposition is not known, or is undetected, to arrive at a definite conclusion."
That is a clear distinction. In other words, you are misconstruing his argument by labeling it as something that uses no justification, whereas Lewis DOES NOT merely claim "oh I can't know therefore X," there are the above mentioned premises that he used [that you simply sidestep as "semantics" even though they are the only actual bits of substance mentioned between our posts] that do not commit this fallacy.
A case for objective morality: a talk by Sam Harris, atheist philosopher/scientist http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm2Jrr0tRXk Watch the whole video before you post your question/objection, he answers a fair amount of questions in the video. Also I think his book will answer more conclusively about: happiness drug, issue of sacrificing a few for the well-being of many, etc.
On May 15 2011 14:37 stepover12 wrote: A case for objective morality: a talk by Sam Harris, atheist philosopher/scientist http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm2Jrr0tRXk Watch the whole video before you post your question/objection, he answers a fair amount of questions in the video. Also I think his book will answer more conclusively about: happiness drug, issue of sacrificing a few for the well-being of many, etc.
Was posted like 20 pages ago, about half the argument in this thread is over that video...
This is an incredibly complex issue but: I believe that there is a definite moral framework that is objective and indisputable. For example: Is it wrong to kill another human being? Yes. <-- Objective Is it wrong to kill someone who has murdered other humans? Yes <--Subjective This is just a rough example but I believe there must be an existing moral framework. If there was no moral framework there would be chaos. I do not believe that right and wrong are determined socially (ie. murder has consequences like jail that's why most people would say it's wrong) because it begs the question "Who decided it was wrong to kill?" and "Why did they decide it was wrong to kill?" "Where did they get the idea of wrong in the first place?" It scares me that so many people think morality is subjective to be quite honest.
On May 15 2011 15:03 Canadium wrote: This is an incredibly complex issue but: I believe that there is a definite moral framework that is objective and indisputable. For example: Is it wrong to kill another human being? Yes. <-- Objective Is it wrong to kill someone who has murdered other humans? Yes <--Subjective This is just a rough example but I believe there must be an existing moral framework. If there was no moral framework there would be chaos. I do not believe that right and wrong are determined socially (ie. murder has consequences like jail that's why most people would say it's wrong) because it begs the question "Who decided it was wrong to kill?" and "Why did they decide it was wrong to kill?" "Where did they get the idea of wrong in the first place?" It scares me that so many people think morality is subjective to be quite honest.
Why is it wrong to kill another human being? There are many reasons to kill a human being that would be satisfactory to some people. Two people trapped in a room with only one can of tuna to eat for example. That said, the law would say differently.
It scares me that you think morality is objective, and thereby think you can impose your supposedly "objective" view of morality on the rest of the world.
Hehe, people should watch more Woody Allen's films .
From Love and Death:
Sonja: Boris, Let me show you how absurd your position is. Let's say there is no God, and each man is free to do exactly as he chooses. What prevents you from murdering somebody? Boris: Murder's immoral. Sonja: Immorality is subjective. Boris: Yes, but subjectivity is objective. Sonja: Not in a rational scheme of perception. Boris: Perception is irrational. It implies immanence. Sonja: But judgment of any system or a priori relation of phenomena exists in any rational or metaphysical or at least epistemological contradiction to an abstracted empirical concept such as being or to be or to occur in the thing itself or of the thing itself. Boris: Yeah, I've said that many times.
I'd say that for something to be objective it has to be a result of omniscient entity. If you simplify society as the next best thing, the resulting opinion will be objective as long as every member of society is subjective in his own opinion, disregarding the known "opinion of the society".
In relation to another quote from Love and Death:
Him: Come to my quarters tomorrow at three. Sonja: I can't. Him: Please! Sonja: It's immoral. What time? Him: Who is to say what is moral? Sonja: Morality is subjective. Him: Subjectivity is objective. Sonja: Moral notions imply attributes to substances which exist only in relational duality. Him: Not as an essential extension of ontological existence. Sonja: Can we not talk about sex so much?
If morality was universal it would lose its duality. So as long as every participant of society is subjective, the consensus will be objective. But participants aren't absolutely subjective; they are influenced by the previous "objectivity". For me, the core of morality is that it's ambiguous, in our society it cannot be strictly defined as subjective or objective.
On May 15 2011 04:33 Fighter wrote:The question of subjective/objective morals is still something that's very much OPEN, even among the leading thinkers, so how productive do you think a forum debate will be, especially when, like I said, probably no one here has familiarize themselves with contemporary philosophical discussion.
The question at issue, is morality subjective or objective been a loaded question historically for religious reasons. Which does not change the fact that objectivity/subjectivity and morale are not necessarily related in a meaningful way. The relationship between the two is not as controversial as it used to be in philosophy, where it historically mostly been(and still is) about the semantic perspective anyway.
I think that a purist subjective view cannot be supported. Simply put - if everything about morality is subjective, arguments like "It scares me that you think morality is objective, and thereby think you can impose your supposedly "objective" view of morality on the rest of the world." are meaningless. This is because the argument itself is premised on an objective, normative moral view ie: individual autonomy to choose one's morals. If one truly believes in a purely subjective set of morals, then all argument is essentially worthless since if everything is indeed subjective, there is no objective measure to decide what really is the "correct answer" of whether morals are objective or subjective.
Similarly, a pure objective is also unsustainable. History is full of examples like slavery and sexual discrimination - moral world views that have later changed. One could say that these past societies had it wrong - the objective answer was that slavery/sexual discrimination is wrong and that we just did not know the right answer at that time. I suppose that in a very abstract sense, this can be true, but it is not particularly meaningful since it effectively makes the distinction between what is objective and what is subjective very small. At best this approach will not so much answer whether morality IS subjective/objective, but rather whether it SHOULD be subjective/objective, and will then guide how we develop our morals in the future (should we aspire to an objective truth? Or is everything subjective so we just let things be). For what it is worth, the preset reality seems to aspire to discovering some degree of objective truths (human rights being an example).
The real answer is probably somewhere in the middle. Morality is shaped by and at the same time influences the circumstances of society. An interesting scenario to consider is what if one day we have the technology that makes death a non-significant event (ie: by uploading our selves into a computer), or that ends the problem of scarcity? In such future societies, crimes like theft and murder might still exist, but then the moral blame that these crimes attract will be much less than they are now. This would simply be because the moral repugnance of killing or having things stolen is no longer present. This might sound like science fiction, but consider how the morals surrounding privacy have changed thanks to social networking.
On May 15 2011 15:03 Canadium wrote: This is an incredibly complex issue but: I believe that there is a definite moral framework that is objective and indisputable. For example: Is it wrong to kill another human being? Yes. <-- Objective Is it wrong to kill someone who has murdered other humans? Yes <--Subjective This is just a rough example but I believe there must be an existing moral framework. If there was no moral framework there would be chaos. I do not believe that right and wrong are determined socially (ie. murder has consequences like jail that's why most people would say it's wrong) because it begs the question "Who decided it was wrong to kill?" and "Why did they decide it was wrong to kill?" "Where did they get the idea of wrong in the first place?" It scares me that so many people think morality is subjective to be quite honest.
Why is it wrong to kill another human being? There are many reasons to kill a human being that would be satisfactory to some people. Two people trapped in a room with only one can of tuna to eat for example. That said, the law would say differently.
It scares me that you think morality is objective, and thereby think you can impose your supposedly "objective" view of morality on the rest of the world.
I see what you're getting at.... But I may have not explained myself clearly enough. There is a basic and objective moral framework. There are things that can be clearly defined as right and wrong. When you start thinking up real life scenarios and situations it gets messy and subjective because there are more variables to consider. That's why I was saying it's such a complicated issue. I'm not trying to impose anything I'm just saying a world with 100% subjective morality sounds like a scary one. Like I was saying before: When the first "laws" were made how did the person who made them decide what was right and what was wrong? Good/bad?
On May 15 2011 15:03 Canadium wrote: This is an incredibly complex issue but: I believe that there is a definite moral framework that is objective and indisputable. For example: Is it wrong to kill another human being? Yes. <-- Objective Is it wrong to kill someone who has murdered other humans? Yes <--Subjective This is just a rough example but I believe there must be an existing moral framework. If there was no moral framework there would be chaos. I do not believe that right and wrong are determined socially (ie. murder has consequences like jail that's why most people would say it's wrong) because it begs the question "Who decided it was wrong to kill?" and "Why did they decide it was wrong to kill?" "Where did they get the idea of wrong in the first place?" It scares me that so many people think morality is subjective to be quite honest.
Why is it wrong to kill another human being? There are many reasons to kill a human being that would be satisfactory to some people. Two people trapped in a room with only one can of tuna to eat for example. That said, the law would say differently.
It scares me that you think morality is objective, and thereby think you can impose your supposedly "objective" view of morality on the rest of the world.
The irony of your post is making my head explode.
Look, the basic problem of subjective morals is that you can't say killing someone is wrong so long as the actor is acting according to his/her personal morals.
A logical corollary is that you can't say that having objective morals and trying to spread them across the world is wrong for the same reason.
This is why subjective morality has no teeth. You can kill me for whatever reason you personally want, but you can't scream "it's not right! it's not moral" at me if I kill you, let alone if I choose to spread my particular brand of morals to the rest of the world.
the idea of subjective morals seems mostly worthless if your morals are self-defined, then they are your opinion; thus, you can rationalize anything you do
objective morals make up the universal code of ethics and anything beyond that is worthless relative to the rest of society
On May 16 2011 04:54 H.k[D] wrote: the idea of subjective morals seems mostly worthless if your morals are self-defined, then they are your opinion; thus, you can rationalize anything you do
objective morals make up the universal code of ethics and anything beyond that is worthless relative to the rest of society
different societies in history had different morals. What does that say about objective "absolute"morals? Some Nietzsche is really appropriate for this discussion,I suggest "the genealogy of morals" book
You can claim it's subjective all you want, but if every person has his own view on it everybody will think they're doing the right thing when they do some ludicrous shit, and we should just let it happen because it's subjective ! We're not wrong he ein't wrong all's good.
Exept it isn't, you may see differences in the perception of morality in different cultures but one thing is certain morality can't exist if the vast majority of people living to some degree together don't percieve it the same way. Religion is just a convenient answer since it was an enforcer of morality utill modern days. If that was the only source all it's teaches would have vanished with the current since people loose their faith more and more nowadays.
You will perhaps get different results for morality in different places isolated culturarily from eachother, however in that place the vast majority of ppl will adhere to a certain standard for it, thus it is not subjective.
It is an objective notion, of a fuction in human behaviour that adapts itself to current times based on knowledge from the past, be it science or religion and gives you an output of not so much what you should or shouldn't do. Rather it will tell you if you do certain things you will have to pay for them with different punishments. It's a concept that evolves with time and when everybody knows everything about everything it will be the same in every place in the world.
On May 16 2011 06:27 Cyba wrote: You can claim it's subjective all you want, but if every person has his own view on it everybody will think they're doing the right thing when they do some ludicrous shit, and we should just let it happen because it's subjective !
No, we stop them from doing it because there's social, economic and political reasons for it. As has always happened. As you'd know if you study some history.
On May 16 2011 06:55 VIB wrote: No, we stop them from doing it because there's social, economic and political reasons for it. As has always happened. As you'd know if you study some history.
And those aren't objective?
Morality isn't something magical or something mysterious. Morality isn't some law given by a divine being. Morality is just that.
Why can't morality be morality if it has a basis in naturalism? You just define the word bad. You define the word in such a way it can't have a definition by definition. Such a word is has no purpose.
If you are going to have a world 'morality' you better have one that can function as a word and can have a meaning.
The question is about what morality is. People give a definition you don't prefer. Some here believe morality by definition is god-given and anything that works similar but isn't should be called by a different word. We have no such a different word in use. So we stick with 'morality'.
Few people here have actually supported subjective morality. So all those who rejected objective morality don't actually reject it. They just reject using a certain word to describe it.
It's the same as the fallacy used by Craig. He argues morality isn't morality if you talk about well being of people. Any person who doesn't see morality in such a way but sees it in a moral code has a broken moral compass which leads to absurdities like religious people supporting the most cruel violence of certain (primitive) cultures as 'ethical' because they are godless people and their culture is retarded and reasonable things cannot be said about morality because magical thinking ought to have a monopoly over morality.
On May 16 2011 07:46 Suisen wrote: The question is about what morality is.
So you FINALLY understand you're only arguing semantics? I talk about the "morality" that I think is what how most people define the word. If you come and say "yea that would be subjective, but I think morality is something else". Then there's nothing to talk about. We're comparing apples to oranges and I'm not gonna argue which definition of the word is "right" or which is "wrong".
Words are just words, no definition is wrong. But I'm not gonna waste time discussing each individual's personal different definition of each word. If you like your own meaning of what "morals" is. Then it's fine. But please do understand that you're not arguing morality. In 90% of your posts you're arguing semantics, Suisen.
All this thread I have been correction people's posts, including yours, explaining views, hammering down the same essential points, politely. And now you say this?
No. Subjective and objective morality are two different positions to take. It's not a debate of semantics. Just because people vote the wrong way because they don't understand doesn't mean it is.
sometimes I wish that all the threads like this didn't end in people who are apparently and 'obviously' the world's greatest debaters constantly bickering at one another. It takes the fun out of the thread.
I believe that morality is objective. If it was subjective, then in a sense, morality wouldn't really exist. It would just be someone's own code of honor, per se.
Moral rules don't have to be absolute to be objective. Each individual situation can have an objectively correct answer. To find the objectively correct answer to each moral situation, one needs to use logical and rational discovery based on evidence.
Even if morality isn't objective, it definitely doesn't mean that it's totally arbitrary or subjective. We can have a conversation about what makes a good car. There may not be an objectively binding answer to what makes a good car, but if someone said that a good car was a car that got terrible gas mileage and barely runs, you could confidently and correctly say that they are wrong. We can do this with morality without having an objective source for morality.
Also, if anyone is interested a really good and short book on morality and ethics, then you should check out Being Good by Simon Blackburn. It's a really good introduction to ethics and/or moral philosophy.
Moral subjectivity and the tolerance are scary philosophical viewpoints to tout because it feels like the only logical conclusion is anarchy :/ There is a moral framework that is objective. Right/wrong good/bad are inherent human attributes.
I clicked the wrong button on the vote, but I have and always will believe that morality is ENTIRELY subjective in every way. That is why legislating morals is a bad thing, i.e. prohibition of drugs, gay marriage, etc.
On May 15 2011 15:03 Canadium wrote: This is an incredibly complex issue but: I believe that there is a definite moral framework that is objective and indisputable. For example: Is it wrong to kill another human being? Yes. <-- Objective Is it wrong to kill someone who has murdered other humans? Yes <--Subjective This is just a rough example but I believe there must be an existing moral framework. If there was no moral framework there would be chaos. I do not believe that right and wrong are determined socially (ie. murder has consequences like jail that's why most people would say it's wrong) because it begs the question "Who decided it was wrong to kill?" and "Why did they decide it was wrong to kill?" "Where did they get the idea of wrong in the first place?" It scares me that so many people think morality is subjective to be quite honest.
Why is it wrong to kill another human being? There are many reasons to kill a human being that would be satisfactory to some people. Two people trapped in a room with only one can of tuna to eat for example. That said, the law would say differently.
It scares me that you think morality is objective, and thereby think you can impose your supposedly "objective" view of morality on the rest of the world.
The irony of your post is making my head explode.
Look, the basic problem of subjective morals is that you can't say killing someone is wrong so long as the actor is acting according to his/her personal morals.
A logical corollary is that you can't say that having objective morals and trying to spread them across the world is wrong for the same reason.
This is why subjective morality has no teeth. You can kill me for whatever reason you personally want, but you can't scream "it's not right! it's not moral" at me if I kill you, let alone if I choose to spread my particular brand of morals to the rest of the world.
You understand that my saying morals are subjective does not mean that I don't have my own moral system, yes? So I fail to see the irony.
If someone does an act, such as killing another person, that may be against my moral system, but be kosher with their own. I do not necessarily view that as acceptable. Different societies can have different interpretations of what is moral, and one society exporting their morals across the world is alarming. I don't understand how you can equate "morals are subjective" with "everything anyone does is okay as long as it's okay with them".
Morality is subjective. If an entire society feels that a man killing another person as a display of strength is an acceptable reason, then the world should not be entitled to impose their view of morality on that society and seek the man's arrest.
Although that brings up the question of how we define societies, but that's another question for another day.
On May 16 2011 07:46 Suisen wrote: The question is about what morality is.
So you FINALLY understand you're only arguing semantics? I talk about the "morality" that I think is what how most people define the word. If you come and say "yea that would be subjective, but I think morality is something else". Then there's nothing to talk about. We're comparing apples to oranges and I'm not gonna argue which definition of the word is "right" or which is "wrong".
Words are just words, no definition is wrong. But I'm not gonna waste time discussing each individual's personal different definition of each word. If you like your own meaning of what "morals" is. Then it's fine. But please do understand that you're not arguing morality. In 90% of your posts you're arguing semantics, Suisen.
VIB, above you wrote " I talk about the "morality" that I think is what how most people define the word."
On May 16 2011 09:12 zemiron wrote: Moral rules don't have to be absolute to be objective. Each individual situation can have an objectively correct answer. To find the objectively correct answer to each moral situation, one needs to use logical and rational discovery based on evidence.
Even if morality isn't objective, it definitely doesn't mean that it's totally arbitrary or subjective. We can have a conversation about what makes a good car. There may not be an objectively binding answer to what makes a good car, but if someone said that a good car was a car that got terrible gas mileage and barely runs, you could confidently and correctly say that they are wrong. We can do this with morality without having an objective source for morality.
Actually, you can't find correct answers to moral situations like that. It may sound right if you have a scientific background but you have no idea how alien this sounds to someone with a proper philosophy background. Completely nonsensical.
This is due to the simple fact that you have to decide something or put your foot down somewhere. You have to decide if what you want is "well-being" like Harris mentioned. If freedom is what you want. Anyways, there's this decision to be made and it's nothing like science.
On May 16 2011 12:39 LF9 wrote: I clicked the wrong button on the vote, but I have and always will believe that morality is ENTIRELY subjective in every way. That is why legislating morals is a bad thing, i.e. prohibition of drugs, gay marriage, etc.
Took a great big leap there didn't ya? First of all "legislating morals" is completely ambiguous, so that'll slide until you define it. Prohibition of certain drugs though, absolutely should be "legislated" on regardless of what an individual's stance on the issue is. Drug trade is harmful to the user directly and to others indirectly. People can argue for/against the effectiveness of making drugs illegal as opposed to say using economic devices, but that's a completely argument. The point is the government should absolutely take a stance and a role in the limiting of drug use.
Hey there, sorry if this has been posted earlier. I'm not going through 38 pages of posts, but thought some might find this link useful if they're interested in morality:
In my eyes, morality is both subjective and objective. Every individual is going to have their own, subjective, interpretation of morals, and if you believe in free will, then those morals are self-determined. At the same time, society, or certain groups of the world has a shared sense of morality that comes from a combination of many similar subjective moral systems. As a whole, this makes morals objective on the larger scheme of things, because the culture of the current day holds a static belief system.
Someone earlier used the example of slavery in the U.S.; when it was morally correct to own slaves, that was because most of the population believed it to be okay. As time progressed, less and less people believed it to be so, and the overall opinion changed. Eventually, the collective, subjective morals of the population created the feeling of objective opposition to slavery that we see today.
On May 16 2011 12:39 LF9 wrote: I clicked the wrong button on the vote, but I have and always will believe that morality is ENTIRELY subjective in every way. That is why legislating morals is a bad thing, i.e. prohibition of drugs, gay marriage, etc.
But see... many other laws are premised on certain moral positions. You raise the prohibition of gay marriage, but the entire system of human rights is premised on a liberal moral view point about personal autonomy/liberty.
Your argument is not satisfactory because it essentially says that all morality should be subjective when you disagree with it, but objective when it suits your case.
One thing's for sure, if morality is objective, then this poll is irrelevant. =)
I believe it's objective. It's not as convenient for people addicted to a great video game like SC2 to believe that, when we could be using our free time to have a better impact on the world, especially when moral subjectivity has been so popular for such a long time.
There are immutable natural laws that govern the universe. We don't completely understand them yet, but the laws are there, and are the framework of our existence. It is not unreasonable, then, to believe that their are immutable laws that govern our behavior towards each other, and that a supreme person who has completed his journey of learning those laws and applying them to who he is dictates them to other people (his kids) who are still at the beginning of that journey. I believe that God abides by these eternal laws of nature and his obedience to them is His source of power, wisdom, and authority.
Another point to consider is that if morality is, in fact, objective, no matter how much it is not believed to be, it still is objective and founded on the unchangeable laws of the universe.
On May 16 2011 14:33 0neder wrote: Another point to consider is that if morality is, in fact, objective, no matter how much it is not believed to be, it still is objective and founded on the unchangeable laws of the universe.
"if morality is... objective, ... it still is objective"
... care to expand and provide concrete rationale to your opinion?
On May 16 2011 14:33 0neder wrote: Another point to consider is that if morality is, in fact, objective, no matter how much it is not believed to be, it still is objective and founded on the unchangeable laws of the universe.
"if morality is... objective, ... it still is objective"
... care to expand and provide concrete rationale to your opinion?
This isn't very difficult to understand.... replace morality with "the sun rises in the east." No matter how much you think that the sun comes up from underneath your bed, the sun objectively still rises in the east.
On May 16 2011 14:33 0neder wrote: Another point to consider is that if morality is, in fact, objective, no matter how much it is not believed to be, it still is objective and founded on the unchangeable laws of the universe.
"if morality is... objective, ... it still is objective"
... care to expand and provide concrete rationale to your opinion?
This isn't very difficult to understand.... replace morality with "the sun rises in the east." No matter how much you think that the sun comes up from underneath your bed, the sun objectively still rises in the east.
Except for the fact that the sun does that despite whatever humanity thinks. We can only observe that.
Morality on the other hand is only put into practice by humans, and individuals have different conceptions of it. In order for morality to be objective it needs to be self-enforcing somehow.
On May 16 2011 14:33 0neder wrote: One thing's for sure, if morality is objective, then this poll is irrelevant. =)
I believe it's objective. It's not as convenient for people addicted to a great video game like SC2 to believe that, when we could be using our free time to have a better impact on the world, especially when moral subjectivity has been so popular for such a long time.
There are immutable natural laws that govern the universe. We don't completely understand them yet, but the laws are there, and are the framework of our existence. It is not unreasonable, then, to believe that their are immutable laws that govern our behavior towards each other, and that a supreme person who has completed his journey of learning those laws and applying them to who he is dictates them to other people (his kids) who are still at the beginning of that journey. I believe that God abides by these eternal laws of nature and his obedience to them is His source of power, wisdom, and authority.
Another point to consider is that if morality is, in fact, objective, no matter how much it is not believed to be, it still is objective and founded on the unchangeable laws of the universe.
Actually, that is not something you can assume, and it would be unreasonable to assume that because there are universal physical laws there are universal moral laws. You can make an argument that universal moral laws exist, and yours comes from God, but you cannot say that because universal physical laws exist, that therefore universal moral laws exist because the physical has nothing to do with the moral.
I think I should also point out at this point that just because people take a pragmatic approach and follow the legal and moral guidelines of a society, does not mean that morality is objective. It just means that people are relatively rational compared to animals. I should also note that biological and genetic instincts and predispositions are not an effective argument for morality. I will use a somewhat controversial example to make my point. Biologically speaking, homosexuality is an ineffective mutation. The goal of the human race and individual humans is propagation, so sex between a male and a female is necessary. This also means that the majority of people will necessarily be heterosexual if the human race is to survive, and that biologically heterosexuals will have a greater chance to continue to create more heterosexuals (assuming it is a genetic predisposition). Now, mutations will always come and create some homosexuals, but not enough to change them into the majority.
So what does this mean? This means that if you take the biological and genetic as a basis for morality, then every single genetic majority suddenly becomes morally right. Being straight, brown or black haired, asian, and right handed is now a moral right. Being gay, blonde, blue eyed, left handed, albino, is now a moral wrong. Now some of you may look at this and say that sexual preference is not comparable to hair color in terms of morality. But if genetics and biology are your basis for argument, then they absolutely become part of morality, since you are favoring genetic predisposition as your argument for what objective morals are.
This is absolutely a credible position to take, despite my saying it is not an effective argument for morality up above. The reason I said it was not effective, is because I imagine that most people would find this stance uncomfortable. Now I happen to believe in subjective morality, but if this genetic objective morality is you stance, the fine. We have nothing to talk about since we have different, unalterable views on morality.
Someone earlier used the example of slavery in the U.S.; when it was morally correct to own slaves, that was because most of the population believed it to be okay. As time progressed, less and less people believed it to be so, and the overall opinion changed. Eventually, the collective, subjective morals of the population created the feeling of objective opposition to slavery that we see today.
This is a misuse of the word objective. Changing attitudes do not correlate to objectivity. One could make the argument that the majority of people still favor slavery, but that they are too afraid to speak up and so constantly believe they are in the minority. It would be impossible to prove, but because that example can even be made, it basically negates the so called objectivity of your stance. Never mind that objective morality is not a time based situation. You cannot philosophically make the statement that objective morality changes over the time. It is a contradiction; objective morality does not change.
Moral subjectivity and the tolerance are scary philosophical viewpoints to tout because it feels like the only logical conclusion is anarchy :/
No, the only logical conclusion is not anarchy, the same way that the only logical conclusion of Christianity is not a theocracy. I can believe in subjective morality while maintaining a pragmatic view of the world and taking part in the collective morality of society. I think it should be pretty obvious for example, that nations do not have one morality. The fact that there are drug debates, abortion debates, debates about war, the death penalty, etc. should point out that even though legally there is one "right" or "wrong", the people of the world do not hold to that at all.
Just as an example, I can believe that killing someone is not wrong, but that does not mean that I will go on a killing spree. Maintaining my freedom is important to me, and being accepted by society is also important in achieving whatever goals or dreams I have. This means that I will most likely never kill someone in my life. Does it mean that I am more likely to kill someone that those people who believe that murder is always wrong? I do not know. How can you argue something like that with 0 statistical proof? I should also point out that just because I believe that killing someone is not wrong, does not mean that I also believe that killing someone is right. I could just view the act of killing in a neutral way, which gives me no inherent incentive to go around murdering citizens.
This is something that objective viewpoints seem to have difficulty grasping. My lack of consensus with you on your morals does not correlate to my taking the exact opposite morals. If I do not agree that being gay is wrong, it does not mean I will suddenly turn everyone gay. Very often there are not black and white choices in moral questions. Another example, full abortion and 0 abortion are not the only choices.
There is no threat in the idea of subjective morality. It is just a different view of the universe ^_^.
By beeing pragmatic, i learned something interesting: Moral is subjective, simply becouse on a daily basis we decide if we want to follow our moral or not, wahtever it might be. Ofc we could discuss about where morals come from, like sociaty, god, childhood, etc. But it wont change the fact we decide if we want to follow it, and that choice comes to us many many times a day.
On May 16 2011 18:56 iloveav wrote: By beeing pragmatic, i learned something interesting: Moral is subjective, simply becouse on a daily basis we decide if we want to follow our moral or not, wahtever it might be. Ofc we could discuss about where morals come from, like sociaty, god, childhood, etc. But it wont change the fact we decide if we want to follow it, and that choice comes to us many many times a day.
This is a different thing though. What you are discussing is the choice of whether to follow our morals. This is different from the question of whether these morals are in themselves objective or subjective. You can choose not to follow a moral principle, but this simply means that you chose not to follow it. It says nothing about whether it is objective or subjective. In fact, it suggests an element of objectivity - since there first has to be an objective "moral rule" for you to follow/not follow. If morals were entirely subjective, then there's no need to choose - you just make up new moral codes.
I'm leaning towards the subjectivist side, but I feel that many people interpret this to mean that there are absolutely no constraints whatsoever on the morality that you choose for yourself; I don't think it is that simple.
For example, people's morals (including my own) are developed in interaction with society; basically it simply will not fly to develop a morality that is completely alien to the people around you. In fact, this is one of the major sources of friction when people from two very different cultures are forced to live together.
Second, the moral systems that are dominant in a culture usually display some internal consistency. The rule r1: "it is immoral to kill" does not stand on its own; it is in fact in instance of the rule r2: "I can't expect people to refrain from doing X to me unless I am willing to promise to not do it to them". Since being killed is considered extremely undesirable by pretty much everyone, this results in a very strong moral consensus that killing is wrong.
So moral rules are often specific instances of more abstract moral rules that you take even more for granted. At some point these rules start to become so basic that they /feel/ as if they are objective and absolute. Nevertheless they may be different for other people. For example, for me the debate about gay marriage triggers the very basic rule r3: "you should respect other people's decisions unless they somehow harm others", which is in turn derived from r2 (since I desire the freedom to make decisions without interference from others). I believe both r2 and r3 to the core of my being. (I think r1 is true generally but there can be exceptions.) But, turning back to gay marriage, for many people other morals are apparently more fundamental.
So my view is that the fundamentals of our moral system are so ingrained in our minds that we cannot help but /experience/ them as objective and absolute, and in fact we act as if they are (would give our lives to protect such ideas etc). You can't wake up one day and think "well, let's have completely different morals from today onwards". But at the same time, in the end our morals are mostly culturally determined and could have been completely different.
On May 16 2011 09:12 zemiron wrote: Moral rules don't have to be absolute to be objective. Each individual situation can have an objectively correct answer. To find the objectively correct answer to each moral situation, one needs to use logical and rational discovery based on evidence.
Even if morality isn't objective, it definitely doesn't mean that it's totally arbitrary or subjective. We can have a conversation about what makes a good car. There may not be an objectively binding answer to what makes a good car, but if someone said that a good car was a car that got terrible gas mileage and barely runs, you could confidently and correctly say that they are wrong. We can do this with morality without having an objective source for morality.
Actually, you can't find correct answers to moral situations like that. It may sound right if you have a scientific background but you have no idea how alien this sounds to someone with a proper philosophy background. Completely nonsensical.
This is due to the simple fact that you have to decide something or put your foot down somewhere. You have to decide if what you want is "well-being" like Harris mentioned. If freedom is what you want. Anyways, there's this decision to be made and it's nothing like science.
I wasn't trying to advocate something like Harris advocates. I don't want to treat morality like a science. However, I think that what we know about human beings, we can discover objective answers to moral questions by using rational and logical argumentation taking evidence into account when it is applicable. There might have to be certain assumptions that have to be made, and we can discuss these potential assumptions, debate them, and find the ones that are the most reasonable and logical. Then we can find the answers by assessing the situation and using rational argumentation. BTW, I come from a philosophical background. The main point I wanted to make above is that taking individual situations into account does not exclude objectivity.
Now, of course, we may not be able to ground morality on something objective, but this doesn't mean that morality is completely subjective and arbitrary. Some people's moral reasoning is bad, and their point of view can be shown to be wrong. For example, morality based on holy books or complete personal preference have no place within a rational discussion. There is no good reason to accept any of those as answers for morality.
i think things like racism and sexism are absolutely objectively wrong. but on the borderline, it is hard to tell what is racism ('accent discrimination') and sexism.
BUT i do think that if we were born 200 years ago, 99% of us would be horrible racists and sexists. if you grow up in a society that is racist, then if you're racist, it doesn't make you a bad person. it just means that you aren't an incredible genius. i HATE when people judge people from the past. new understandings, if society progresses, will show that we were dead wrong about a lot of assumptions we don't even know we are making.
On May 16 2011 14:33 0neder wrote: Another point to consider is that if morality is, in fact, objective, no matter how much it is not believed to be, it still is objective and founded on the unchangeable laws of the universe.
"if morality is... objective, ... it still is objective"
... care to expand and provide concrete rationale to your opinion?
This isn't very difficult to understand.... replace morality with "the sun rises in the east." No matter how much you think that the sun comes up from underneath your bed, the sun objectively still rises in the east.
Except you can also say...
If the world is flat, no matter what anyone thinks, the world is still flat. or... If unicorns are real, no matter what anyone thinks, unicorns are still real.
On May 16 2011 18:56 iloveav wrote: By beeing pragmatic, i learned something interesting: Moral is subjective, simply becouse on a daily basis we decide if we want to follow our moral or not, wahtever it might be. Ofc we could discuss about where morals come from, like sociaty, god, childhood, etc. But it wont change the fact we decide if we want to follow it, and that choice comes to us many many times a day.
what u are talking about is if ppl always do what moral says them or not. not if moral is subjective or objective. and btw in ur answer u use an objective version of moral =)
Does anyone here even know anything about Kant, Mill, Hobbs, Rowels, or Pinker? It seems to silly for people to discuss stuff without knowing anything about it, much less being versed in it.
Why wouldnt people be allowed to have their own musings on the objectivity of morality without having read the musings and oppinions of others (even if the others were great thinkers)? A good argument remains a good argument, regardless of the source.
There is some confusion about the relation between subjective, and objective. If you don't believe then subjective can give information on objective then you wouldn't tell your doctor how you feel because that would give him no information on what is the best treatment.
Subjective can have insight into objective just because somebody else can't exactly experience the pain as somebody else it doesn't mean that it is arbitrary if somebody finds pain bad or good. Sure how you experience pain depends on your specific brain but everybody brains works according to the same objective physics laws. The same can be said about weight of an object x, it would depend on where the x is, on earth it would weight differently, on mars it would weight differently as well that doesn't mean that weight of an object is just an opinion and anybody estimate is as good as anybody else estimate.
The other problem is that people believe that morality is only based on culture, but they forget that culture doesn't make experience of pain different somebody can find sacrifice of pain worth something else, but the objective truth about pain isn't affected by culture. Believing such just goes against neurology, and evolution the process that without any bias or culture had selected pain to feel in specific way, torture itself is always bad for tortured if he find something else worth to get through it or not. That leads me to conclusions that cultures where there is more suffering, and less well being are worse adapted to the reality of what those things are, and have morally inferior values.
There is also a hypocrisy or some bad value judgement in people who think that cultures should not be judge because that can be offensive. You must believe that offending somebody is worse then horrible unequal treatment of women that those cultures promote, that it is worse then stopping scientific progress is, it would be much bigger if those countries were civilised. You can't improve culture if you pretend that all are equal in principle.
I think that morality is inherently subjective, however there are some overarching principles enshrined globally that many people strive towards. For example, many countries (most, in fact) declare human rights - such as the right to life a universal moral freedom and obligation. Of course, how one defines this is entirely subjective. Also, how the term 'morality' is mobilised in public and political discussion is a play on subjectivity ENTIRELY.
In Australia our government propounds that our country is moral. The irony in this however is our policies on refugees. We signed an international declaration of rights which supposedly upholds the objective morality we all aspire to achieve, we are under an OBLIGATION to assist these refugees! Yet our government constantly argues we need to send these people who have been displaced from their homes because of wars and forces outside of their immediate control back home on the grounds that they are just trying to get a free ride. We justify this objective immorality in a subjective and discursive morality: that we are being moral because refugees are a danger to Australia, that they will ruin our economy, etc. In this way, morality is objective and subjective, it all depends on if it is being spun for some sort of purpose, or if it is taken in an entirely broad way.
If you want to see how fluid morality is check out Milgram's Experiment:
Basically, the experiment attempted to demonstrate that many humans would disregard morality under the influence of authority (i.e. 'following orders') regardless of whether or not their character is judged as good or bad. This was following the trials at Nuremberg and is interesting considering the moral tensions arising within the trials themselves. The results speak for itself, with most people continuing to 'torture' others when under duress of authority.. These are 'ordinary' citizens too!
On May 29 2011 18:33 Vasili wrote: I think that morality is inherently subjective, however there are some overarching principles enshrined globally that many people strive towards. For example, many countries (most, in fact) declare human rights - such as the right to life a universal moral freedom and obligation. Of course, how one defines this is entirely subjective. Also, how the term 'morality' is mobilised in public and political discussion is a play on subjectivity ENTIRELY.
In Australia our government propounds that our country is moral. The irony in this however is our policies on refugees. We signed an international declaration of rights which supposedly upholds the objective morality we all aspire to achieve, we are under an OBLIGATION to assist these refugees! Yet our government constantly argues we need to send these people who have been displaced from their homes because of wars and forces outside of their immediate control back home on the grounds that they are just trying to get a free ride. We justify this objective immorality in a subjective and discursive morality: that we are being moral because refugees are a danger to Australia, that they will ruin our economy, etc. In this way, morality is objective and subjective, it all depends on if it is being spun for some sort of purpose, or if it is taken in an entirely broad way.
Actually all of your examples comes down to human well being, why are human rights good? Human rights are based on what humans are, on what they need.
As for the problem with emigration it all comes down to human well being as well, on one hand you can help refuges, but on the other it can cause problems to well being of citizens that you have now. The principle of human well being stay the same, it is just the judgement on doing what is better for it that changes.
On May 29 2011 18:33 Vasili wrote: If you want to see how fluid morality is check out Milgram's Experiment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TAqBbFJtfE&feature=related Basically, the experiment attempted to demonstrate that many humans would disregard morality under the influence of authority (i.e. 'following orders') regardless of whether or not their character is judged as good or bad. This was following the trials at Nuremberg and is interesting considering the moral tensions arising within the trials themselves. The results speak for itself, with most people continuing to 'torture' others when under duress of authority.. These are 'ordinary' citizens too!
That doesn't show that morality is fluid but that humans have flaws, one of them is they emotional connection to authority figures. Proponents of objective morality don't believe that all believes bout morality are equal.
Does this prove that reality of how the puzzle box works is fluid, or that humans are mislead by they emotional feelings towards authority words/instructions? Such experiments are important, and everybody should know about they own flaws to be better at understanding what is objectively better, we need to know our flaws to go beyond them.
Science, and logic places our understanding of natural world beyond our intuitive/emotional limitations, it can do the same for our morality.
I think there are a few things that can be seen a objectively bad; which are basicaly the few things that goes against our own survival as the human race : killing / raping / destroying all our meaning to survive, like food. The rest is subjeciv.
On May 29 2011 18:33 Vasili wrote: If you want to see how fluid morality is check out Milgram's Experiment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TAqBbFJtfE&feature=related Basically, the experiment attempted to demonstrate that many humans would disregard morality under the influence of authority (i.e. 'following orders') regardless of whether or not their character is judged as good or bad. This was following the trials at Nuremberg and is interesting considering the moral tensions arising within the trials themselves. The results speak for itself, with most people continuing to 'torture' others when under duress of authority.. These are 'ordinary' citizens too!
That doesn't show that morality is fluid but that humans have flaws, one of them is they emotional connection to authority figures. Proponents of objective morality don't believe that all believes bout morality are equal.
Does this prove that reality of how the puzzle box works is fluid, or that humans are mislead by they emotional feelings towards authority words/instructions? Such experiments are important, and everybody should know about they own flaws to be better at understanding what is objectively better, we need to know our flaws to go beyond them.
Science, and logic places our understanding of natural world beyond our intuitive/emotional limitations, it can do the same for our morality.
I think you're exemple is flawed because you don't see what the subject does just after obtaining the candy. The chimp would eat it as soon as they got it but what about the kids ? I'm sure they would not.
Take a kid, starve him to death, then make him play the game, and you will see that he will do as the chimp : rush to get the candy. It's the same with the fork and the knife, we use it to eat, but as soon as we picture in our head a starved "savage", we imagine him rushing to the food and eating raw with his hands. This has nothing to do with moral but it's about our civilisation and how we are now freed from our basic needs.
On May 29 2011 17:55 Polis wrote: The other problem is that people believe that morality is only based on culture, but they forget that culture doesn't make experience of pain different somebody can find sacrifice of pain worth something else, but the objective truth about pain isn't affected by culture. Believing such just goes against neurology, and evolution the process that without any bias or culture had selected pain to feel in specific way, torture itself is always bad for tortured if he find something else worth to get through it or not. That leads me to conclusions that cultures where there is more suffering, and less well being are worse adapted to the reality of what those things are, and have morally inferior values..
That is simply not true at all. Neurology is sketchy and is inextricably linked with subjective consciousness. Why is it that there is a significant correlation between belief of something and the physiological reaction to it, when it is objectively devoid?
For example, many experiments demonstrate that someone who is given a placebo and told it will act just like a certain drug have the physiological and neurological response as if one actually ingested the drug. There are countless experiments demonstrating that participants who 'believe' they have been given alcohol 'feel' intoxicated, and this can be examined through physiological and neurological patterns suggestive of intoxication (i.e. a depressant effect on neuronal activation indicative of alcohol consumption).
Also, I think to assume that just because someone is accustomed to a life of suffering does NOT mean they are devoid of morality. I would say that people placed into situations of conflict and suffering have just as much morality as the rest of us, just that they are placed within a different context which demands a different subjective application of morality. For example, I think it is moral for someone who is destitute to steal bread to feed their starving family because in that context it is ENTIRELY rational. This person DOES NOT have inferior values, they have the same values as us: Family and survival.
On May 29 2011 19:12 darkness wrote: Definitely subjective. For example, Al-Qaeda think it's right to do what they do, while we all think it isn't.
The truth about how long our universe existed is definitely subjective, for example scientist thinks that it is 13.75 bln years, and young earthen that it is 6000 years. Why belief that humans can't be wrong about what is moral, and what isn't?
morals are purely subjective, what might seem wrong for johny do-good might be right for someone else. I can't even believe people are debating the other side.
Everyone has their own morals, those morals are based on what they believe to be "good", where good is also subjective. Just because YOU think that your beliefs and morals are global does not make it so.
On May 29 2011 18:33 Vasili wrote: If you want to see how fluid morality is check out Milgram's Experiment:
Basically, the experiment attempted to demonstrate that many humans would disregard morality under the influence of authority (i.e. 'following orders') regardless of whether or not their character is judged as good or bad. This was following the trials at Nuremberg and is interesting considering the moral tensions arising within the trials themselves. The results speak for itself, with most people continuing to 'torture' others when under duress of authority.. These are 'ordinary' citizens too!
That doesn't show that morality is fluid but that humans have flaws, one of them is they emotional connection to authority figures. Proponents of objective morality don't believe that all believes bout morality are equal.
Does this prove that reality of how the puzzle box works is fluid, or that humans are mislead by they emotional feelings towards authority words/instructions? Such experiments are important, and everybody should know about they own flaws to be better at understanding what is objectively better, we need to know our flaws to go beyond them.
Science, and logic places our understanding of natural world beyond our intuitive/emotional limitations, it can do the same for our morality.
It does show that morality is fluid, because it shows that morality isn't just this static given that only 'good' people can achieve. Morality is fluid in Milgram's experiment because it became the subject of influence for authority, instead of as just a concept that indicates good or evil. It's not so much a flaw within humans to bow to authority as it is a flaw with the understanding of something like morality as separate from the very socially constructed aspects of our lives. In that way morality is fluid because it is constructed by people, and its mobilisation is affected BY people. If people are emotionally connected then that further emphasises just how fluid morality is because the concept will shift based on these relations, rather than remain static. I don't quite see your point in relating the puzzle box experiment to this.
On May 29 2011 19:15 Vasili wrote:That is simply not true at all. Neurology is sketchy and is inextricably linked with subjective consciousness.
No if we had understand everything about how the human brain works then we could see objective comparisons on how much person x feel pain compared to person y, that must be in principle true if you don't believe in magic. What you are criticizing is just our lack of tools, but we have enough of them to estimate things.
On May 29 2011 19:15 Vasili wrote: Why is it that there is a significant correlation between belief of something and the physiological reaction to it, when it is objectively devoid?
For example, many experiments demonstrate that someone who is given a placebo and told it will act just like a certain drug have the physiological and neurological response as if one actually ingested the drug. There are countless experiments demonstrating that participants who 'believe' they have been given alcohol 'feel' intoxicated, and this can be examined through physiological and neurological patterns suggestive of intoxication (i.e. a depressant effect on neuronal activation indicative of alcohol consumption).
That is because that is the objective reality about how the brain work. You know that all those testimonies, and brain when they had said that they felt intoxicated show something about reality, and you have some concept estimation of what feeling intoxicated means, subjective conciousness doesn't stop you from finding objective information from that data, the same can be applied to morality based on principle of human well being.
On May 29 2011 19:15 Vasili wrote:Also, I think to assume that just because someone is accustomed to a life of suffering does NOT mean they are devoid of morality..
I had not said that. I had said that promoting cultures that lead to more suffering is morally wrong.
On May 29 2011 19:15 Vasili wrote:I would say that people placed into situations of conflict and suffering have just as much morality as the rest of us, just that they are placed within a different context which demands a different subjective application of morality. For example, I think it is moral for someone who is destitute to steal bread to feed their starving family because in that context it is ENTIRELY rational. This person DOES NOT have inferior values, they have the same values as us: Family and survival.
I had never said that stealing is always bad, but the general rule that makes stealing illegal is generally good, and it doesn't stop people from helping the starving actually it leads to societies that are able to do so. Notice that your example still holds when the basis for morality is human well being it is not against this principle at all.
On May 29 2011 19:25 Vasili wrote:It does show that morality is fluid, because it shows that morality isn't just this static given that only 'good' people can achieve. Morality is fluid in Milgram's experiment because it became the subject of influence for authority, instead of as just a concept that indicates good or evil. It's not so much a flaw within humans to bow to authority as it is a flaw with the understanding of something like morality as separate from the very socially constructed aspects of our lives. In that way morality is fluid because it is constructed by people, and its mobilisation is affected BY people. If people are emotionally connected then that further emphasises just how fluid morality is because the concept will shift based on these relations, rather than remain static. I don't quite see your point in relating the puzzle box experiment to this.
This experiment doesn't show what is moral, but what people believe to be moral, humans can be as wrong about it as they can about how the box works, and knowledge about how authority influence they thinking could help them to understand how the box works (obviously that is only practical when we would have more complex example then the this box). You can feel mobilized by Behe arguments to teach creationism that doesn't say anything about the truth of it, mobilization of creationist group that want to teach creationism in schools are affected BY Behe, and he use his authority all the groups that believe in pseudo science say that many people with Ph.D believe it as well, neither of that point that creationism is an alternative equal belief to evolution by natural selection. I don't consider truths about morality to be a popularity contest.
How human works is of course important, and if you can see that human attachment to authority makes them cause more suffering, then they should be teached about the reality of it. I hope that you can see how the knowledge of such experiments can change people perception on what is moral, more objective facts related to morality in general lead to better moral standards, the bigger ignorance about owns nature in general leads to more mistakes in judging what is moral. Now you can sure give example where understanding something only partially can make somebody belief in something that is more false then intuitive view on it, but that can be said about any sciences.
I had never said that morality is only for good people* sorry but my position as actually not patronizing, and I acknowledge that humans can understand objective results of experiments, and how they relate to morality, and that they should be exposed to those informations. You should also note that cultures in general move to the ones that are better for well being, and that objective data influence what people find to be moral, people that don't want any criticism of cultures/religions put a stop to this progress.
*If by good people you don't mean everybody that doesn't have antisocial personality disorder, those people are inherently unable to understand morality, they for example don't understand the moral difference between teacher allowing them to eat, or to hit other student, people without this disorder do.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YB2KX.jpg)
3, trans. J. Michael Young, Lectures on Logic, p. 590-91).
![[image loading]](http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20110513.gif)
