Ethics

[Aesir]

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.

Sure, but I'm not talking about laws, I'm talking about rights. In democracy the majority can chose who can have rights.

You put to much emphasis on the majority being the sole authority on ethics. You say there are objective Ethics but it's solely based on the majority. How is it objective than? Whats ethical for one group of people won't always be ethical with a different group.

 

[Deleted member]

Merry Christmas!!!

 

[RDK]

Merry Christmas!!!

Uh, you need to respect my religious customs by not mentioning "Christmas" and using a more sweeping, generic phrase, like "holidays". I might get offended.

http://www.venganza.org/2006/12/01/happy-holiday-season-everyone/comment-page-1

 

[Deleted member]

I couldn't care less if you don't celebrate Christmas. Merry Christmas

 

[mc4]

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.

I went to dictionary.com and read em all. I'm not debating what objective means. In the context of ethics it obviously doesn't have the same meaning as outside.

Sure, but I'm not talking about laws, I'm talking about rights. In democracy the majority can chose who can have rights.

You put to much emphasis on the majority being the sole authority on ethics. You say there are objective Ethics but it's solely based on the majority. How is it objective than? Whats ethical for one group of people won't always be ethical with a different group.

In ethics since they can be cultural specific there are issues with raising issues against the acts of another culture. If you say that "all morals" are subjective then anything that happens in any other country that isn't accepted as wrong in that region you can't call wrong. How could you say what the natzis werewrong, or during the crusades how many people were slaughter over possesion of a country, or the salem witch trials when any one accused of witchcraft was killed? in those regions during those periods those people doing those things felt it was moral and right. Hitler thought he was doing Gods will and aiding evolution by getting rid of "inferior" races, people, and any opposers. People fighting over the middle east in the crusades thought it was there God given land, they felt it was moral and right. Those who killed anyone accused of witchcraft thought that was ethical, the right thing to do. My whole point was if you think all ethics are subjective and solely up to a culture or region whatever, then you can't call anything they do wrong.

this also proposes another problem. say you went back in time to one of these periods like ww1. you know what hitler is going to do. inorder to save alot of people you decide to kill him. it's ok to kill him right, you are going to save alot of people. well you are also imposing your own"subjective" ethics on his and all others in his culture by killing him. basically even if you think you are helping someone by saving them in some way you are infringing on someone elses ethics.

obviously it'll but up to a person no matter what the ideas of ethics are. nope ethics can't be proven, depends on the person, but the common teaching i believe still suggests objective and subjective.

 

[Aesir]

I'm going with RDK here and saying you don't know what objective means. I think you also missed the point of my post. If these values were objective they would be shared by all cultures. However they're not shared by all cultures. Every culture has a different view point of whats ethical, hence why ethics are subjective.

In order for something to be objective it needs to be falsified, which is something ethics can't do.

 

[mc4]

I'm going with RDK here and saying you don't know what objective means. I think you also missed the point of my post. If these values were objective they would be shared by all cultures. However they're not shared by all cultures. Every culture has a different view point of whats ethical, hence why ethics are subjective.

In order for something to be objective it needs to be falsified, which is something ethics can't do.

I'm gunna go with you aren't paying attention to the fact that i've been saying that in ethics whether you agree with it or not there are objective and subjective. this argument will go in circles. you guys will say objective means something everyone accepts or something that can't be disproven (i don't know if that's a word or not) which is true, that is the meaning of objective. In ethics since it isn't possible for everyone to agree, then objectivity is assigned to a majority. The easiest example of an what is considered an objective ethic is murder. Many people will agree it is wrong, more than won't. Sure alot of people who believe it is wrong will still do it, but the point is they morally don't think it is right. There are people who study ethics who disagree with objectivity being a part of ethics. I know what objective means, your argument isn't with me, it's with the teaching of ethics, which is the point of this thread.

 

[RDK]

I know what objective means, your argument isn't with me, it's with the teaching of ethics

Terms don't magically change to mean something else in a different study. I doubt you've actually taken a single class on ethics.

Objective still means objective no matter what field we're talking about. Where exactly did you say you took this class?

 

[mc4]

Terms don't magically change to mean something else in a different study. I doubt you've actually taken a single class on ethics.

Objective still means objective no matter what field we're talking about. Where exactly did you say you took this class?

I took it as an elective in santa fe last year. google "objective ethics" and "subjective ethics" you will see that they are both a part of ethics. Did you ever take a class in ethics to support your reason for disagreeing with something you don't know much about?

 

[arrowhead]

google "invisible pink unicorn" and you'll find that it exists. oops.

lol the first thing that came up from googling "objective ethics": http://uniofnewphilosophyclub.blogspot.com/2006/03/objective-ethics-morality-reason.html

 

[RDK]

I took it as an elective in santa fe last year. google "objective ethics" and "subjective ethics" you will see that they are both a part of ethics. Did you ever take a class in ethics to support your reason for disagreeing with something you don't know much about?

http://uniofnewphilosophyclub.blogspot.com/2006/03/objective-ethics-morality-reason.html

Edit: Arrowhead, there's no way we both posted that at the same time, LMAO.

 

[arrowhead]

hahahahaha

 

[SuperBowser]

There's no such thing as ''objective ethics''.

That term doesn't even make sense.

 

[mc4]

google "invisible pink unicorn" and you'll find that it exists. oops.

lol the first thing that came up from googling "objective ethics": http://uniofnewphilosophyclub.blogspot.com/2006/03/objective-ethics-morality-reason.html

That's one opinion, did you look at any other sites. No matter what you say objectivity is a part of the current idea of ethics. You can disagree all you want. The idea is that there are indeed universal rights and wrongs or good and evil. Whether everyone agrees with it or not doesn't change its objectivity. That is objective ethics. Problems arise like who determines these universal right and wrongs if there are actually any universal rights and wrongs. Then there are the smaller matters that are very cultural specific. In a culture with no vehicles a speed limit or driving under the influence won't matter. Those are subjective. It is believed in ethics that something like murder is universally wrong whether everyone agrees with it or not. Not everyone agrees but that isn't what matters. Ethics is a search for moral right and wrong. look up some other articles, you are arguing about something and you don't know anything about the subject you are arguing against. sorry i didn't clarify objective ethics enough earlier.

When saying things like objectivity is applied to a majority i was taking into account the fact that people don't agree so basically i was trying to walk on eggshells since you guys will disagree with the slightest thing anyone says that doesn't support evolution. So by the correct definition of objectivity, in objective ethics, it is thought that there are things that are indeed universally wrong no matter what people think. The theory of relativity is currently something that is objective in our universe, yet there may still be some people who don't agree with it. No you cant physically prove ethics like a scientific theory but the example still applies. So it was actually my mistake for applying objectivity to a majority, i was taking individual opinions into account, and objective morals doesn't actually do that, but if any of you guys actually new much about ethics you would have attempted to correct me on that long ago. I didn't wanna get flamed because basically the idea of true objective ethics can't help but lead to a discussion of God being the one to set the rules for the universal right and wrong on the larger subjects (so basically i didn't really care to have evo in this debate), and lord knows we have been down that road already in other threads, but he i guess i get flamed no matter what lol. So now take another shot at arguing me not knowing the meaning of objectivity, true objectivity is the idea of objective ethics

 

[mc4]

google "invisible pink unicorn" and you'll find that it exists. oops.

lol the first thing that came up from googling "objective ethics": http://uniofnewphilosophyclub.blogspot.com/2006/03/objective-ethics-morality-reason.html

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?

now i think everyone can return to the point of this thread. sorry about the misunderstanding, i just don't care to turn this thread into another evolution debate.

 

[arrowhead]

"objective ethics" IS subjective. it is still based entirely on opinion

 

[SuperBowser]

OK, I actually have had ethics and philosophy introductory lectures and I'm telling you you're wrong. I really, really doubt that's how they introduced ethics to you. In fact, the total opposite should have been presented.

My lecturer's famous first line: ''Why can't I sleep with my mum?''

 

[mc4]

"objective ethics" IS subjective. it is still based entirely on opinion

I corrected it already. The idea of objective ethics is universal right and wrongs, evil vs good etc, things that are naturally wrong (obviously you would have to believe in some sort of God to agree, and with evolution being accepted more as fact i could see how that would be a problem)

OK, I actually have had ethics and philosophy introductory lectures and I'm telling you you're wrong. I really, really doubt that's how they introduced ethics to you. In fact, the total opposite should have been presented.

My lecturer's famous first line: ''Why can't I sleep with my mum?''

Well for starters you can't sleep with your mom because that isn't the "natural" function of a parent and because there would be all sorts of crazy inbreeding if you had children, your kid would look like the guy from the goonies lol.

Well i studied more so the history of ethics which talked alot about people like socrates and plato and more modern freud and other people like that. And During that time period it was believed that there are universal evils and goods that were set in place by the God's etc, so i suppose some branches or even a majority of modern ethics may disagree.

 

[Ryusuta]

I corrected it already. The idea of objective ethics is universal right and wrongs, evil vs good etc, things that are naturally wrong (obviously you would have to believe in some sort of God to agree, and with evolution being accepted more as fact i could see how that would be a problem)

Umm... hate to break it to you, but even people that believe in some form of God agree on very little (read: nothing) when it comes to ethics.

Well for starters you can't sleep with your mom because that isn't the "natural" function of a parent and because there would be all sorts of crazy inbreeding if you had children, your kid would look like the guy from the goonies lol.

That's a bit of an exaggeration, especially considering some of the inbreeding in many royal family lines.

 

[SuperBowser]

Well i studied more so the history of ethics which talked alot about people like socrates and plato and more modern freud and other people like that. And During that time period it was believed that there are universal evils and goods that were set in place by the God's etc, so i suppose some branches or even a majority of modern ethics may disagree.

So your claim of ''objective ethics'' is based on the laws laid down by God in the Bible. A rather pointless statement unless you are in a room of Christians.

The lecturer's example was just to demonstrate that not everyone has the same beliefs, even in a taboo subject.

 

[mc4]

Umm... hate to break it to you, but even people that believe in some form of God agree on very little (read: nothing) when it comes to ethics.



That's a bit of an exaggeration, especially considering some of the inbreeding in many royal family lines.

The point isn't that everyone will agree, the point is that there are universal right and wrongs no matter who agrees. I disagree. I think alot of people will agree with the bigger issues like murder being wrong actually, because in most every religion i'm pretty sure murder is considered wrong, there are others but that is the best example i can think of.

yeah, in royal lines there is some inbreeding, but are they still inbreeding today?

So your claim of ''objective ethics'' is based on the laws laid down by God in the Bible. A rather pointless statement unless you are in a room of Christians.

The lecturer's example was just to demonstrate that not everyone has the same beliefs, even in a taboo subject.

After correcting what i said about ethics the fact that people disagree doesn't really matter, also the philosophers that developed the idea of ethics weren't christian, objective ethics isn't necessarily based off of a christian God, it's just based of higher intelligence, during that time period it would have probably had influence from greek or roman God's depending on when ethics was initially created as a social science. But the objective ethics i believe would only matter in a room full of christians, you're right. But obviously if i believe in objective ethics, or right and wrongs so to speak, then the number of people that agree wouldn't matter to me. But the fact that there is no common ground of ethics shows why the world is in the state it's in, the world isn't all bad, but there is certainly alot of bad in it, why? because based on all ethics being subjective, people can do what they want.

 

[Ryusuta]

The point isn't that everyone will agree, the point is that there are universal right and wrongs no matter who agrees. I disagree. I think alot of people will agree with the bigger issues like murder being wrong actually, because in most every religion i'm pretty sure murder is considered wrong, there are others but that is the best example i can think of.

Even The Bible allows for murder within certain contexts. "Thou Shalt Not Kill doesn't mean much if you have "God" on your lips as you do it.

yeah, in royal lines there is some inbreeding, but are they still inbreeding today?

Yes. Think outside of Europe.

 

[SuperBowser]

After correcting what i said about ethics the fact that people disagree doesn't really matter, also the philosophers that developed the idea of ethics weren't christian, objective ethics isn't necessarily based off of a christian God, it's just based of higher intelligence, during that time period it would have probably had influence from greek or roman God's depending on when ethics was initially created as a social science. But the objective ethics i believe would only matter in a room full of christians, you're right. But obviously if i believe in objective ethics, or right and wrongs so to speak, then the number of people that agree wouldn't matter to me. But the fact that there is no common ground of ethics shows why the world is in the state it's in, the world isn't all bad, but there is certainly alot of bad in it, why? because based on all ethics being subjective, people can do what they want.

Errrr, people who believed in Greek and Roman Gods had vastly different beliefs to Christians. If they really believed that their ethical codes were objective, shouldn't that tell you something?

IMO the problems of the world are far more complex than what you make it out to be, but that's another discussion...

 

[mc4]

Even The Bible allows for murder within certain contexts. "Thou Shalt Not Kill doesn't mean much if you have "God" on your lips as you do it.



Yes. Think outside of Europe.

those were usually for purposes related to God's will such as the many battles fought in the hebrew scriptures etc, obviously there are examples of people who killed of their own will, but they were forgiven, that doesn't make killing any less wrong, it just shows that God is forgiving

Errrr, people who believed in Greek and Roman Gods had vastly different beliefs to Christians. If they really believed that their ethical codes were objective, shouldn't that tell you something?

IMO the problems of the world are far more complex than what you make it out to be, but that's another discussion...

There beliefs were different but i do think that there were many similar right and wrongs, I don't necessarily believe that their ethics were correct, Ijust agree with the idea of objective ethics, yeahthe problems of the world arent that simple, but i don't think that people who just do whatever they want because it's "their subjective ethics" is a large contribution to the problems...

 

[cman]

The point isn't that everyone will agree, the point is that there are universal right and wrongs no matter who agrees. I disagree. I think alot of people will agree with the bigger issues like murder being wrong actually, because in most every religion i'm pretty sure murder is considered wrong, there are others but that is the best example i can think of.

Religious people considering murder a bad thing has always puzzled me. If heaven is so great, why wouldn't people want to get there as soon as possible? Maybe it would end with the murderer in hell or something, which would suck for him, but it would still be a noble sacrifice right? Something akin to jumping in front of a car and pushing someone else out of the way.

 

[Ryusuta]

those were usually for purposes related to God's will such as the many battles fought in the hebrew scriptures etc

End argument. Killing isn't always wrong, even according to The Bible. You just said it.

 

[SuperBowser]

There beliefs were different but i do think that there were many similar right and wrongs, I don't necessarily believe that their ethics were correct, Ijust agree with the idea of objective ethics, yeahthe problems of the world arent that simple, but i don't think that people who just do whatever they want because it's "their subjective ethics" is a large contribution to the problems...

Ok, I'll bite. Give me a list of some ''objective ethics''.

 

[mc4]

End argument. Killing isn't always wrong, even according to The Bible. You just said it.

continue argument lol crap, well that was one exception, and that exception is no longer around today, it was very early in bible history

Ok, I'll bite. Give me a list of some ''objective ethics''.

Just a few that i think are objective would be murder, stealing, adultery, drunkeness, fornication, Homosexuality ( to clarify, while i think it is wrong, it is just as wrong as anything else, i don't treat a gay person any worse than i treat a liar etc etc so i'm not a basher of homosexuals) greed, those are a few things that imo are objective

 

[RDK]

continue argument lol crap, well that was one exception, and that exception is no longer around today, it was very early in bible history


Just a few that i think are objective would be murder, stealing, adultery, drunkeness, fornication, Homosexuality ( to clarify, while i think it is wrong, it is just as wrong as anything else, i don't treat a gay person any worse than i treat a liar etc etc so i'm not a basher of homosexuals) greed, those are a few things that imo are objective

You're blatantly contradictory in your terms.

those are a few things that imo are objective

In your opinion? Things that are objective are not opinions. That's the exact opposite of objectivity.

It's quite obvious you know nothing about the study of ethics or the terms "subjective" and "objective". Stop arguing about them.

 

[SuperBowser]

Yeah... I don't think you know what objective means. Let's take a look at your example of murder.

Some people believe abortion is murder.
Some people believe capital punishment is murder.
Some people believe killing those of a different colour/religion/area is not murder.
Some people believe killing those in war is murder.
Some people believe the murder of animals is equivalent to murder of humans.
Some people believe the murder of one innocent person may be justified for the greater good.

These beliefs all exist in one or more areas of the world today and most exist on a societal level.

 

[aeghrur]

Sigh, you can say that IMO, these things are objective as remember that all things are seen through subjective eyes.

 

[Hive]

how is it that so many of you guys cite "social norms" as a basis for ethics and then say that you are against religion... which is strictly acceptable by societies standards?
Wouldn't this be hypocritical from this context?

"i want" and "society wants" are still pretty laughable basis for all ethics though in their abilities to judge actions of yourself and of others... all ethics have logical flaws in them... many in fact (both scientifically and logically)...
yet people still seem to try to stubbornly refuse to admit this fact....

I still think the most appropriate thing is to punish people who are violent, or physically harmful, or prevent choices apart from violence... and when these aren't concerned allow as much beliefs on the subject (aka religion and atheism... it doesn't matter as long as the person isn't violent, etc... which is always the real question anyways)

What is the main question in philosophy? to me it isn't whether god exists or not... however this seems to be the most argued question of them all...
To me the question is ethics (How a person acts?), since it is directly relevant to ourselves and how we live....
and in this respect the question isn't whether someone is religious or not, but whether they are a bad person or not. And like it or not just bc someone is religious or atheist doesn't mean they are a bad person... therefore as you can see these beliefs can exist outside of that....

generalizing the undesirable actions of a few to a larger group is the essence of any stereotype...

 

[BFDD]

Just a few that i think are objective would be murder, stealing, adultery, drunkeness, fornication, Homosexuality ( to clarify, while i think it is wrong, it is just as wrong as anything else, i don't treat a gay person any worse than i treat a liar etc etc so I'm not a basher of homosexuals) greed,

I would agree that murder and stealing are objective but the rest of those are not objective at all. Listing homosexuality as objectively morally wrong is just stupid and really shows that you know nothing of ethics. Greed? Everyone is greedy it is just a matter of how greedy they are. The rest you can argue being wrong but are certainly not objective.

Everyone will agree that murder is wrong. Some people try to justify some kinds of murder, but there are also types of murder they will not agree with. Just try killing someone they care about. They will be very upset. If they didn't believe it was wrong then they have no right to be upset.

In order for early humans to have been able to live in communities there would have to know that killing members of their own tribe is bad. Morality is an evolved behavioral trait. If it wasn't then society wouldn't exist.

This does not mean that all morals and ethics are objective, but things like murder and stealing are objective.

 

[SuperBowser]

how is it that so many of you guys cite "social norms" as a basis for ethics and then say that you are against religion... which is strictly acceptable by societies standards?
Wouldn't this be hypocritical from this context?

Where did I say that?

I am simply showing that in order for something to be objective, you would not have people of sound mind believing something very different to yourself.

I did not say I agree or disagree with any of the views I listed.

 

[mc4]

You're blatantly contradictory in your terms.



In your opinion? Things that are objective are not opinions. That's the exact opposite of objectivity.

It's quite obvious you know nothing about the study of ethics or the terms "subjective" and "objective". Stop arguing about them.

the reason why i say in my opinion is because ethics can be based a great deal on religious beliefs, every doesn't have the same religious beliefs, so based on my religious beliefs, yes those are objective, i'm being tactful by not imposing my beliefs on people who may have different opinions, yes i do know what objective means

Yeah... I don't think you know what objective means. Let's take a look at your example of murder.

Some people believe abortion is murder.
Some people believe capital punishment is murder.
Some people believe killing those of a different colour/religion/area is not murder.
Some people believe killing those in war is murder.
Some people believe the murder of animals is equivalent to murder of humans.
Some people believe the murder of one innocent person may be justified for the greater good.

These beliefs all exist in one or more areas of the world today and most exist on a societal level.

i don't quite get what you meant buddy, read above why i used the term IMO

Sigh, you can say that IMO, these things are objective as remember that all things are seen through subjective eyes.

same, read above why i say IMO

I would agree that murder and stealing are objective but the rest of those are not objective at all. Listing homosexuality as objectively morally wrong is just stupid and really shows that you know nothing of ethics. Greed? Everyone is greedy it is just a matter of how greedy they are. The rest you can argue being wrong but are certainly not objective.

Everyone will agree that murder is wrong. Some people try to justify some kinds of murder, but there are also types of murder they will not agree with. Just try killing someone they care about. They will be very upset. If they didn't believe it was wrong then they have no right to be upset.

In order for early humans to have been able to live in communities there would have to know that killing members of their own tribe is bad. Morality is an evolved behavioral trait. If it wasn't then society wouldn't exist.

This does not mean that all morals and ethics are objective, but things like murder and stealing are objective.

yeah that makes sense, the other stuff i can understand why people wouldn't agree, but again, my religious beliefs influence why i think what is objective is objective, everyone obviously won't agree because of differing beliefs.

oh i don't remember who it was that said "everyone is greedy" but that's clearly not true. Everyone doesn't put money first in their lives and go to great lengths to acquire it, many people are happy with enough money for a simple life style. Greed is based of how important money is to you and what you will do for it. For example, you don't have to be rich to be "materialistic, it just depends on how important material things are to you and what priority they have in your life."

 

[SuperBowser]

i don't quite get what you meant buddy, read above why i used the term IMO

My point is you don't know what objective means and you are butchering the English language everytime you use it.

 

[Deleted member]

There is not one drop of objectivity in the realm of ethics. Not one.

 

[mc4]

My point is you don't know what objective means and you are butchering the English language everytime you use it.

I think i explained everything enough already, you can think what you want.

There is not one drop of objectivity in the realm of ethics. Not one.

are you sure about that? Because i don't think you are

 

[manhunter098]

He really is right, we create our own ethics, therefore they are subjective.

 

[RDK]

Mc4, you've successfully managed to convince me you know nothing about anything.