Ethics

[mc4]

I made a few corrections to this thread for all the people who thought i don't know what objectivity means... Sorry for the big misunderstanding. my reasons for adjusting the idea of objective ethics are below.


There has been some talk about Ethics already in the fallacies in Christianity thread, but i thought it would be good to give ethics it's own thread. In ethics there are basically 2 main themes. Objective ethics and subjective ethics. In objective ethics it is believed that there are morals that are universal as to being right and wrong. For example, Murder, Stealing, Adultery, are things that are considered universally wrong (correction for everyone... my bad). The problem arises that if things mentioned above are considered "objective" or undeniable as wrong, who establishes them as objective (i guess that will introduce a higher intelligence in this debate no matter how much i didn't want to but i suppose the truth is you can't actually get around that)? There is also the subjective. The much smaller things, the gray area. For example, does obeying the speed limit really matter, its it that big of a deal to litter? These usually are more cultural or regional issues based on the local government. So is there truly a universal standard for morals either objective or subjective (even though it seems to be based upon culture and region)? Who should determine morals? Is it wrong for a person to impose their morals upon another? How can one truly determine what is "right and wrong"? Should morals indeed be universal, or should it be something exclusive to culture?

 

[Ham Enterprises]

Well, objective ethics are pretty important, but speeding isn't really that bad in the whole perspective, but when when you litter or add/subtract unatural things to the ecosystem you are causing harm to other organisms in the enviornment, for example... oil spills, dumping trash in the ocean, cuttind down the rainforest.

 

[zrky]

ethics seem to be strange things to talk about, but deciding what is wright or wrong is up to you, sadly governments being more powerful than you can make you pay money for speeding. So really something that is ethical or 'right' would be something you strongly believe is not 'wrong' and vise versa.

 

[Ryusuta]

Murder, Stealing, Adultery, things that seemed to be hard wired in us as humans as morally right and wrong.

I would argue that absolutely NONE of those things are hard-wired into our brains to be objectively wrong.

 

[mc4]

I would argue that absolutely NONE of those things are hard-wired into our brains to be objectively wrong.

well obviously there are people who don't find those things wrong, but amongst other "rules" things like that seem somewhat universally accepted as wrong. I think in just about any country you go to that there are laws against "murder, stealing" etc. But no these don't apply to everyone, just a majority, so it is accepted as objective. Atleast in ethics it is.

 

[Ryusuta]

well obviously there are people who don't find those things wrong, but amongst other "rules" things like that seem somewhat universally accepted as wrong. I think in just about any country you go to that there are laws against "murder, stealing" etc. But no these don't apply to everyone, just a majority, so it is accepted as objective. Atleast in ethics it is.

The very fact that they do NOT apply to everyone in every situation proves that they are in no way objective. They might be POPULAR concepts, certainly. That does not, in any way imply that they are objectively correct.

Morality is ALWAYS fluid, contextual, and entirely subjective. There are absolutely no exceptions to this. There is no one single "rule" with regards to morality that is objectively right or wrong in every circumstance to every person. Morality doesn't work that way. The suggestion of any form of "objective" morality is therefore a fallacy.

This is ESPECIALLY true when you take into account that terms such as "moral" and "immoral" are completely abstract, and therefore couldn't possibly have any basis on concrete objectivity. You can't have something that's objectively "moral" any more than you could have something objectively "pretty."

 

[Atsu]

What is right, and what is wrong? It all relies on the perception of the individual you are talking about. There's nothing universal about morals. You may be able to influence another's morals politically, culturally, or religiously, but that doesn't exactly mean they can be categorized into either subjective or categorical ethics.

Anyways, somewhat universal would mean majority or even "popular" as Orion put it. Governments may endorse these concepts/laws against "murder, stealing, and etc," but many federations/organizations embrace it. Terrorist groups and local federations may take action in what they believe is right (sort of an anarchy in a way) which can possibly include "murder, stealing, and etc."

Meh, Orion basically summed up everything else I wanted to say.

 

[Mr.Fakeman]

I reckon, for each place or country there are a different set of rules/ethics/morals for preventing things that fragment the place or country's sound state. Example is in Singapore, they strictly have high standards of keeping the country clean and even if you throw for instance a candy wrapper. Fines will apply to about $1,000 now you see that this is what singapore means by having a "fine country", so what I'm trying to get across is that if something was to happen in a place then there would be a different set of restrictions according to the government or whoever is in charge (morals of people, ethics and actions will come along with it). I'm not implying that this is always the case, on the contrary the goverment in Australia is planning on altering the legal age of drinking from 18 to 21 because of how easily 18s do silly things out in the streets e.g. Drink Driving, Binge Drinking etc.

 

[mc4]

The very fact that they do NOT apply to everyone in every situation proves that they are in no way objective. They might be POPULAR concepts, certainly. That does not, in any way imply that they are objectively correct.

Morality is ALWAYS fluid, contextual, and entirely subjective. There are absolutely no exceptions to this. There is no one single "rule" with regards to morality that is objectively right or wrong in every circumstance to every person. Morality doesn't work that way. The suggestion of any form of "objective" morality is therefore a fallacy.

This is ESPECIALLY true when you take into account that terms such as "moral" and "immoral" are completely abstract, and therefore couldn't possibly have any basis on concrete objectivity. You can't have something that's objectively "moral" any more than you could have something objectively "pretty."[/QUOTE

Well that's ethics, you don't have to agree with it. Beauty and "morals" are a bit different tho, atleast i think most people would agree.

 

[pyrotek7x7]

Who should determine morals?

Society. No one person ever determines morals; the people do. If one person tells you that something is right or wrong, the people still have the option to accept or reject that person's judgment.

Is it wrong for a person to impose their morals upon another?

Is it morally wrong for a person to impose morals? This is where it gets confusing; I'd have to use my own morals to share my opinion on this. I will anyway, though.
I'd say its fine. Because morality is determined by society, teaching someone morals that are accepted will definitely help the other person go into society a lot easier. If they don't know what people will look at as wrong, they may do it and have something unfortunate happen.

How can one truly determine what is "right and wrong"?

You can't. There is no "right" and "wrong." It's all subjective. However, if you're religious, you might think there are clearly defined 'sins' that say what is wrong and what isn't.

Should morals indeed be universal, or should it be something exclusive to culture?

Morals should not be universal. Areas and cultures are different around the world. They all require different things, and so some things might be frowned upon in one area while others aren't in another area. An extreme example would involve a society in a rainforest and another in a desert. Wasting water could be as bad as murder in the desert, but in the rainforest? Perfectly fine.

You'd notice that some morals ARE universal though. There may be several reasons for this. One very obvious one is the spread of religion. Christianity and other religions frown upon murder, for example. As these religions spread, so did the morals.

Another explanation is possibly genetics. Why do you think wolves travel in packs? For survival. If they traveled separately, surviving would be significantly more difficult. So what happens if one wolf hurts or kills a member of the pack? They could get kicked out of the pack, losing their best chance at survival. The will to not do bad things to those of their own group (or society) might be hard-coded into their brains.

 

[illinialex24]

On this issue my business teacher kind of showed me lot here.

He said your beliefs are based off of three things: your own personal beliefs, what your culture thinks is morally right, and the law. For example, speeding for many individuals in the U.S. would break only the law, but not their own personal or their cultures beliefs.

Some of these are no brainers, when they fit in all three categories, but when they overlap, there are ethical dilemmas.

 

[mc4]

On this issue my business teacher kind of showed me lot here.

He said your beliefs are based off of three things: your own personal beliefs, what your culture thinks is morally right, and the law. For example, speeding for many individuals in the U.S. would break only the law, but not their own personal or their cultures beliefs.

Some of these are no brainers, when they fit in all three categories, but when they overlap, there are ethical dilemmas.

Yeah many issues are no brainers such as "speeding" but it's culture specific as to how people think of it. It's also a bit of a gray area because who is to say there is necessarily anything wrong with speeding, for the smaller and more cultural issues are assigned subjective (depends on the person government etc) The larger ones become interesting. If a person says that morals both objective and subjective should be determined by those of a particular culture and that no one elses morals should be imposed on another then there are many things in history that have occurred that are justified as ok because another country had a different standard. It kinda forces people to really think about morals and the standard for them today, i think it's an interesting topic.

 

[RDK]

Yeah many issues are no brainers such as "speeding" but it's culture specific as to how people think of it. It's also a bit of a gray area because who is to say there is necessarily anything wrong with speeding, for the smaller and more cultural issues are assigned subjective (depends on the person government etc) The larger ones become interesting. If a person says that morals both objective and subjective should be determined by those of a particular culture and that no one elses morals should be imposed on another then there are many things in history that have occurred that are justified as ok because another country had a different standard. It kinda forces people to really think about morals and the standard for them today, i think it's an interesting topic.

The point is that the natural world provides no system of objective morals, so anybody's guess is literally as good as the next person's.

Unfortunately, we live in a democracy, so the majority gets to decide what's right and what's wrong.

 

[Ryusuta]

Unfortunately, we live in a democracy, so the majority gets to decide what's right and what's wrong.

Well put, RDK. VERY well put.

 

[Deleted member]

Unfortunately?

 

[RDK]

Unfortunately?

America is stupid in case you haven't noticed.

 

[Ham Enterprises]

The point is that the natural world provides no system of objective morals, so anybody's guess is literally as good as the next person's.

Unfortunately, we live in a democracy, so the majority gets to decide what's right and what's wrong.

Well, that's when carma comes into play, and other events like that.

 

[SkylerOcon]

Unfortunately?

Prop 8.

Anyway, morals are entirely up to the person. While the shop owner could argue that stealing is wrong because he loses money, the starving mother of two could argue that stealing is okay because she and her family needed food. Would you say murder is wrong if somebody is attacking you and that's how you had to stop them? I'm guessing no. I'm sure you'd rather kill than get killed.

Morals are far to subjective to be made official by any group or person. They are entirely personal.

 

[Aesir]

I don't want to nit pick here, but the United States is a Republic. There is a difference between a Republic and a Democracy.

It just so happens prop 8 was passed via direct democracy, which is unfortunate.

 

[RDK]

Well, that's when carma comes into play, and other events like that.

I'm assuming you mean karma, and if so--where the hell is this coming from?

I don't want to nit pick here, but the United States is a Republic. There is a difference between a Republic and a Democracy.

It just so happens prop 8 was passed via direct democracy, which is unfortunate.

SSSHHH, the Democrats don't want you to know that!

 

[Aesir]

Karma is one of those things that has no evidence but it's nice to think it exists. It's one of those things I think exists, it's always nice to think you do bad things bad things happen to you and vise versa.


and **** the Democrats.

 

[RDK]

Karma is one of those things that has no evidence but it's nice to think it exists. It's one of those things I think exists, it's always nice to think you do bad things bad things happen to you and vise versa.

I know for a fact karma doesn't exist. It took me a while to figure out that no matter how much good you do, horrible **** is still going to happen to you.

TL ; DR, doing what you want is fun, and life is too short to worry about other people; especially people who don't feel the same way about you.

 

[arrowhead]

if you're a good person people will take advantage of you and **** you over

 

[mc4]

The point is that the natural world provides no system of objective morals, so anybody's guess is literally as good as the next person's.

Unfortunately, we live in a democracy, so the majority gets to decide what's right and what's wrong.

so you don't think that there are certain things that a majority of cultures will hold as wrong? The natural world as in things not including humans and things created by humans doesn't provide a system of objective morals, that makes sense. After all the natural world can't reason. It just seems to me like there are certain things that a very large number of humans and cultures, regions, governments made up by them will agree on as being wrong (even tho there may be a large number of offenders, such as in a country somewhere with a weak government that can't enforce these morals through laws). Those are termed objective. Everyone obviously won't agree, but the larger number do. and if we don't presume to suggest our own personal or regional morals on another culture then there is much that we don't agree with but we can't voice as wrong because we don't presume to suggest our own standards on someone else. We hear about bloody conflicts between different religious groups in other countries just because of a difference in beliefs, in some cultures women don't have half the rights men do and we say these things are wrong. however if we think morals are up to the people and determined by where people live etc then we have no right to term these acts a wrong. After all they are going by their own standard of morals and not ours. I actually do think that there are things that most humans (could be any percent above 50 i guess) would agree with as wrong, obviously things like murder and stealing will come to mind immediately. This is only considering the acts themselves and not necessarily the motivation for the acts.

 

[arrowhead]

I actually do think that there are things that most humans (could be any percent above 50 i guess) would agree with as wrong, obviously things like murder and stealing will come to mind immediately. This is only considering the acts themselves and not necessarily the motivation for the acts.

every action must be judged in context. saying you're only considering the acts themselves is meaningless

i don't really understand what you're arguing for in the rest of your post

 

[Firus]

Not to burst everyone's bubble, but it's hard to argue that our Republic is unfortunate just because there are people in the world who disagree with you. There are uninformed idiots out there that are voting, but just because someone voted for/supports Bush doesn't make them stupid and mean we should get rid of the Republic we have. I personally disagree with the passing of Prop 8, but if you say our Republic sucks because people disagree with you, and thus are stupid...that's just kinda...not really true. People are definitely stupid, but that's because of other, more common sense reasons that everyone could agree on. Like not knowing how to walk.

Also, a large portion of the population voted for Obama just because he was a good speaker. I happen to know more than one of them. People are only stupid while disagreeing with you if they're disagreeing with you for a stupid reason, like voting for a president without knowing anything about his/her policies...I guess that's what I'm trying to say here. It seems like you guys are saying that such and such happened, so people are stupid and we shouldn't have a Republic. Keep in mind that in something like a monarchy or dictatorship, the same things could easily happen and we just wouldn't have a say in it.

That aside, ethics really can never be objective. As Skyler pointed out, you can always argue on the other side. There are arguable exceptions to the rules. As such, morals can never be solid. Also, what if someone truly believes that they are helping someone by killing them? Maybe they feel that worldly possessions are bad, so they decide to burn someone's house down, or steal their things and destroy them? Even some morals which would normally be objective aren't. It may seem a little stupid, but it's true. There's just no way to determine universal ethics, because they're basically opinions. It'd be like trying to find a universal settlement to "Which is better: Melee or Brawl?", although I think ethics would be a little less even between the two sides.

 

[smaci92]

ethics are pretty strange things to talk about, but I think deciding what is right or wrong is up to you...

 

[RDK]

After all the natural world can't reason.

WTF are you talking about? Of course the natural world can reason (although I probably really have no idea what you meant by that statement, so it would help if you went into further detail). Organisms survive by selective reasoning; that's how we make all of our decisions.

It just seems to me like there are certain things that a very large number of humans and cultures, regions, governments made up by them will agree on as being wrong (even tho there may be a large number of offenders, such as in a country somewhere with a weak government that can't enforce these morals through laws). Those are termed objective.

So what if a large majority agrees on it? That in no way makes it objective. If something's objective, it's made the way it is because of its innate objective properties--it's that way in and of itself. Outside influence or subjective viewpoints don't change its nature.

The point is that majority rule can change with the culture, and something isn't objective if there's a new ruling on it every other day.

Everyone obviously won't agree, but the larger number do. and if we don't presume to suggest our own personal or regional morals on another culture then there is much that we don't agree with but we can't voice as wrong because we don't presume to suggest our own standards on someone else.

I don't even know what the hell you're trying to say here. Elaborate.

 

[illinialex24]

Yeah many issues are no brainers such as "speeding" but it's culture specific as to how people think of it. It's also a bit of a gray area because who is to say there is necessarily anything wrong with speeding, for the smaller and more cultural issues are assigned subjective (depends on the person government etc) The larger ones become interesting. If a person says that morals both objective and subjective should be determined by those of a particular culture and that no one elses morals should be imposed on another then there are many things in history that have occurred that are justified as ok because another country had a different standard. It kinda forces people to really think about morals and the standard for them today, i think it's an interesting topic.

Yeah, some issues, like speed 5 miles, are a small enough violation of the law and do not contradict any other areas that would cause a moral dilemma, so you choose to speed. But other things, really create tough dilemmas.

 

[Aesir]

The problem I see with Mc4's argument is it places heavy influence on the majority to decide whats moral and what isn't. Which is very dangerous thinking, this is one of the biggest problems with democracy tyranny of the majority.

Also it seems you think there's some form of objective ethics or morals. This is a leap of faith, where do you come up with this? There's no evidence to support it, if anything our ethics are very subjective.

 

[mc4]

The problem I see with Mc4's argument is it places heavy influence on the majority to decide whats moral and what isn't. Which is very dangerous thinking, this is one of the biggest problems with democracy tyranny of the majority.

Also it seems you think there's some form of objective ethics or morals. This is a leap of faith, where do you come up with this? There's no evidence to support it, if anything our ethics are very subjective.

in any form of government there will be people who won't agree with the laws whether its a democracy, communism or anything else. The evidence to support objective ethics is the teaching of ethics itself. I took a class and yes there are ethics that are explained to be "objective" and ethics to be explained as "subjective". From as early as aristotle up to freud and even modern ethics, it is accepted that there are subjective and objective. The basis for objective? The majority. Obviously ethics itself isn't based on proven science but is more reason than anything else.

WTF are you talking about? Of course the natural world can reason (although I probably really have no idea what you meant by that statement, so it would help if you went into further detail). Organisms survive by selective reasoning; that's how we make all of our decisions.



So what if a large majority agrees on it? That in no way makes it objective. If something's objective, it's made the way it is because of its innate objective properties--it's that way in and of itself. Outside influence or subjective viewpoints don't change its nature.

The point is that majority rule can change with the culture, and something isn't objective if there's a new ruling on it every other day.



I don't even know what the hell you're trying to say here. Elaborate.

When i said the natural world can't reason i meant like humans. Reason between right and wrong, the natural world doesn't have a conscience etc, stuff like that.

I don't think something being innate is the only way something can be declared objective. I get the idea that even something deemed objective by a majority is still subjective in a sense because there are people that won't agree with it, but the fact that it's majority is what makes it objective. There are people who till this day disagree with proven sciences (this is in no way a debate of evolution lol) but that doesn't mean the sciences aren't still objective. You can't prove ethics obviously but thats just a comparions of majority to minority objectivity and not necessarily of any actually proof (even tho the example is of actual proof, i have no idea any way to explain that in a more simple manner lol). Basically that's ethics, you can't prove ethics necessarily but that's ethics and what it teaches. And for the larger matters like murder, when in any culture are there new rulings on something like that daily?

my point in that post is that if you think morals are exclusive to culture, then you can't really call something someone in another culture does wrong if it isn't against that cultures morals. In a culture where killing other people because of a different religion isn't wrong we can't claim it to be wrong because they are killing based off there own moral judgement as a culture and not ours here in america. I was also saying that i do think there are morals that are objective There are indeed things that a majority of humans don't think are moral no matter what culture. Once again you don't have to agree but that's ethics.

every action must be judged in context. saying you're only considering the acts themselves is meaningless

i don't really understand what you're arguing for in the rest of your post

no everything must not be judged in context. Does it make a difference in court if someone kills someone because of hate, revenge, or a sense of justice? does it really make a difference if you steal from your employer because you are short on money or just plain greedy? So no you don't have to judge everything in context.

 

[arrowhead]

no everything must not be judged in context. Does it make a difference in court if someone kills someone because of hate, revenge, or a sense of justice? does it really make a difference if you steal from your employer because you are short on money or just plain greedy? So no you don't have to judge everything in context.

all acts must be judged in context. without a context, it is impossible to tell if something is "good" or "bad."

you can say "saving a life is morally good," but what if it's the life of someone you know is going to become a serial killer? you can say "murder is bad" but what if it's the murder of the serial killer to save a hundred innocent civilians?

 

[mc4]

all acts must be judged in context. without a context, it is impossible to tell if something is "good" or "bad."

you can say "saving a life is morally good," but what if it's the life of someone you know is going to become a serial killer? you can say "murder is bad" but what if it's the murder of the serial killer to save a hundred innocent civilians?

Assuming we could see the future that is ^. I agree with what your saying for the most part. My point was that you don't have to judge everything in context on the discussion of ethics necessarily because there will be situations where the offender will receive the same punishment no matter what the reason was. But also taking something into your own hands like that isn't necessarily a good solution. Whats to say that someone won't change in the future? That also leads to vigilante's (and not the cool ones like batman lol) deciding based on their own ideas punishment for wrong doing. I feel like that could turn out pretty bad for a society. That's why there is law enforcement, prisons (obviously yes they are very flawed and there is alot of corruption in these systems), a judicial system to handle things like that. Yes there are situations where murdering someone might be necessary to save a life but i think those are very extreme and kinda rare. I think for the most part you could injure a person to the point where he or she is no longer a threat to your life or others. Self defense and or the defense of others isn't necessarily a ticket to kill someone and get away with it.

 

[arrowhead]

you're missing the point. the fact is that saying some act is wrong without providing a context is meaningless. there are acts that are bad in most contexts, but that does not mean the act itself is bad.


your posts, for the most part, don't have much to do with the post you're replying to

 

[mc4]

you're missing the point. the fact is that saying some act is wrong without providing a context is meaningless. there are acts that are bad in most contexts, but that does not mean the act itself is bad.


your posts, for the most part, don't have much to do with the post you're replying to

Yes the act itself still is bad even if the person doing it may have had a noble cause. Obviously yes the acts will always be discussed in context. Context doesn't change the outcome. That's why i said that it won't make a difference to your employer what the reason you steal is, you will more than likely be fired. It doesn't matter to the emplyer why you did it, the point is you stole. Context doesn't make the act any less wrong, it just explains the persons motivation for the wrong which could have been positive or negative.

 

[arrowhead]

your real life examples have nothing to do with the what i'm talking about

we've come to a point where we're just going be arguing about opinions. you say murder is wrong no matter what, i say it depends on the context. this isn't going to go anywhere so i'll just end it.

 

[mc4]

your real life examples have nothing to do with the what i'm talking about

we've come to a point where we're just going be arguing about opinions. you say murder is wrong no matter what, i say it depends on the context. this isn't going to go anywhere so i'll just end it.

it seems to me like what you think is that the idea of right and wrong itself is subjective to context. You think that something that is normally said to be wrong can be right if the person had a good cause to do it. like when you said if you knew someone would become a serial killer and killing them could save many more lives. The fact that that person was going to do alot of wrong justifies killing them in your eyes. That to me makes the idea of right and wrong itself subjective. Nothing can be objectively right, and nothing can be objectively wrong. But yeah obviously on something like this that cant be proven we will continue to disagree no matter what. thats probably the first and last thing we will ever agree on lol

 

[RDK]

When i said the natural world can't reason i meant like humans. Reason between right and wrong, the natural world doesn't have a conscience etc, stuff like that.

Of course animals have a sense of what's "right" and "wrong"; they have cultures just like we do. The point still stands that determining what is "right" and "wrong" is completely subjective and is bound to be different from group to group, even person to person.

And not even everyone has a conscience. Conscience is, again, a product of evolution.

I don't think something being innate is the only way something can be declared objective.

Really? See below.

1 a: relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy b: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality> <our reveries…are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world — Marvin Reznikoff> — compare subjective 3a cof a symptom of disease : perceptible to persons other than the affected individual — compare subjective 4c d: involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena <objective awareness> <objective data>
2: relating to, characteristic of, or constituting the case of words that follow prepositions or transitive verbs
3 a: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment> bof a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum

Because that's pretty much the definition of objective, at least as far as I know. In what alternate universe does "objective" mean "whatever the hell I want"?

Oh wait--that's the meaning of subjective. Silly me!

I get the idea that even something deemed objective by a majority is still subjective in a sense because there are people that won't agree with it, but the fact that it's majority is what makes it objective. There are people who till this day disagree with proven sciences (this is in no way a debate of evolution lol) but that doesn't mean the sciences aren't still objective. You can't prove ethics obviously but thats just a comparions of majority to minority objectivity and not necessarily of any actually proof (even tho the example is of actual proof, i have no idea any way to explain that in a more simple manner lol). Basically that's ethics, you can't prove ethics necessarily but that's ethics and what it teaches. And for the larger matters like murder, when in any culture are there new rulings on something like that daily?

You're missing the point. The point was that when something is objective, that's the way it is--subjective viewpoints can't change the nature of the thing, and subjective viewpoints are prone to change. I was using culture as an example.

my point in that post is that if you think morals are exclusive to culture, then you can't really call something someone in another culture does wrong if it isn't against that cultures morals. In a culture where killing other people because of a different religion isn't wrong we can't claim it to be wrong because they are killing based off there own moral judgement as a culture and not ours here in america. I was also saying that i do think there are morals that are objective There are indeed things that a majority of humans don't think are moral no matter what culture. Once again you don't have to agree but that's ethics.

And I'm saying that X amount of people don't determine what's right and wrong simply because they're in the majority. The very nature of it means it can change just as soon as X amount of people change their minds on it, which makes it subjective--the exact opposite of objective.

no everything must not be judged in context. Does it make a difference in court if someone kills someone because of hate, revenge, or a sense of justice? does it really make a difference if you steal from your employer because you are short on money or just plain greedy? So no you don't have to judge everything in context.

Seeing as how morals vary from person to person, then yes, it does matter. Stop arguing the objectivity of morals. Majority rule means nothing.

 

[mc4]

Of course animals have a sense of what's "right" and "wrong"; they have cultures just like we do. The point still stands that determining what is "right" and "wrong" is completely subjective and is bound to be different from group to group, even person to person.

And not even everyone has a conscience. Conscience is, again, a product of evolution.



Really? See below.



Because that's pretty much the definition of objective, at least as far as I know. In what alternate universe does "objective" mean "whatever the hell I want"?

Oh wait--that's the meaning of subjective. Silly me!



You're missing the point. The point was that when something is objective, that's the way it is--subjective viewpoints can't change the nature of the thing, and subjective viewpoints are prone to change. I was using culture as an example.



And I'm saying that X amount of people don't determine what's right and wrong simply because they're in the majority. The very nature of it means it can change just as soon as X amount of people change their minds on it, which makes it subjective--the exact opposite of objective.



Seeing as how morals vary from person to person, then yes, it does matter. Stop arguing the objectivity of morals. Majority rule means nothing.

Well bottom line is animals are capable of reason and logic to the extent humans are assuming what you said is correct. Um, yes everyone does have a conscience. There are people who over time can become desensitized to different things, but they still have a conscience, it just numb to certain things.

lol objective doesn't mean, whatever the hell i want. You don't have to agree with ethics, but that's ethics. In ethics there is objective and subjective. And that is the point of this thread, who should determine morals or standards.

blah blah blah x amount of people blah change minds etc... Even if a majority of people change there minds then that simply means the newly excepted idea is the new objective. I get your point. Just because a majority accepts something doesn't make it objective. I just don't agree. And can we leave the evolution for the fallacies in christianity thread, I didn't intend this thread to turn into an evolutionary debate.

 

[RDK]

Well bottom line is animals are capable of reason and logic to the extent humans are assuming what you said is correct. Um, yes everyone does have a conscience. There are people who over time can become desensitized to different things, but they still have a conscience, it just numb to certain things.

lol objective doesn't mean, whatever the hell i want. You don't have to agree with ethics, but that's ethics. In ethics there is objective and subjective. And that is the point of this thread, who should determine morals or standards.

blah blah blah x amount of people blah change minds etc... Even if a majority of people change there minds then that simply means the newly excepted idea is the new objective. I get your point. Just because a majority accepts something doesn't make it objective. I just don't agree. And can we leave the evolution for the fallacies in christianity thread, I didn't intend this thread to turn into an evolutionary debate.

Did you not read any of my post? Go back to the definition of "objective" that I pulled from Webster's Dictionary.

You apparently don't know what objective is.