Morality

[Tim the turtle]

But not everyone sees morals as subjective things, most see it as a truth or as the best way to do something. That's why we have moral disagreements, even though it is pointless, because most people think this way. However because morals ARE subjective that's why they can change from discussion/arguement.

The first point is fine so long as you do admit that it's pointless. My point however is that it certainly doesn't seem, intuitively, that there are no moral disagreements. You need to argue that it's more likely the case that we're simply all incorrect in our intuitive grasp of moral concepts and disagreements therein, rather than there simply actually being disagreements. As to the second point, I don't understand. We can change our beliefs about morals even if they are objective, we simply have to admit that we made a mistake in our previous thinking. I don't see that as an issue at all. On the other hand, if morals are subjective, and we admit to that, then we actually don't have any reason to change them.

Only if the person saying "you shouldn't think that" BELIEVES morals are subjective.

Uh, no, surely it's the other way around. If someone says 'you should believe this' then they cannot believe in subjective morality. If they did believe as such they would have no reason to expect you to change your beliefs, especially not from a normative standpoint.

Now you could say that me arguing with you like this is going against my belief that morality is subjective.

Not really, this isn't a moral disagreement, it's a metaethical one.

But I don't do it because I think I'm right. I do it to make sure YOU think you are right, and to make sure what I think, I think is right. I prod a persons morality to make sure there are no flaws in it for them, because I will never convince someone who is sure in there morality. And ones morality should be air tight, and that's why we test it in discussion, for ourselves more than others. Even now I've tested my opinions against you're arguments and then other arguments I thought of. I wouldn't say my opinion has changed, however it has been clarified. And if you continue this line of arguing my opinions and logic will come under greater scrutiny and be clarified further, until eventually it is shown to be flawless in my eyes or I see a flaw and then I will change to correct such a flaw.

I have no idea what this has to do with the topic we're discussing. Reflective equilibrium works just as well for objective morality, or at least, a non-subjectivism view. Are you suggesting that just because people may not be entirely sure of their own morality then it proves subjectivism? I don't see how that's the case. I may not be certain what is right or wrong, but that's a matter of epistemology, not metaethics. What is right and wrong, whether it is subjective or objective does not require certainty. If subjectivism were true, and I held a belief that was some sort of relativistic truth-maker for x, I wouldn't necessarily need to be aware of my belief of x, I certainly don't think I would need to be certain. Sorry, I'm not sure I've been all to clear here but I genuinely have very little clue as to how what you've said has a bearing on this debate so I've done the best I can.

 

[The Director]

The first point is fine so long as you do admit that it's pointless. My point however is that it certainly doesn't seem, intuitively, that there are no moral disagreements. You need to argue that it's more likely the case that we're simply all incorrect in our intuitive grasp of moral concepts and disagreements therein, rather than there simply actually being disagreements.

It is pointless from my point of view, but not all people see it that way. I agree that their do seem to be moral disagreements. My Incorrect argument is an answer to the question, If morality is subjective, why does there appear to be moral disagreements? My stance is that although morality is subjective most people don't see it that way which is why moral disagreements, pointlessly, happen.

As to the second point, I don't understand. We can change our beliefs about morals even if they are objective, we simply have to admit that we made a mistake in our previous thinking. I don't see that as an issue at all. On the other hand, if morals are subjective, and we admit to that, then we actually don't have any reason to change them.

But if morals are objective, and we admit to the ability of being wrong about a previously thought of objective moral, then what's to stop all other objective morals being wrong? How would I know that there wasn't a flaw that I was unaware of in those morals? So changing stance with an objective morality completely undermines the rest of the morals. e.g. If I had a book of facts and one of those facts was that "the Eifel Tower is in London", then later discovered that fact to be wrong, how could I then accept without doubt the other facts in that book?

On the other hand you can change subjective morals because it isn't right or wrong.

Again, yes there wouldn't be any point in changing morals if you believed morality was subjective, but would there be a point in not changing? We don't have a reason to keep them either. So it doesn't matter if they change.

Uh, no, surely it's the other way around. If someone says 'you should believe this' then they cannot believe in subjective morality. If they did believe as such they would have no reason to expect you to change your beliefs, especially not from a normative standpoint.

Yes that's what I was agreeing with. That a person with a subjective morality couldn't say that without shooting themselves in the foot. What I was pointing out was that the person who would say "you should believe this" would probably have an objective morality view point.

I have no idea what this has to do with the topic we're discussing. Reflective equilibrium works just as well for objective morality, or at least, a non-subjectivism view. Are you suggesting that just because people may not be entirely sure of their own morality then it proves subjectivism? I don't see how that's the case. I may not be certain what is right or wrong, but that's a matter of epistemology, not metaethics. What is right and wrong, whether it is subjective or objective does not require certainty. If subjectivism were true, and I held a belief that was some sort of relativistic truth-maker for x, I wouldn't necessarily need to be aware of my belief of x, I certainly don't think I would need to be certain. Sorry, I'm not sure I've been all to clear here but I genuinely have very little clue as to how what you've said has a bearing on this debate so I've done the best I can.

Yeah, you can basically ignore that last paragraph. I was very tired and I seem to have gone off on a philosophical rampage about why we debate. Sorry about that.

I think the point I was trying to make was that we have moral disagreements and debate to test if we are wrong in our stance. Not necessarily to try and change peoples minds, which would be another explanation as to why moral disagreements occur in a subjective morality system.

 

[Malanu]

Here is a morality test from Showtime. The show Dexter. Dexter is a serial killer who murders criminals, not your petty theft criminals but your violent murderer criminals who either slip through the system or evaded capture. He is a monster that hunts monsters. Watch the show(if you are old enough), then realize you are rooting for a murderous monster to "get the bad guy!"

Me I am perfectly fine with cheering on Dex when he finally gets the bad guy on his table & takes that drop of blood for his trophy. Why you may ask? Because in the show there is one less monster that will ever harm an innocent ever again.

 

[Sidewinder]

Me I am perfectly fine with cheering on Dex when he finally gets the bad guy on his table & takes that drop of blood for his trophy. Why you may ask? Because in the show there is one less monster that will ever harm an innocent ever again.

Lol I know what you mean

I was hooked on the show after the first few episodes. I would hav to agree with what you said. On one hand, do I think it's appropriate to torture and kill someone without giving them the judicial rights they deserve? No. But at the same time, about 30% of the people he kills are not even close to being caught and they just continue on their own killing sprees. So yeah, I'm in favor of the monsters that kill other monsters, especially when I know he won't murder me if I keep my nose clean

Murder to prevent murder? I don't see how people can't agree. That's the death penalty on it's most basic level

 

[MissDigitalis]

Yes that's what I was agreeing with. That a person with a subjective morality couldn't say that without shooting themselves in the foot. What I was pointing out was that the person who would say "you should believe this" would probably have an objective morality view point.

I don't think that's necessarily true. I think that morality is subjective but I still feel strongly about certain topics. Like maybe I could say "abortion is wrong" but what I would mean is "abortion is wrong to me" or "in my opinion" because that's the only way it can be. Someone else could simultaneously say "abortion is right" meaning it is right in their opinion. Both sides could feel very strongly about this for various reasons. I might say "it's a human life" and the opponent might say "my rights to my body are more important". It's ultimately because value is subjective. What one person values another may not.

 

[Zevn]

I disagree. I believe that if all variables are taken into account morality can remain objective in relation to sentience, suffering, and kindness on Earth.

Tagging it as subjective seems lazy, and a cop-out to fully understanding a given scenario.

 

[MissDigitalis]

I disagree. I believe that if all variables are taken into account morality can remain objective in relation to sentience, suffering, and kindness on Earth.

Tagging it as subjective seems lazy, and a cop-out to fully understanding a given scenario.

Just because it is subjective doesn't mean that it shouldn't be thought out. Art and beauty are subjective but that doesn't mean that no skill is required.

 

[Roaring Apathy]

I disagree. I believe that if all variables are taken into account morality can remain objective in relation to sentience, suffering, and kindness on Earth.

Tagging it as subjective seems lazy, and a cop-out to fully understanding a given scenario.

Im gonna go ahead and butt in, if you dont mind.

Can you clarify what you mean by "morality can remain objective in relation to sentience, suffering, and kindness"? I get the feeling I know what you mean, but I want you to make your points clearer so I can better understand and possibly refute your stance.

And also, if you want to go that far, you can say that moral ojectivity is lazy too since it paints every moral dilemna in black and white.

 

[Zevn]

Im gonna go ahead and butt in, if you dont mind.

Can you clarify what you mean by "morality can remain objective in relation to sentience, suffering, and kindness"? I get the feeling I know what you mean, but I want you to make your points clearer so I can better understand and possibly refute your stance.

And also, if you want to go that far, you can say that moral ojectivity is lazy too since it paints every moral dilemna in black and white.

In saying that I mean: If you know all data relevant to the psyches, previous interactions, previous experiences in the same arena, and the immediate scenario; even the shades of grey become illuminated objectively.

bare example(further detail for hypothetical provided if requested)
A woman running alone in the park at night who had been sexually abused as a child, hearing someone chasing her, gaining, then proceeding to turn and stab them in the neck when they place a hand on her shoulder has done nothing wrong. The pathways in her brain have developed in such a way that this flash of a response is understandable, even if the person chasing her had a good reason. If she had say, dropped her keys. They should have called out to her. This would, in my opinion, fall into the category of a blameless tragedy. If you really want to get technical, the blame rests with the person who abused her in childhood. It is however, not direct blame, as they did not do this particular wrong themselves.

A man running alone in the park during the day, with no history of abuse, committing the same action when feeling the hand on his shoulder would have just murdered someone.

I do not believe objectivity in this realm of thinking lends itself only to black, and white. When I referenced kindness in relation to sentience, I meant: A thinking being can make the choice to not respond harshly, even if harsh response is deserved. In this same way, action and inaction can be used along a continuum of moral responsibility.

I'm not rushing off to New Guinea to help build wells for small villages. Instead I study, because I believe in maintaining a balance in being good to yourself, and the world around you.

_______________
Life's intrinsic value:

It's in the significance of moments in perceivable time, as held in the mind of an awareness that values itself, the Universe surrounding it, and the other beings that it relates to in some way.

Regardless that there will likely be an end to all things, that there is a definite end to the self, the time that we do have has intrinsic value granted in the essence of a sentience relation to existence itself. Time itself is not fully understood, and could be a product of what created the known Universe, not existing separate from it. Perhaps life exists somewhere out there, not bound by the time that we know. If time is not a requisite for action, would the actions of a timeless being similar to a kind/merciful/selfless human action have more value, simply because it wouldn't die at some later point?

This is not a God question. It is a hypothetical as if the creature asserted is identical to a modern human in every respect other than relation to time/death/decay.

 

[Roaring Apathy]

I do not believe objectivity in this realm of thinking lends itself only to black, and white. When I referenced kindness in relation to sentience, I meant: A thinking being can make the choice to not respond harshly, even if harsh response is deserved. In this same way, action and inaction can be used along a continuum of moral responsibility.

True, but in the example you provided, isnt it possible that the man may,I dunno, be paranoid? Perhaps he grew up being told to avoid strangers/run if in danger/etc, and act of stabbing some one who was running after him, either triggers a fight or flight response, or just a plain old impulse based on fear, whether or not the person has had a history of abuse or not.

Im also not a believer in free will. In the case of blame, I generally see too many factors at play in ANY situation, which themselves where the products of past factors, and so on and so forth. basically im applying cause and effect to every day situations, from major to minor here. As you can see from my contribution to the debate section of this site, my philosophy is pretty much a 180 degree of general american philosophy.

On another note, I find it kinda funny that you chose to use an example where the woman is abused, and the man is the murderer. Im not accusing you of misandry, and in fact I think that what race/gender/political stance/sexual orientation/etc is used in an example is irrelevant to the point at hand, but it can be interpreted that way, so be careful of your examples next time.

Regardless that there will likely be an end to all things, that there is a definite end to the self, the time that we do have has intrinsic value granted in the essence of a sentience relation to existence itself. Time itself is not fully understood, and could be a product of what created the known Universe, not existing separate from it. Perhaps life exists somewhere out there, not bound by the time that we know. If time is not a requisite for action, would the actions of a timeless being similar to a kind/merciful/selfless human action have more value, simply because it wouldn't die at some later point?

This is not a God question. It is a hypothetical as if the creature asserted is identical to a modern human in every respect other than relation to time/death/decay.

So basically the question of the intrinsic value of life is still a bit sketchy since we're not aware of whats outside the universe? If so, well that falls under russels teapot. If theres no way to verify or disprove the idea through the scientific method, then really no reason to take said idea seriously. Its like asking what the possibility is of there being a five legged invisible dragon that breaths heatless flames and is made of particles that dont interact with ours, so we cant touch it, in my garage. Surely, while it is interesting to contemplate the idea, you wouldnt base a philosophy on an unverifiable idea like that, would you?

 

[7 tyranitars]

Here is a morality test from Showtime. The show Dexter. Dexter is a serial killer who murders criminals, not your petty theft criminals but your violent murderer criminals who either slip through the system or evaded capture. He is a monster that hunts monsters. Watch the show(if you are old enough), then realize you are rooting for a murderous monster to "get the bad guy!"

Me I am perfectly fine with cheering on Dex when he finally gets the bad guy on his table & takes that drop of blood for his trophy. Why you may ask? Because in the show there is one less monster that will ever harm an innocent ever again.

It doesn't make him much better then the people he killed.

 

[Ambre]

It doesn't make him much better then the people he killed.

I concur. I mean, one killing doesn't justify the vigilante killing of another. I mean, there are chances that he might get the wrong guy?

 

[Zevn]

True, but in the example you provided, isnt it possible that the man may,I dunno, be paranoid? Perhaps he grew up being told to avoid strangers/run if in danger/etc, and act of stabbing some one who was running after him, either triggers a fight or flight response, or just a plain old impulse based on fear, whether or not the person has had a history of abuse or not.

The point would be that his response based on the experiences in his life, the time of day, the fact that it was less likely to be someone with ill intent; would be too harsh, while someone who had experienced the unfortunate happening after being caught in a similar scenario would have valid reason to feel deadly force was necessary.

Funny or not, women are sexually assaulted far more frequently. That is why I chose to illustrate my example in that way.

Im also not a believer in free will. In the case of blame, I generally see too many factors at play in ANY situation, which themselves where the products of past factors, and so on and so forth. basically im applying cause and effect to every day situations, from major to minor here. As you can see from my contribution to the debate section of this site, my philosophy is pretty much a 180 degree of general american philosophy.

That's an interesting position to take. It's been theorized that free will is an illusion, and that all action was dictated from the dawn of existence. I suppose that would be a bit like a ball rolling down an incline with a drop off. You know though, while it's possible that every action taken might be predictable in a complete unified theory, it would be taking choice in to account.

So basically the question of the intrinsic value of life is still a bit sketchy since we're not aware of whats outside the universe? If so, well that falls under russels teapot. If theres no way to verify or disprove the idea through the scientific method, then really no reason to take said idea seriously. Its like asking what the possibility is of there being a five legged invisible dragon that breaths heatless flames and is made of particles that dont interact with ours, so we cant touch it, in my garage. Surely, while it is interesting to contemplate the idea, you wouldnt base a philosophy on an unverifiable idea like that, would you?

I'm not saying that the hypothetical would give our actions worth, I was asking rather; Would their actions have value(to their existence) if they never died?

I base my philosophy on that I believe our sentience is an emergent property stemming from the extraordinarily complex system of the brain. I believe that our life span is all there is, and that at some time everything that is will cease. Granted by consciousness, our ability to empathize, and make selfless choices(among other things) we can give something transient meaningfulness.

The ends cannot claim to make the ultimate verdict on the importance of the present. The moments perceived in the present have value, just as the past, and the future we will see holds the value it will be given. At the end of all things, nothing would be happening that would have any of the mentioned value, but that does not invalidate what has happened.

 

[The Director]

@Missdigitalis

I wasn't saying you couldn't feel strongly about a subject, but that trying to change someone's mind on the subject implies that you value your morality above someone else's when, if you think morality is subjective begs the question, why is your morality better than their's? Shouldn't they, if they are subjective, be treated equally?

In saying that I mean: If you know all data relevant to the psyches, previous interactions, previous experiences in the same arena, and the immediate scenario; even the shades of grey become illuminated objectively.

bare example(further detail for hypothetical provided if requested)
A woman running alone in the park at night who had been sexually abused as a child, hearing someone chasing her, gaining, then proceeding to turn and stab them in the neck when they place a hand on her shoulder has done nothing wrong. The pathways in her brain have developed in such a way that this flash of a response is understandable, even if the person chasing her had a good reason. If she had say, dropped her keys. They should have called out to her. This would, in my opinion, fall into the category of a blameless tragedy. If you really want to get technical, the blame rests with the person who abused her in childhood. It is however, not direct blame, as they did not do this particular wrong themselves.

A man running alone in the park during the day, with no history of abuse, committing the same action when feeling the hand on his shoulder would have just murdered someone.

That isn't a question of morality that is a question of understanding and empathy. Just because you understand why something occured doesn't make it either right or wrong.

I can understand and empathise why some people go off on killing sprees, that doesn't mean I think it is right to go on a killing spree. If you want an example try watching the film "Falling Down". It's about a man who one day cracks under all the little injustices of the world.

I do not believe objectivity in this realm of thinking lends itself only to black, and white. When I referenced kindness in relation to sentience, I meant: A thinking being can make the choice to not respond harshly, even if harsh response is deserved. In this same way, action and inaction can be used along a continuum of moral responsibility.

I'm not rushing off to New Guinea to help build wells for small villages. Instead I study, because I believe in maintaining a balance in being good to yourself, and the world around you.

Would you care to explain how moral objectivity, which by definition thinks "This is right, that is wrong", doesn't have to be only black and white?

Also it's difficult to be "good" to the world around you, when the world around you gets larger. It's also difficult to be "good" when one's "good" actions can lead to "bad" consequences. Finally my "good" to myself could be to cut myself. Do you think that is "good"?

______________
Life's intrinsic value:

It's in the significance of moments in perceivable time, as held in the mind of an awareness that values itself, the Universe surrounding it, and the other beings that it relates to in some way.

Regardless that there will likely be an end to all things, that there is a definite end to the self, the time that we do have has intrinsic value granted in the essence of a sentience relation to existence itself. Time itself is not fully understood, and could be a product of what created the known Universe, not existing separate from it. Perhaps life exists somewhere out there, not bound by the time that we know. If time is not a requisite for action, would the actions of a timeless being similar to a kind/merciful/selfless human action have more value, simply because it wouldn't die at some later point?

This is not a God question. It is a hypothetical as if the creature asserted is identical to a modern human in every respect other than relation to time/death/decay.

I'm not sure what you're question here is. If you are asking does change give our actions meaning, then yes. Without time/change, actions have no consequences, what's more how can an action occur without a dimension that allows change? Without time things would just be.

If you are asking whether a being that doesn't die actions mean anything, then yes. Just because death doesn't occur doesn't diminish an action. It just means one's actions would unlikely be based on personal survival, as the creature would be unable to die.

Finally on the subject of Dexter.

Although I understand the actions, there are flaws to such a system.

What happens when you run out of/unable to find criminals?

What happens if you make a mistake?

I disagree with the death sentence because humans and human systems aren't perfect, only a perfect being/force should have the power of the death penalty in my opinion. And Dexter isn't one of them.

 

[Malanu]

It doesn't make him much better then the people he killed.

I don't know 7... He is ridding the world of violent people who kill normal everyday people. Dex only kills the truly wicked. To me that makes him a hero.

 

[7 tyranitars]

I don't know 7... He is ridding the world of violent people who kill normal everyday people. Dex only kills the truly wicked. To me that makes him a hero.

The only justible reason for killing is out of self-defense, killing of hatred, vengeance, wanting to be a hero, or under the banner of justice is just an excuse to justify your own bloodlust. And before you start about that, in the army you basicly kill out of self defense.

 

[Diz~]

The only justible reason for killing is out of self-defense, killing of hatred, vengeance, wanting to be a hero, or under the banner of justice is just an excuse to justify your own bloodlust. And before you start about that, in the army you basicly kill out of self defense.

Errrr......are you kidding me? If your commander tell you to take a hill with the enemy on top, then you better be sure to take the hill with the enemy on top. You think about what that mean. Because we don't win war by self defense.

 

[Roaring Apathy]

The point would be that his response based on the experiences in his life, the time of day, the fact that it was less likely to be someone with ill intent; would be too harsh, while someone who had experienced the unfortunate happening after being caught in a similar scenario would have valid reason to feel deadly force was necessary.

Funny or not, women are sexually assaulted far more frequently. That is why I chose to illustrate my example in that way.

So basically if the man was fine and there was no reason to be irrationally fearful then in that case it was to harsh? Alright, fair enough.

As for that statistic, to my understanding it can be skewed a bit due to the fact that female on male assault generally tends to go unreported, mostly due to social reasons. Though ill admit that I question how exactly any one knows about those unreported cases if they where unreported.

That's an interesting position to take. It's been theorized that free will is an illusion, and that all action was dictated from the dawn of existence. I suppose that would be a bit like a ball rolling down an incline with a drop off. You know though, while it's possible that every action taken might be predictable in a complete unified theory, it would be taking choice in to account.

But doesnt choice violate the basic idea of the illusion of free will? It doesnt make sense for every action to be dictated from the start but to still take into account choices, since choices imply free will.

I'm not saying that the hypothetical would give our actions worth, I was asking rather; Would their actions have value(to their existence) if they never died?

If they never died, sure. Considering that there contributions would most likely not be forgotten, and that they can continue to impact and take pleasure from life, id imagine that would give a bit more value to life.

I base my philosophy on that I believe our sentience is an emergent property stemming from the extraordinarily complex system of the brain. I believe that our life span is all there is, and that at some time everything that is will cease. Granted by consciousness, our ability to empathize, and make selfless choices(among other things) we can give something transient meaningfulness.

The problem I have with this is that since its going to end AT ALL it is inherently meaningless, though at that point its subjective, since its simply our own opinion the matter. Ill agree to disagree if you will.

The ends cannot claim to make the ultimate verdict on the importance of the present. The moments perceived in the present have value, just as the past, and the future we will see holds the value it will be given. At the end of all things, nothing would be happening that would have any of the mentioned value, but that does not invalidate what has happened.

Had to read that a few to times to fully understand. So basically, once something has value, it would still have had value even after its long gone? Again this is going to subjective territory, as I disagree. And once again, I'd like to agree to disagree.

My apologies if you where expecting a bit more on the last two, but i didnt really see a reason to say anything else since I would just be stating an opinion than logic.

Would you care to explain how moral objectivity, which by definition thinks "This is right, that is wrong", doesn't have to be only black and white?

Gonna go ahead and play devils advocate here. He already explained it, moral gray areas. Such as in the case of the aforementioned assaulted woman, while it wasnt RIGHT to cause harm to some one who she believed was going to assault her, it wasnt exactly wrong either since its justifed as an act of self defense.

 

[7 tyranitars]

Errrr......are you kidding me? If your commander tell you to take a hill with the enemy on top, then you better be sure to take the hill with the enemy on top. You think about what that mean. Because we don't win war by self defense.

You do, if you don't take that hill, the enemy might kill you. ALso considering it is kind imposible to capture a battalion of soldiers, killing them would save more lives of your side.

 

[Malanu]

The only justible reason for killing is out of self-defense, killing of hatred, vengeance, wanting to be a hero, or under the banner of justice is just an excuse to justify your own bloodlust. And before you start about that, in the army you basicly kill out of self defense.

Not really. Nobody has really attacked my country (until 9/11). So as a US soldier I never had to "Defend myself". We have fought other country's wars for a long time. So in my countries position, we were hired Mercs, sent to fight another mans war. We killed because of another man's Hatred or Vengeance.

I would have drinks with a person who killed murderers, he/she is doing the world a service.

Also considering it is kind impossible to capture a battalion of soldiers

Ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! in one exercise, me and 2 other guys, "killed' an entire platoon, in their sleep! We snuck past their listening posts, the trench had no one awake and we killed them all (that being we woke them up and told them they were dead!!!). Our Platoon did this to every other platoon in the company. We even killed the headquarters's platoon as the Captain got up and stretched at first light. A company can wipe our a Battalion using stealth and superior tactics any time. Specially with the weapons we carry today. Nobody could find our bivouac so we never got paid back!