|
Post by goz on Feb 22, 2018 5:26:03 GMT
I feel though that an ethical discussion tends to be very different from an aesthetic one. People might sneer if I told them I own Batman and Robin on dvd but ultimately people will shruggingly say things like "to each their own" or "no accounting for taste" because most accept that aesthetics is at heart a nonsense. But if I said slavery was ok, there would not be such acceptance of my position. The moral realist can say that there should not be because my position is essentially wrong. The nihilist can say the fault is that people think about ethics differently from aesthetics when really they are the same. But the relativist is in a weird position where they think ethics is and is not in the same category as aesthetics - that being ok with slavery is as much a matter of taste as liking Batman and Robin but my tastes carry a special significance in (and only in) ethical disputes. I think you missed my point with the aesthetics analogy. We can agree that aesthetics are about subjective feelings/thoughts/standards, but that doesn't stop us from discussing them, and we still call what we're doing aesthetics. I don't most accept it's a "nonsense" either, since our aesthetics have an impact on what kind of art gets made and experienced. We are, after all, on a board that was originally dedicated to film discussion. People are less accepting of differing ethics precisely because ethics have a much more profound impact on our lives in general. In aesthetics, you can usually go and find some art that suits your taste, but it's not an easy thing to go find a society that perfectly matches your ethics, and clearly some ethical systems lead to some worlds in which more or less people are miserable and more or less people are happy. To me, the relativist is just the realistic position, it's the description of how ethics and aesthetics actually works; both are a product of people's thoughts/feelings, but people generally have much stronger thoughts/feelings about ethics than aesthetics. Having stronger thoughts/feelings doesn't make it any more objective, but it does make it more important in relation to those thoughts/feelings. Holy crap this is getting annoying! You and Kiera need to just sort out the actual question I posed in this thread. Ethics v morals (no difference), relativism....blah blah blah...IS there any validity to an objective view of morality or not? I say not. It is subjective and evolving with time and evolution of human knowledge, thought, technology and societal requirements.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 22, 2018 6:30:56 GMT
I think you missed my point with the aesthetics analogy. We can agree that aesthetics are about subjective feelings/thoughts/standards, but that doesn't stop us from discussing them, and we still call what we're doing aesthetics. I don't most accept it's a "nonsense" either, since our aesthetics have an impact on what kind of art gets made and experienced. We are, after all, on a board that was originally dedicated to film discussion. People are less accepting of differing ethics precisely because ethics have a much more profound impact on our lives in general. In aesthetics, you can usually go and find some art that suits your taste, but it's not an easy thing to go find a society that perfectly matches your ethics, and clearly some ethical systems lead to some worlds in which more or less people are miserable and more or less people are happy. To me, the relativist is just the realistic position, it's the description of how ethics and aesthetics actually works; both are a product of people's thoughts/feelings, but people generally have much stronger thoughts/feelings about ethics than aesthetics. Having stronger thoughts/feelings doesn't make it any more objective, but it does make it more important in relation to those thoughts/feelings. IS there any validity to an objective view of morality or not? I say not. I agree, but you know... discussions evolve too.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 22, 2018 7:01:36 GMT
I think this is false. It's a rule of the universe that water evaporates at 100 degrees Celsius. No it's not. It's only valid for the atmospheric conditions on most of Earth. But boil water on Mount Everest or on Mars, and it will evaporate before the temperature reaches 100°C. That rule doesn't apply to anything that isn't water so does that mean it's not a rule at all? See above. It's a rule, but not a universal one. In other words something might not be universal in the most rigid definition of the word but might still be objective. When people use the term "moral universalism" they usually mean "universal amongst rational creatures" not universal amongst all entities. This restriction means it's not objective. I can accept morals often are a matter of agreement, but what about where we have a moral opinion against what most in our society agree about? For instance if we were a vegan in a meat eating society. Is it immoral to try and bring about veganism in such a society? If your veganism doesn't affect others, it's neither moral nor immoral. If you can prove that veganism is better for society, and that meat eating is bad for society, then veganism is a moral choice. But if veganism is bad for society, then it's immoral to push veganism.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 22, 2018 7:09:53 GMT
That is a lot of words for a simple concept and the point of this thread which is that morality is evolving because it is not, and cannot remain static. This is because there is no such thing as 'objective' morality unless you believe it is imposed by an outside 'power' ie god. Human thought, knowledge, society, culture and technology is evolving and so must 'morality'. I already said in my first reply on this thread that there is no objective morality. Even if morals came from an outside power they would still be subjective from that outside power's point of view. Humans evolve, and so do their morals.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 1,290
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 22, 2018 7:18:59 GMT
If your veganism doesn't affect others, it's neither moral nor immoral. If you can prove that veganism is better for society, and that meat eating is bad for society, then veganism is a moral choice. But if veganism is bad for society, then it's immoral to push veganism.
But why should a subjective morality be about society as a whole? Why can't I say what's good is what I want?
And regarding the water thing if it's a rule that under certain atmospheric conditions water will evaporate at 100 degrees would that not be similar to saying under certain conditions, rational beings can choose to do what is good? Though if you wouldn't call that universal or objective that's fair enough, no point debating semantics.
What's interesting though is from past discussions I know you, Goz, Eva and I have very similar moral outlooks and all feel pretty strongly about them so maybe this debate is just so much navel gazing.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 1,290
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 22, 2018 7:26:47 GMT
People are less accepting of differing ethics precisely because ethics have a much more profound impact on our lives in general. What about when we consider the ethics of the past? We can be appalled by the rape and pillage antics of the Vikings but there's very little chance of such activity returning to the west any time soon. Or what about in foreign cultures, why do we feel so hostile to female circumcision? Note we don't have the same view of the artistic tastes of the past and in foreign climes.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 1,290
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 22, 2018 7:29:21 GMT
Holy crap this is getting annoying! Well people have been debating this topic for 2500 years after all - unlikely we're going to solve it to everyone's satisfaction in one thread!
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 1,290
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 22, 2018 7:36:18 GMT
This is because there is no such thing as 'objective' morality unless you believe it is imposed by an outside 'power' ie god. Human thought, knowledge, society, culture and technology is evolving and so must 'morality'. Knowledge is an interesting one to include since most would consider this an objective pursuit - in that we are gradually learning more and more about how the universe actually is.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Feb 22, 2018 9:03:12 GMT
Morality concerns itself with what is good or bad. So if one rule of what is good or bad does not apply (or is not true) to just one entity in the Universe, alive or not, sentient or not, conscious or not, then this rule is not a universal rule, and therefore not an objective rule. I think this is false. It's a rule of the universe that water evaporates at 100 degrees Celsius. That rule doesn't apply to anything that isn't water so does that mean it's not a rule at all? Water can boil at one degree above absolute zero if the pressure is low enough. It can freeze on the surface of the sun if the pressure is high enough. Other materials will boil at 100 C with the correct pressure.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 1,290
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 22, 2018 9:28:50 GMT
I think this is false. It's a rule of the universe that water evaporates at 100 degrees Celsius. That rule doesn't apply to anything that isn't water so does that mean it's not a rule at all? Water can boil at one degree above absolute zero if the pressure is low enough. It can freeze on the surface of the sun if the pressure is high enough. Other materials will boil at 100 C with the correct pressure. Yes, mistake on my part. I suppose what I was saying is there are certain conditions that will cause water to boil but these conditions apply only to water. Other materials will require the variables to be at different levels. Although perhaps it wasn't a great analogy anyway when I come to think about it again.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 22, 2018 15:32:24 GMT
But why should a subjective morality be about society as a whole? Why can't I say what's good is what I want? I used morals and ethics interchangeably. Morality is about what deeds are good or bad. Ethics are about what deeds are good or bad regarding society. Humans are social animals. what they do as individuals affects society as a whole. So if you're not a sociopath your subjective morals will consider society as a whole. If what you want harms society, they will react accordingly, and it will be bad for you. Since ethics are a result of consensus, they evolve. People change, societies change, ethics and moral change. The fact that they are not objective does not change.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Feb 22, 2018 16:58:41 GMT
But why should a subjective morality be about society as a whole? Why can't I say what's good is what I want? I used morals and ethics interchangeably. Morality is about what deeds are good or bad. Ethics are about what deeds are good or bad regarding society. Humans are social animals. what they do as individuals affects society as a whole. So if you're not a sociopath your subjective morals will consider society as a whole. If what you want harms society, they will react accordingly, and it will be bad for you. Since ethics are a result of consensus, they evolve. People change, societies change, ethics and moral change. The fact that they are not objective does not change. That's why "morality" doesn't evolve.
It appears that most people here equate morality with "ethics" or "mores". Of course they do change by definition.
Morality doesn't.
For example, whomever wrote the older History of the Jews, whether one believes Moses, Samuel, and others did so, or whether someone believes later revisionists did so, the mores changed, but not the morals.
In this example, take the slaughters. Now it is clear that when Simeon and Levi committed slaughter, it wasn't sanctioned. However, the slaughters by Joshua, Gideon, and others were sanctioned because the mores were not the morals.
The morals said murder was a sin, but whether justified or not, the ancient Hebrews saw the people they slaughtered as being devils, not people. We don't know if this was true or not, and only the most self righteous and most raving lunatics will say one way or the other. Perhaps they were humans, perhaps they were demonic beings. We don't know.
We do know that they were considered demonic creatures. This was such a common understanding that it isn't even discussed.
The morality hadn't changed. The morality was still that killing human beings was wrong. The mores stated that the beings being slaughtered weren't human, or even animal.
Hence, we see that civilization induced a change in mores, but not in morality.
Now, one can make a case that slaughtering a lamb just for a sacrifice isn't moral. And that is the bane of Christianity which many of us who have been "outsiders" have witnessed among demon possessed people claiming to be Christian. My hateful mother enrolled me in a Lutheran school in the fourth grade, and I met what I'm sure are now CIA assassins in bulk force. These human monsters had no "side" to their evil. They were just evil, desiring an innocent "sacrifice", and being an outsider, I was picked. What they did I tell others, but the only people who believe me are the other few who survived being an outsider in a Lutheran school. Say what you will about Catholic schools, they don't hold a candle to the sadistic Satanism of Lutheran schools.
Now, no doubt these maniacs who are demon possessed wanted people to believe they were just letting someone be an innocent lamb, but it's pure sadism, and the biggest problem with Christianity.
Christian theologians have to learn to make everyone understand this concept from day one, and they don't. That is because of mores and ethics, and because too many of them are controlled by demons, too.
Jesus intended that he be the one and only innocent sacrifice. And those who demand others be such are blaspheming his Holy Ghost. So how then does God in the Torah, whom Jesus calls his father, maintain that perfect animal sacrifices be made and looked well upon by him? That is a mystery lost in translation, no doubt. Which is why those who insist that the book they hold up and insist that every word in it is true and holy, are led by Satan, probably innocently, but still so. The bible is a puzzle, and anyone who doesn't admit that is either a liar or a moron.
Morality doesn't change. We all know it's wrong to kill, it's wrong to steal. Now, if someone picks up a rock and doesn't know it belongs to someone else, that is not stealing. It is stealing when the person knows it belongs to someone else. That is the morality we all know, even the psychopaths who claim to not know it.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 22, 2018 20:50:37 GMT
I used morals and ethics interchangeably. Morality is about what deeds are good or bad. Ethics are about what deeds are good or bad regarding society. Humans are social animals. what they do as individuals affects society as a whole. So if you're not a sociopath your subjective morals will consider society as a whole. If what you want harms society, they will react accordingly, and it will be bad for you. Since ethics are a result of consensus, they evolve. People change, societies change, ethics and moral change. The fact that they are not objective does not change. That's why "morality" doesn't evolve.
It appears that most people here equate morality with "ethics" or "mores". Of course they do change by definition.
Morality doesn't.
For example, whomever wrote the older History of the Jews, whether one believes Moses, Samuel, and others did so, or whether someone believes later revisionists did so, the mores changed, but not the morals.
In this example, take the slaughters. Now it is clear that when Simeon and Levi committed slaughter, it wasn't sanctioned. However, the slaughters by Joshua, Gideon, and others were sanctioned because the mores were not the morals.
The morals said murder was a sin, but whether justified or not, the ancient Hebrews saw the people they slaughtered as being devils, not people. We don't know if this was true or not, and only the most self righteous and most raving lunatics will say one way or the other. Perhaps they were humans, perhaps they were demonic beings. We don't know.
We do know that they were considered demonic creatures. This was such a common understanding that it isn't even discussed.
The morality hadn't changed. The morality was still that killing human beings was wrong. The mores stated that the beings being slaughtered weren't human, or even animal.
Hence, we see that civilization induced a change in mores, but not in morality.
Now, one can make a case that slaughtering a lamb just for a sacrifice isn't moral. And that is the bane of Christianity which many of us who have been "outsiders" have witnessed among demon possessed people claiming to be Christian. My hateful mother enrolled me in a Lutheran school in the fourth grade, and I met what I'm sure are now CIA assassins in bulk force. These human monsters had no "side" to their evil. They were just evil, desiring an innocent "sacrifice", and being an outsider, I was picked. What they did I tell others, but the only people who believe me are the other few who survived being an outsider in a Lutheran school. Say what you will about Catholic schools, they don't hold a candle to the sadistic Satanism of Lutheran schools.
Now, no doubt these maniacs who are demon possessed wanted people to believe they were just letting someone be an innocent lamb, but it's pure sadism, and the biggest problem with Christianity.
Christian theologians have to learn to make everyone understand this concept from day one, and they don't. That is because of mores and ethics, and because too many of them are controlled by demons, too.
Jesus intended that he be the one and only innocent sacrifice. And those who demand others be such are blaspheming his Holy Ghost. So how then does God in the Torah, whom Jesus calls his father, maintain that perfect animal sacrifices be made and looked well upon by him? That is a mystery lost in translation, no doubt. Which is why those who insist that the book they hold up and insist that every word in it is true and holy, are led by Satan, probably innocently, but still so. The bible is a puzzle, and anyone who doesn't admit that is either a liar or a moron.
Morality doesn't change. We all know it's wrong to kill, it's wrong to steal. Now, if someone picks up a rock and doesn't know it belongs to someone else, that is not stealing. It is stealing when the person knows it belongs to someone else. That is the morality we all know, even the psychopaths who claim to not know it.
This is a very fine example of Christian apologist hair splitting and semantic vagaries. Substitute another word for morals like ethics or mores and you spilt the argument? I don't think so! No we don't, not always, all the time, in every age and in every circumstance? Society has had totally different attitudes through time to killing. ( and everything else) If you are an American you have only to look to your laws of 'self defence' and capital punishment. Primitive tribes killed for defence, territory and ritual. How to do you explain wars and the pass given to soldiers? If you next claim is that God hands down' man's 'moral' values as set out in the Bible and Satan makes man 'Sin'...just re-read your Bible and interpret it differently...and you have already proven that there is no objective morality.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 23, 2018 2:16:36 GMT
People are less accepting of differing ethics precisely because ethics have a much more profound impact on our lives in general. What about when we consider the ethics of the past? We can be appalled by the rape and pillage antics of the Vikings but there's very little chance of such activity returning to the west any time soon. Or what about in foreign cultures, why do we feel so hostile to female circumcision? Note we don't have the same view of the artistic tastes of the past and in foreign climes. I'm... not entirely sure what kind of answer you're looking for here. We feel hostile to something like female circumcision in large part because it's NOT something that's ingrained in our culture like male circumcision is; plus, in the case of female circumcision there is potentially far more harm done both in the short and long term, and we're not, in general, real high on violating people's body's without their permission. Depends on what you mean RE aesthetics of the past. We don't condemn them the way we do ethical systems, but, again, that's more because ethics has a deeper impact on our general lives. Plus, in ethics there are polarized positions that are mutually incompatible, which really isn't the case for aesthetics. In aesthetics you can like both the pre-composed nature of classical AND the improvised nature of jazz; but in ethics you can't really be both for and against the death penalty simultaneously (and by this I don't mean being for/against in certain circumstances, I just mean in general). However, like with ethics, we also don't tend to adopt aesthetics of the past either. People don't write music like Mozart or plays like Shakespeare or make movies like Fritz Lang; or if/when they do they don't gain much popularity/acclaim for it.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 1,290
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 23, 2018 8:11:51 GMT
What about when we consider the ethics of the past? We can be appalled by the rape and pillage antics of the Vikings but there's very little chance of such activity returning to the west any time soon. Or what about in foreign cultures, why do we feel so hostile to female circumcision? Note we don't have the same view of the artistic tastes of the past and in foreign climes. I'm... not entirely sure what kind of answer you're looking for here. We feel hostile to something like female circumcision in large part because it's NOT something that's ingrained in our culture like male circumcision is; plus, in the case of female circumcision there is potentially far more harm done both in the short and long term, and we're not, in general, real high on violating people's body's without their permission. Depends on what you mean RE aesthetics of the past. We don't condemn them the way we do ethical systems, but, again, that's more because ethics has a deeper impact on our general lives. Plus, in ethics there are polarized positions that are mutually incompatible, which really isn't the case for aesthetics. In aesthetics you can like both the pre-composed nature of classical AND the improvised nature of jazz; but in ethics you can't really be both for and against the death penalty simultaneously (and by this I don't mean being for/against in certain circumstances, I just mean in general). However, like with ethics, we also don't tend to adopt aesthetics of the past either. People don't write music like Mozart or plays like Shakespeare or make movies like Fritz Lang; or if/when they do they don't gain much popularity/acclaim for it. Yeah I suppose that makes sense. I must admit though I find it very hard to think of morality in that way - of there not being a right answer but my opinion still being something worth fighting for. Maybe that's just lack of imagination on my part though.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 24, 2018 1:40:39 GMT
I'm... not entirely sure what kind of answer you're looking for here. We feel hostile to something like female circumcision in large part because it's NOT something that's ingrained in our culture like male circumcision is; plus, in the case of female circumcision there is potentially far more harm done both in the short and long term, and we're not, in general, real high on violating people's body's without their permission. Depends on what you mean RE aesthetics of the past. We don't condemn them the way we do ethical systems, but, again, that's more because ethics has a deeper impact on our general lives. Plus, in ethics there are polarized positions that are mutually incompatible, which really isn't the case for aesthetics. In aesthetics you can like both the pre-composed nature of classical AND the improvised nature of jazz; but in ethics you can't really be both for and against the death penalty simultaneously (and by this I don't mean being for/against in certain circumstances, I just mean in general). However, like with ethics, we also don't tend to adopt aesthetics of the past either. People don't write music like Mozart or plays like Shakespeare or make movies like Fritz Lang; or if/when they do they don't gain much popularity/acclaim for it. Yeah I suppose that makes sense. I must admit though I find it very hard to think of morality in that way - of there not being a right answer but my opinion still being something worth fighting for. Maybe that's just lack of imagination on my part though. Sure, I think many people have great difficulty thinking of morality like that. It's so important to them that they feel like it ought to be as objective/real as the sun and the moon and ought not to be variable due to the whims of human subjectivity; but, as usual, if we're after truth we can't reject ideas just because they make us uncomfortable and vice versa. With morality all you have to ask is our basic methods for determining what's subjective/objective to begin with and then analyze morality and see what category it fits into.
|
|