|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Dec 1, 2017 14:08:47 GMT
I had an argument with a Christian recently who accused me of having “no moral basis“ because I said I believed that morality was subjective. He argued that morality was objective (given to us by God), and that there is a universal standard of right and wrong, that doesn’t change. Right is always right, and wrong is always wrong. I told him that everyone decides on their own what they believe to be moral or immoral based on their values. What’s wrong to me may not be wrong to you. He then proceeded to tell me that he was disgusted with my lack of moral center and then decided to block me (which I thought was sad, but not terribly unexpected). Anyway, wdo do you guys think? Depends how you define morality, I guess. It can be objective if you think of morality as 'promoting wellbeing' or something similar. Generally though, it is subjective. All one has to do is point to immoral things in the bible sanctioned by god, to show it is largely cultural, and therefore subjective. How would we get to an objective "wellbeing"? In other words, you'd be trying to say that in the extra mental world, x counts as well-being and y doesn't, or x is "more wellbeing" than y? What in the non-mental world determines this? Take something like disease. Joe says that having the disease is "more wellbeing" and Frank says that not having the disease is "more wellbeing." Frank makes the simple argument that without the disease, people live longer. Joe says, "Living longer isn't the same as more wellbeing. Having the disease gives people more mental fortitude, and that's more wellbeing than living longer." How would we show that per the non-mental world, Frank has got things right and Joe does not? |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Dec 1, 2017 14:13:12 GMT
If I am interpreting this convoluted and packed statement correctly, you are essentially saying that morality is objective. So then I have to ask, what is the basis for that position? How did you arrive at this conclusion, especially given the fact that it has changed from generation to generation, and seems to vary from society to society, to say nothing about individual perspectives? Because growing and learning from past mistakes is part of the human experience? We absolutely can say that past acceptance of things such as slavery are morally wrong, no matter how right previous generations thought they were. And things this generation supports, such as the exploitation and abuse of animals, will also rightfully be judged as evil by future generations. The fact that societies disagree over what is moral and right doesn't mean that there aren't real standards of what is moral or right. He's asking you what means that there are "real standards" though. The fact that people have a lot of confidence that they're right and the other guy (including themselves at an earlier time) is/was wrong isn't the extent of your argument, is it? |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 1, 2017 14:16:54 GMT
I never understood what morals have to do with any kind of religion or faith. Religions create moral standards just like governments & individuals do. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 1, 2017 14:17:42 GMT
It cannot be two contradictory things at the same time friend. That would be true if morality had one standard. It doesn't and I have no idea why you would think so. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2017 14:18:01 GMT
Exactly so. If you think morality is a code of behaviour to promote wellbeing then morality is objective - it is an objective fact that "murder people regularly" does not promote wellbeing for individuals or society. How do you figure? Isn’t this in itself a subjective judgement? Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Bashar Al Assad, Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong Un obviously considered murder to be in their best interests. Well for one, I disagree that they had exactly that policy. Perhaps I worded it sloppily, but I was thinking of a society in which everyone murders other people on a regular basis. That isn't true even of Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. No state has ever had such a policy, and any state that did would not flourish because such a state would rapidly cease to exist as it's population annihilated itself in short order. But agreed, the people you name led countries in which the murder of citizens was much more frequent, and arguably much less justified, than it is in the US today, for instance. But I would argue that it's not really a subjective judgment that these policies hurt the wellbeing of society. How did Germany do under Nazi policies, for instance? Was it a model of societal wellbeing? Did Nazi Germany endure and become a beacon for the world of how to run a country? No, it did not. As a matter of hard objective fact, it ended in utter ruin. Saddam's Iraq. Was it a model to the world of a wonderful way to produce a happy, contented populace? Is North Korea? Did Bin Laden's actions lead to an increase in wellbeing for the world? For America? For Afghanistan? Now of course, it's not always so clear-cut. Most moral judgments are awkward to judge, because the results of rules of behaviour are not always easy to measure, and most rules will cause both benefit and harm. So to that extent the "moral truth" can be hard to determine, or even impossible. Look at the abortion debate for an example. But in the examples you listed I think it's absurdly obvious that if any of those people thought that they were producing societies which valued wellbeing, then they were objectively factually wrong. But then I don't think they ever intended that. At best, they intended to produce societies in which wellbeing was increased for some, and reduced for others that they didn't care about or actively hated. It's the nationwide equivalent of claiming that stealing is moral because it leaves you and your family better off. That might be so, but it misses the point that morality is about what's best for everyone, and what's best for everyone is that people don't steal stuff. As I said; I doubt even Kim Jong Un actually believes that his rule is in the best interests of his society. I think at best he thinks it's in the best interests of Kim Jong Un and those he cares about, which is a wholly different thing. And if he does think his rule is in the best interest of society as a whole, then I think it's rather obvious that he's objectively wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Dec 1, 2017 14:23:36 GMT
It cannot be two contradictory things at the same time friend. That would be true if morality had one standard. It doesn't and I have no idea why you would think so. Where would you say the objective standard is located? |
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Dec 1, 2017 14:25:25 GMT
I never understood what morals have to do with any kind of religion or faith. Well, most religious people believe that morals come from God and are taught by their religion. Thats just sad really. And kinda scary. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Dec 1, 2017 14:29:31 GMT
But I would argue that it's not really a subjective judgment that these policies hurt the wellbeing of society. To get there, you need to show that it's a non-mental determination that x counts as (more) wellbeing rather than y. So what would we look at to see what non-mentally counts as wellbeing? Note that I'm not asking for a nonmental word ascription--there aren't going to be any of those obviously. The idea here is rather that "wellbeing" is itself a judgment. We could point to a nonmental fact like "This society embraced murder, they all murdered each other, and now they no longer exist." The problem is, where is the "wellbeing" part there? If you say, "well, I'm using the term 'wellbeing' to simply refer to surviving longer (on average)," then we have the problem of "wellbeing" not having any normative weight, and not resembling the usual usage of the term. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 1, 2017 14:46:19 GMT
If I am interpreting this convoluted and packed statement correctly, you are essentially saying that morality is objective. So then I have to ask, what is the basis for that position? How did you arrive at this conclusion, especially given the fact that it has changed from generation to generation, and seems to vary from society to society, to say nothing about individual perspectives? Because growing and learning from past mistakes is part of the human experience? We absolutely can say that past acceptance of things such as slavery are morally wrong, no matter how right previous generations thought they were. And things this generation supports, such as the exploitation and abuse of animals, will also rightfully be judged as evil by future generations. The fact that societies disagree over what is moral and right doesn't mean that there aren't real standards of what is moral or right. Your view is pretty much the assumption that although “morality never changes”, human understanding of it does, and therefore society as a whole evolves be less tolerant of behaviors that were previously understood to be moral. Here are the problems with the logic you are using: A) If morality never changes, then why would society ever collectively agree to accept immoral behavior in the first place? Why would a society collectively believe and treat immoral behavior as though it was moral? That doesn’t make any sense. B) How do you account for the fact that certain things that were deemed “immoral” in the past, are now collectively viewed as moral? Treating women equal to men, challenging the authority of government officials, questioning religious leaders, belief that earth is not the center of the universe, masturbation, consuming/selling alcohol, dancing, using swear words, being homosexual, women wearing their hair short, wearing a bikini, marrying outside of one’s race, having a child out of wedlock, not spanking your children, etc. Depending on your culture all of those things were at one time considered by society to be immoral, but are largely accepted now. In some cases, those actions may even be considered more moral, and having the opposing view becomes immoral. So if morality never changes, and society is always collectively moving towards a more moral understanding, then why are things that were once considered immoral in the past now moral? And why is the view of morality still dependent on culture? |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 1, 2017 14:51:27 GMT
It cannot be two contradictory things at the same time friend. That would be true if morality had one standard. It doesn't and I have no idea why you would think so. If there are different standards for morality, then it’s not objective. “Different standards“ imply subjectivity. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 1, 2017 14:52:48 GMT
Well, most religious people believe that morals come from God and are taught by their religion. Thats just sad really. And kinda scary. I agree. But I literally had a religious person tell me two days ago that me believing that morality was subjective was sad and scary. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Dec 1, 2017 15:00:05 GMT
Depends how you define morality, I guess. It can be objective if you think of morality as 'promoting wellbeing' or something similar. Generally though, it is subjective. Exactly so. If you think morality is a code of behaviour to promote wellbeing then morality is objective - it is an objective fact that "murder people regularly" does not promote wellbeing for individuals or society. If you don't think morality is that... well, tell me what you do think it is, and I'll tell you if I think it's objective or subjective. Even if we define morality as promoting wellbeing, it's still subjective in that people disagree on what's good for society and individuals. There may be people who hate government and consider everybody too weak to defend themselves or form coalitions fair game for murder; and the regular killing of them as ultimately beneficial for society; like weeding or pruning. I am not one of them. I guess that morality being subjective or objective may depend on how morality is defined; but also on the definitions of objective and subjective. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Dec 1, 2017 15:03:15 GMT
Because growing and learning from past mistakes is part of the human experience? We absolutely can say that past acceptance of things such as slavery are morally wrong, no matter how right previous generations thought they were. And things this generation supports, such as the exploitation and abuse of animals, will also rightfully be judged as evil by future generations. The fact that societies disagree over what is moral and right doesn't mean that there aren't real standards of what is moral or right. Your view is pretty much the assumption that although “morality never changes”, human understanding of it does, and therefore society as a whole evolves be less tolerant of behaviors that were previously understood to be moral. Here are the problems with the logic you are using: A) If morality never changes, then why would society ever collectively agree to accept immoral behavior in the first place? Why would a society collectively believe and treat immoral behavior as though it was moral? That doesn’t make any sense. B) How do you account for the fact that certain things that were deemed “immoral” in the past, are now collectively viewed as moral? Treating women equal to men, challenging the authority of government officials, questioning religious leaders, belief that earth is not the center of the universe, masturbation, consuming/selling alcohol, dancing, using swear words, being homosexual, women wearing their hair short, wearing a bikini, marrying outside of one’s race, having a child out of wedlock, not spanking your children, etc. Depending on your culture all of those things were at one time considered by society to be immoral, but are largely accepted now. In some cases, those actions may even be considered more moral, and having the opposing view becomes immoral. So if morality never changes, and society is always collectively moving towards a more moral understanding, then why are things that were once considered immoral in the past now moral? And why is the view of morality still dependent on culture? Re your (A), one upshot of morality being objective is that everyone could get morality wrong (with respect to what it objectively is). That's just like people getting wrong whether the Earth is flat. It has an objective shape that we can be mistaken about. Re (B), one comical thing about people who believe in objective morality, aesthetics, etc., is that they ALWAYS believe that most of their objective/aesthetic views are correct. They believe that they're the person who has figured it all out and who knows the right answers, contra everyone else with a different opinion. I've yet to run into anyone who says, "I believe that morality is objective, but I have no idea what the objective moral stances are. I wouldn't be surprised if at least half of my moral views are wrong. I just hope that one day I can learn whether any of them are objectively correct." |
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Dec 1, 2017 15:15:56 GMT
Too many variables for it to be anything but subjective.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 1, 2017 15:16:55 GMT
Anyway, wdo do you guys think? For believers at least, despite what they say, morality must ultimately be subjective, i.e. something is good or bad because a god says it is. For one thing we associate subjectivism with an insistent personality, and most deities are strong personalities, with egos etc, the preferences of which dictate their rules for living. Famously, they never refer to any authority than themself. Also, in the case of the Xian god, if morality was objective i.e. something is good or bad just as God says it is, then God cannot be all-powerful, since He cannot make something 'good', as it will always remains bad if it really is, nonetheless. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 1, 2017 15:20:01 GMT
That would be true if morality had one standard. It doesn't and I have no idea why you would think so. Where would you say the objective standard is located? It's a baseline and it's the most basic. There isn't much attached to it, but it's there...Things like boinking our children or murdering our grandmother. Of course, there are certainly aberrations to this and amoral people exist, but they are there for most and have been for as long as memory has been around. I think of objective morality as instinct. Subjective morality is learned. Some subjective moralities have been around so long and have been accepted by so much of humanity at a universal level that they function as objective but that isn't worth arguing about. I would concede that they aren't anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 1, 2017 15:23:10 GMT
That would be true if morality had one standard. It doesn't and I have no idea why you would think so. If there are different standards for morality, then it’s not objective. “Different standards“ imply subjectivity. Not true. You assume that morality can't need an adjective for context. I say it does. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Dec 1, 2017 15:30:44 GMT
Where would you say the objective standard is located? It's a baseline and it's the most basic. There isn't much attached to it, but it's there...Things like boinking our children or murdering our grandmother. Of course, there are certainly aberrations to this and amoral people exist, but they are there for most and have been for as long as memory has been around. I think of objective morality as instinct. Subjective morality is learned. Some subjective moralities have been around so long and have been accepted by so much of humanity at a universal level that they function as objective but that isn't worth arguing about. I would concede that they aren't anyway.  What I asked you was where would you say that is it located
Instinct is located within us, no? That, by definition, is subjective. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 1, 2017 16:04:31 GMT
It's a baseline and it's the most basic. There isn't much attached to it, but it's there...Things like boinking our children or murdering our grandmother. Of course, there are certainly aberrations to this and amoral people exist, but they are there for most and have been for as long as memory has been around. I think of objective morality as instinct. Subjective morality is learned. Some subjective moralities have been around so long and have been accepted by so much of humanity at a universal level that they function as objective but that isn't worth arguing about. I would concede that they aren't anyway. What I asked you was where would you say that is it located
Instinct is located within us, no? That, by definition, is subjective. Instinct is not subjective. It's hard wired. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 1, 2017 18:12:16 GMT
What I asked you was where would you say that is it located
Instinct is located within us, no? That, by definition, is subjective. Instinct is not subjective. It's hard wired. By your argument, anything “instinctive” is moral, and anything that defies natural instinct is immoral, yes? |
|
