The point of "Morals"

[Sucumbio]

I don't disagree, I just... I have an issue with the semantics at play here.

If morality concerns what someone thinks or feels what is right and wrong, then morality is as subjective as someone's preference for pizza.

It is in fact true that many moral decisions are based purely on a reactionary logical thought process which has led the person to a conclusion that they then apply to future incidents. Take, getting sand kicked in your face. Or any bodily discomfort you experience due to someone else's direct and seemingly purposeful action. The "moral" choice is to either strike back, or to 'turn the other cheek.' This decision is arrived at based on a combination of emotional response and logical thought. The spectrum of people will of course display a wide range of decisions in this scenario, from doing nothing, to beating the offender to death.

If morality concerns the governing dynamics of populations or maximizing the fulfillment of the before mentioned preferences , then there are objective answers to moral decisions.

Jesus taught 'turn the other cheek' because as a society it is better to be a people of passive behavior in the face of ignorance as it is more likely to lead to education rather than force-feeding your ideals, which is more likely to be ignored or seen as badgering, which people are generally not responsive to.

I suppose my real issue is I do not see how morality can be only subjective or only objective, they've gotta be both, since both scenarios are correct.

 

[KrazyGlue]

That just doesn't make any sense. If there's ANY human judgement at all involved in morals, it's subjective; otherwise it's objective. I'm sorry, I just don't quite see what you're getting at. If you're saying Jesus is always right, then morals are objective because whatever God/Jesus says is always right. But, for anyone who doesn't believe in any deity, morals are subjective. They're even subjective if everyone in the world agrees on a moral stance; since it's based on human judgment, it's still subjective.

 

[Sucumbio]

It'd help if we had an example of this:

If morality concerns the governing dynamics of populations or maximizing the fulfillment of the before mentioned preferences , then there are objective answers to moral decisions.

If there's ANY human judgement at all involved in morals, it's subjective; otherwise it's objective.

Objectivity does not exist in science due to the fact that all scientific methods and measurements are based on human tools and ideas, but objective truths about the natural world in math, science, humanities and all fields of study are what humans look for within subjective means.

Immanuel Kant used the expression “Ding an sich” (the “thing-in-itself”) to designate pure objectivity. The Ding an sich is the object as it is in itself, independent of the features of any subjective perception of it. While Locke was optimistic about scientific knowledge of the true objective (primary) characteristics of things, Kant, influenced by skeptical arguments from David Hume, asserted that we can know nothing regarding the true nature of the Ding an sich, other than that it exists. Scientific knowledge, according to Kant, is systematic knowledge of the nature of things as they appear to us subjects rather than as they are in themselves.

The very term objectivity is in question around the world; many scholars have now concluded the proper term lies closer to a collective subjectivity on what we all can agree to be independent of any one person's opinion or perspective. -more

So basically nothing is truly objective except the thing-in-itself. The moment it's at all considered in any way shape or form by a mind, any conclusions are immediately subjective. This includes morals. A moral in itself may be an objective truth, but we'd never know it, because to understand its objective truth is to immediately unravel its objectivity. Seems kind of unfair to me. Would it not make more sense to simply categorize some moral truths as subjectively true (the ones which are based on consensus, the times, the moods of the person, the will of the people) and others objectively true (murder is as wrong as 1+1=2). And of course, someone who really doesn't know 1+1=2 is as ignorant as someone who doesn't know murder is wrong.

 

[KrazyGlue]

A moral in itself may be an objective truth, but we'd never know it, because to understand its objective truth is to immediately unravel its objectivity.

If there are in fact objective moral truths (which I don't think there are unless you believe in a deity) then morals are objective. If there aren't objective moral truths, then morals are subjective. Simple as that. Can't be both.

Seems kind of unfair to me. Would it not make more sense to simply categorize some moral truths as subjectively true (the ones which are based on consensus, the times, the moods of the person, the will of the people) and others objectively true (murder is as wrong as 1+1=2). And of course, someone who really doesn't know 1+1=2 is as ignorant as someone who doesn't know murder is wrong.

You don't know murder is wrong. You're using your human judgment to determine it is wrong, therefore your moral beliefs are subjective.

1+1=2 is true because we've defined it that way. It's objectively true within the pre-defined realm of mathematics. Outside of mathematics, it means nothing.

What blazed explained to me in the other thread makes sense to me now. We humans could define an ethical system of what we believe is right. And within that ethical system, we could define certain actions as right or wrong. Therefore, within the bounds of that ethical system, morals are objective. But only because we've defined them that way. The ethical system itself was developed subjectively, and so morals as a whole are still subjective. (Sorry if this paragraph seems unclear, heh.)

 

[Sucumbio]

What blazed explained to me in the other thread makes sense to me now. We humans could define an ethical system of what we believe is right. And within that ethical system, we could define certain actions as right or wrong. Therefore, within the bounds of that ethical system, morals are objective. But only because we've defined them that way. The ethical system itself was developed subjectively, and so morals as a whole are still subjective. (Sorry if this paragraph seems unclear, heh.)

Actually, it makes perfect sense, but...

You don't know murder is wrong. You're using your human judgment to determine it is wrong, therefore your moral beliefs are subjective.

Once, before I could even speak, I recall seeing a television program in which one man murdered another (or so it seemed, he took his head and slammed the trunk door upon it repeatedly until the other man stopped moving.) I cried profusely at this display, it was horrifying. Was this just me being empathetic to the man's suffering? Maybe he'd deserved it some how? I didn't understand the movie, or the motivations, I just saw one man harming another brutally and I reacted naturally. I just knew deep down without ever being told, or without any rational, that the man who'd harmed the other was in the wrong. Now it just so happens that if you following the teachings of Christ, or adhere to the Laws of the Land (at least here in the US), yeah, he was in the wrong, he was guilty of assault, attempted murder, he was a vigilante, any of these would fit. My point here is that somehow I knew murder was wrong, so how can we explain this? Is it biology? Am I somehow in a biological minority here because I knew murder was wrong before I was told so? This experience of mine at age 3 or so has actually plagued me for years since because it tells me that somehow (most) humans DO know right from wrong without having to be "told" so, or without having to reach consensus. It's our grappling with trying to understand this... intrinsic and biological moral fiber within us that leaves science baffled and so we must conveniently label morals as purely subjective: made up, all in the head, and as whimsical as which flavor of ice cream is "right."

 

[rvkevin]

If there are in fact objective moral truths (which I don't think there are unless you believe in a deity) then morals are objective.

Belief in a deity does not help attaining objective morality.

And within that ethical system, we could define certain actions as right or wrong. Therefore, within the bounds of that ethical system, morals are objective. But only because we've defined them that way.

Before we talk about anything, we have to define what we're talking about. If I'm playing a chess game and someone asks me if a particular move is good or bad, should I respond by asking him whether he values winning, or whether he plays with the traditional rule set? Its only within this predefined framework that I can judge whether one move is objectively better than another. The same applies to morality. Outside the defined framework, it is impossible to say one move is better than another, or one action is better than another, but we don't need to talk about morality outside such a framework. Morality doesn't need to be some nebulous term that everyone has their own notion of, we can actually define what we are talking about. Everything is subjective until its defined, all we have to do is define morality.

 

[KrazyGlue]

It was an emotional reaction, therefore it was subjective. What happened was that you saw a murder happening, then your brain decided that this was a morally wrong thing happening, so you reacted appropriately for a 3 year old. So basically, you used human judgment, and therefore made a subjective decision.

Did you ever consider the opinion of the guy committing the murder? He probably thought what he was doing was right.

Plus honestly at age 3 you were probably more scared than sad/offended, but that's another discussion.

Also, what about kids raised in extremist madrassas, taught that murdering people in a suicide bombing is one of the most glorious and holy things you can do?

EDIT: rvkevin posted while I was working on my post.

Belief in a deity does not help attaining objective morality.

True, I really meant if you believe in an omniscient deity.

Before we talk about anything, we have to define what we're talking about. If I'm playing a chess game and someone asks me if a particular move is good or bad, should I respond by asking him whether he values winning, or whether he plays with the traditional rule set? Its only within this predefined framework that I can judge whether one move is objectively better than another. The same applies to morality. Outside the defined framework, it is impossible to say one move is better than another, or one action is better than another, but we don't need to talk about morality outside such a framework. Morality doesn't need to be some nebulous term that everyone has their own notion of, we can actually define what we are talking about. Everything is subjective until its defined, all we have to do is define morality.

Well, we're going by the standard dictionary definition. Of course anything can be objective if we define it a certain way. We can make the question "what is the best color?" objective if "best" is defined as "whatever is the first color to come to KrazyGlue's mind". But by the definition of morals meaning a determination of what is right and wrong, it is subjective because "right" and "wrong" themselves are subjective. So yes, it all depends on how you define morals. If you were to define it as "whatever rvkevin determines will help society the most" then yes, they are objective. So I guess I should ask everyone how they define morals, and then I'll see whether I agree that morals by their definition are objective.

So by my definition, morals are "a determination of whether something is righteous or not", and to determine what is righteous, you would have to use your human judgment, meaning you're being subjective.

 

[Deleted member]

Once, before I could even speak, I recall seeing a television program in which one man murdered another (or so it seemed, he took his head and slammed the trunk door upon it repeatedly until the other man stopped moving.) I babbled and giggled profusely at this display, it was truly hilarious. Was this just me being so easily amused, or was it because I was just a child? Maybe he'd deserved it some how! Who knows, but it was funny. I didn't understand the movie, or the motivations, I just saw one man harming another comically and I reacted naturally.

 

[rvkevin]

True, I really meant if you believe in an omniscient deity.

Belief in an omniscient deity does not help in attaining objective morality unless you presuppose that objective morality exists, and at that point, you don't need an omniscient deity to believe that morality is objective. So, belief in an omniscient deity does not help in attaining objective morality.

So by my definition, morals are "a determination of whether something is righteous or not", and to determine what is righteous, you would have to use your human judgment, meaning you're being subjective.

What is righteous? What is not? If there is a criteria for these terms, then it is objective. If not, if it is subjective, then someone can claim that genocide is righteous and he would be just as correct as you saying that it is not. Is that what you are saying, that genocide is just as righteous as charity? If so, I don't think such a definition of righteousness or morality fits ordinary use, so I don't use it in such a way. Righteousness must then refer to something else, perhaps to some other criteria, such as equality or preventing harm or the governing dynamics of groups.

Morality needs to be better defined that what is right and not right, what is righteous and not righteous. Again, compared to the chess game, I cannot judge a move to be good or bad without presupposing the predefined framework. Similarly, you cannot judge an action to be right or wrong without defining the framework. The dictionary definition of righteous does nothing to further the conversation since it just moves the question back one step. It would be like saying that God is what is god-like or God is that which has god-like properties, such a definition is meaningless without establishing some sort of criteria. What is morally right and wrong needs to be better defined than morally right is that which is righteous and morally wrong is that which is not righteous. It conveys no information.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Exactly. One cannot determine whether something is righteous or not without being subjective. There is no criteria. And since that is how I define morals, morals are subjective by my definition. And please don't ask me to define righteous, because we'll never get anywhere in this if I have to define what's in my definitions. What is your proposition of the definition of morals, anyway?

 

[Sucumbio]

Honestly, Del if I witnessed a 3 yo laughing at the scene I'm referring to I'd scold them, but that's just me. So my brain interpreted the scene and reacted emotionally. Now, aren't most emotional reactions based on some sort of guideline? If someone steals your bike you get sad, or mad. If someone buys you a video game for your birthday you get elated... is there not always some framework at play? I ask because I literally had no framework, I just saw it and immediately knew what I was seeing was what I'd later come to understand as "horrific." Some would say this just means I was overly or especially sensitive as a child, but I'm actually drawing on more than my personal experience for this conclusion of biological morality; a term in fact has been coined as "fellow feelings" for man.

 

[Deleted member]

It doesn't really matter if you'd scold them or not. What does matter, however, is your scolding is acting under an ideological social construct.

For example, if I have a kid, and said kid wants to play Grand Theft Auto, I will happily pop it in for him if he wants to. I'm sure my kid will know right from wrong, good from bad. I'm not going to dumb my child down. I'm going to place in him agency; an inherent level of respect that even though he's young, he's still not to be mollycoddled.

Obviously I know what you're saying; you knew instinctively that the scene was somehow wrong but that doesn't mean it was objectively wrong. It's wrong where we come from. It's wrong in the Western idea of good and bad.

There is no universal standard. No moral principle or philosophy encompasses every corner of the globe.

And by the way, to infer that speech is the only framework at play is crazy. You have millions, nay, billions of potential factors that influence your mind as a child. For example, you probably grew up in a nursery; filled with images of suns and flowers and bunnies.

If you grew up as a feral child, being a daily witness to fellow wolf-pack members thrash a rabbit back and forth to break its neck and inevitably devour it, I don't think the scene would have been that frightening. It may have simply looked like a kill related to hunger.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Some 3 year olds would laugh; they're not all the same.

Your emotional reaction to any given situation involves human judgment, therefore it's subjective. Again, it doesn't matter how anyone would react; all that matters is it uses human judgment.

EDIT: Del stated it well.

 

[rvkevin]

What is your proposition of the definition of morals, anyway?

First page, my first post.

One cannot determine whether something is righteous or not without being subjective. There is no criteria. And since that is how I define morals, morals are subjective by my definition.

Getting back to the purpose of the thread, what do you think the point of morals is? Are you relativistic in that you think that no party is in the right or wrong in any given situation? Since you view morality as subjective, do you think it is unfair to punish people for breaking the law if they think they are being righteous?

Since there is no criteria for righteousness, I suppose that righteousness could include anything, even genocide could be considered righteous. Do you find that to be a problem? Do you think that's consistent with the colloquial usage when someone refers to morality?

 

[KrazyGlue]

First page, my first post.

Ok, thanks. So by your definition, something is morally right if it benefits a group, hm? Well yes, under your definition, there could be objective moral truths.

Getting back to the purpose of the thread, what do you think the point of morals is? Are you relativistic in that you think that no party is in the right or wrong in any given situation?

Well, yes. They can't be objectively right or wrong. Especially since "right" and "wrong" are subjective terms.

Since you view morality as subjective, do you think it is unfair to punish people for breaking the law if they think they are being righteous?

It doesn't matter what they think. Their opinion of what they did is subjective. Laws are also based off of subjective morals beliefs. My opinion is yes, they should be punished no matter what they think. But that's just a subjective opinion.

Since there is no criteria for righteousness, I suppose that righteousness could include anything, even genocide could be considered righteous. Do you find that to be a problem? Do you think that's consistent with the colloquial usage when someone refers to morality?

Of course someone could believe genocide is righteous. Whether or not you think it's righteous, it's still subjective.