Subjective Morality

[movingxpictures]

So the other day my advisor (who is pretty much certifiably awesome) was giving us all a lecture about morality. To sum up what he said, he declared that even though he loves the U.S., the country is having problems because people have it in their heads that morality is subjective and varies from situation to situation. Not true, he says. Morality is black-and-white.

What do you guys think? Would you agree? I'm not sure I would label morality as black-and-white in every situation.

[cshadows2887]

Morality may be black and white to individual people, but it's their own conception of said black and white laws. Nobody with any influence in the educational system should be incapable of understanding that this is the definition of subjectivity.

[The Indigo]

Your professor couldn't be more wrong. There are tons of hypothetical situations in which morality is shown to be subjective.

[BornUnderPunches]

It's subjective. Different people can have different morals.

[softcoeur]

if something is at all open for interpretation, it's subjective. for purposes of law and order, certain things are 'made' objective out of both necessity and the overriding cultural paradigm, but because of the subjectivity of the court/jury system, those things are judged subjectively. killing someone is illegal, but self-defense and mental defect get plenty of people off the hook.

[Matthew Tsai]

I'm going to go with Dostoevsky, who studied human morality on a level far greater than any of us or our professors have. Morality is objective.

[Regards]

Its a little more open then just asking if its black and white. The question itself seems to be a bit invalid.

[BornUnderPunches]

I'm going to go with Dostoevsky, who studied human morality on a level far greater than any of us or our professors have. Morality is objective.
Please elaborate, then.

[Paul Tao]

Subjective

[TheProsAndCons]

I'm going to go with Dostoevsky, who studied human morality on a level far greater than any of us or our professors have. Morality is objective.

No.

[Matthew Tsai]

Please elaborate, then.

Have you read any of Dostoevskys works?

[BornUnderPunches]

Have you read any of Dostoevskys works?
No.

[Until The Bombs]

Objective.

[deFobbed14yrs]

oh i'm taking like three morality classes this semester

[Matthew Tsai]

No.

Crime and Punishment and Brothers Karamazov. Git on it. They're long, but when someone is regarded as one of the greatest psychologists ever, and is cited by Nietzsche as a major influence, his writing is worth reading.

[BornUnderPunches]

Crime and Punishment and Brothers Karamazov. Git on it. They're long, but when someone is regarded as one of the greatest psychologists ever, and is cited by Nietzsche as a major influence, his writing is worth reading.
I've heard of Crime and Punishment, but nothing more. Will check out soon.

[11:11]

Subjective. The morality of any given situation can be broken down into the act itself, the intent, and the circumstances; the act of killing another person is wrong, but if the intent was to save yourself, or if the circumstances were that you lived in a society where something of that magnitude might be acceptable punishment for a crime that person committed, then the act might not be wrong.

[Matthew Tsai]

No.

Close-mindedness is one of the greatest threats to understanding truth, no? Have you read Dostoevsky?

[TheProsAndCons]

Close-mindedness is one of the greatest threats to understanding truth, no? Have you read Dostoevsky?

Yes.

[Matthew Tsai]

Yes.

Then would you care to explain your "No."?

[TheProsAndCons]

Then would you care to explain your "No."?

Just because I read something from a book, doesn't mean it's right.


Crime and Punishment and Brothers Karamazov. Git on it. They're long, but when someone is regarded as one of the greatest psychologists ever, and is cited by Nietzsche as a major influence, his writing is worth reading.

If Pete Wentz was regarded as one of the best bass players ever, and Paul McCartney cited him as a major influence, would you then believe that Pete Wentz is a good bassist?

[Matthew Tsai]

Just because I read something from a book, doesn't mean it's right.

Yes but what's your reasoning as to why its not right? That's what I'm curious about.

[TheProsAndCons]

Yes but what's your reasoning as to why its not right? That's what I'm curious about.

Because if God wanted to make everything black and white, we wouldn't be able to see in colour now would we?

[eraserhead]

Because if God wanted to make everything black and white, we wouldn't be able to see in colour now would we?
:crackup:

Please don't tell me that's your actual argument.

[TheProsAndCons]

:crackup:

Please don't tell me that's your actual argument.

Look, all I'm saying is that God made us perfect, and only he can judge us. If he didn't make us perfect, than why are we American and the terrorists Muslims? The Muslims are doing something wrong and they and God know this, but if you do something wrong, God will forgive you because you are an American. If you don't believe in what I say well then mister you can take your Socialism and get out of my country.

[Spencer Control]

Morality can't be subjective. What happens if I say killing is right and you say killing is wrong? Is one of us incorrect? I would argue that morality itself is not subjective (there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong). Personally, it's the only thing that makes sense. Unless I'm misunderstanding the arguments presented.

[BornUnderPunches]

Look, all I'm saying is that God made us perfect, and only he can judge us. If he didn't make us perfect, than why are we American and the terrorists Muslims? The Muslims are doing something wrong and they and God know this, but if you do something wrong, God will forgive you because you are an American. If you don't believe in what I say well then mister you can take your Socialism and get out of my country.
lol

edit: extra lol since you added "we Americans".

[Mibabalou]

Look, all I'm saying is that God made us perfect, and only he can judge us. If he didn't make us perfect, than why are we American and the terrorists Muslims? The Muslims are doing something wrong and they and God know this, but if you do something wrong, God will forgive you because you are an American. If you don't believe in what I say well then mister you can take your Socialism and get out of my country.

i like you

[Spencer Control]

Look, all I'm saying is that God made us perfect, and only he can judge us. If he didn't make us perfect, than why are we American and the terrorists Muslims? The Muslims are doing something wrong and they and God know this, but if you do something wrong, God will forgive you because you are an American. If you don't believe in what I say well then mister you can take your Socialism and get out of my country.


What the hell are you smoking? That's your freaking argument?

[BornUnderPunches]

What the hell are you smoking? That's your freaking argument?
No dude, that's called a joke.

[Spencer Control]

:crackup:

Please don't tell me that's your actual argument.


That emoticon is effing ultimate.

[IntoTheSun]

Look, all I'm saying is that God made us perfect, and only he can judge us. If he didn't make us perfect, than why are we American and the terrorists Muslims? The Muslims are doing something wrong and they and God know this, but if you do something wrong, God will forgive you because you are an American. If you don't believe in what I say well then mister you can take your Socialism and get out of my country.

This sounds almost sarcastic. Also...you live in Ireland. Deal with it.

[The Indigo]

Crime and Punishment and Brothers Karamazov. Git on it. They're long, but when someone is regarded as one of the greatest psychologists ever, and is cited by Nietzsche as a major influence, his writing is worth reading.
Are you going to keep name-dropping bruh man or are you going to actually expand upon your position?

[Spencer Control]

No dude, that's called a joke.

Oh my gosh, okay. Hahaha. That's awesome then.

Sorry mate. For one second I thought that was serious and I was FML. What idiot did that. Haha.:hitself:

[BornUnderPunches]

Oh my gosh, okay. Hahaha. That's awesome then.

Sorry mate. For one second I thought that was serious and I was FML. What idiot did that. Haha.:hitself:
Yeah he said "we Americans" and he's from Ireland haha.

[TheProsAndCons]

This sounds almost sarcastic. Also...you live in Ireland. Deal with it.

No, I'm American. These are my fellow Americans
mKKKgua7wQk&feature=channel

(Except all the women, because women can't judge things morally because the Devil gave them boobies.)

[Matthew Tsai]

Are you going to keep name-dropping bruh man or are you going to actually expand upon your position?

If you want Dostoevsky's view, I'd highly suggest you read his books. I don't think I could do it justice just by explaining it here because it's intricately woven into his fictional character's lives. In the end, much of morality lies in experience rather than just hardcore reasoning. But if you want hardcore reasoning:

http://www.strongatheism.net/library/philosophy/case_for_objective_morality/

I'm not an atheist but this article does a good job of explaining it from a secular perspective.

[IntoTheSun]

No, I'm American. These are my fellow Americans

It appears you are correct. My bad, sir. Carry on.

[Wake Up]

Silly phsycoanaligisticinisstics

[RushAndAPush]

Crime & Punishment is a great book.

[zion the lion]

I like how people are trying to discuss morality, seeing the way you all treat other people on the internet, you're the last people to be talking about this.

it might as well be subjective but really.

[BornUnderPunches]

I like how people are trying to discuss morality, seeing the way you all treat other people on the internet, you're the last people to be talking about this.

it might as well be subjective but really.
Since when can only moral people discuss morality? Also, when has anyone in here said that they're more moral than the next person?

[cshadows2887]

I like how people are trying to discuss morality, seeing the way you all treat other people on the internet, you're the last people to be talking about this.

it might as well be subjective but really.

Look out. Your glass house is burning down.

[zion the lion]

Look out. Your glass house is burning down.

I doubt a glass house would burn down. Did I ever say that I was wonderful? No, I just said that I thought it was hilarious that people were trying to talk about this even though there are people who try to hurt other random people's feelings...I think its funny.

[tyramail]

i think it's pretty subjective. everyone has their own idea of what is moral and what is not, and circumstances are also a part of that.

[Spencer Control]

I doubt a glass house would burn down. Did I ever say that I was wonderful? No, I just said that I thought it was hilarious that people were trying to talk about this even though there are people who try to hurt other random people's feelings...I think its funny.


Actually, I'm pretty sure it could.
Holy fark, if hot enough, glass would melt/soften (I figured that already, but that's pretty freaking sweet.)

YOUR GLASS HOUSE IS MELTING, AND THAT'S BETTER THAN BURNING.

Ehh. You assume that hurting people's feelings is morally wrong. I'm not disagreeing, I'm just pointing out that your argument has no premise.

[zion the lion]

Actually, I'm pretty sure it could.
Holy fark, if hot enough, glass would melt/soften (I figured that already, but that's pretty freaking sweet.)

YOUR GLASS HOUSE IS MELTING, AND THAT'S BETTER THAN BURNING.

Ehh. You assume that hurting people's feelings is morally wrong. I'm not disagreeing, I'm just pointing out that your argument has no premise.

If you go around trying to break people down over the internet, I'm saying its a little bit funny that you'd participate in an argument about whether morality is subjective or objective.

[OhNoVandetos]

hahahaha..... this thread

no living man can know whether or not morality is subjective or not

you might find out when you die

it is subjective whether your not you believe morals are subjective or not. Your believes (on this topic) might be right, they might wrong but you cant know

[saysmydoctor]

Crime and Punishment and Brothers Karamazov. Git on it. They're long, but when someone is regarded as one of the greatest psychologists ever, and is cited by Nietzsche as a major influence, his writing is worth reading.
Interesting appeal to authority you've drawn out. Granted, I agree with your general sentiment, but still.

Also, for Zion: moral reasoning =/= moral action. Hope this concept isn't too hard for you to wrap your head around.

[Jennurna Gray]

If morality is black and white, everyone is making the wrong choices.

[Spencer Control]

If morality is black and white, everyone is making the wrong choices.

Well, everyone has made wrong choices at some point. But I don't see what the problem with that is (everyone making wrong choices, not making wrong choices in general).

[beazer32]

I think morality being subjective is a scary thought.. the person with no morals goes around and does whatever the hell they want, kicking puppies and punching babies, and that's alright because morality is different for them? I don't see how it can hold any value if it's simply up to the individual.

[J.C.]

This is a debate I've always gone a bit back and forth on. I grapple with recognizing there are objective truths borne out by science(meaning the concept of a universal code isn't improbable) with also realizing that human behavior/thought/morality is predominantly subject to an individual's circumstances. Recognizing the truth in that last statement, I wouldn't comprehend the point of a true black-white moral dichotomy when an individual's sense of morality is so fragile and contingent on variables that lie out of their control.

[Love As Arson]

Everything is permitted.

[jessicalynn-xx]

Often when people try to argue that morality is objective they use extreme examples like rape and murder. I feel like those are unfair examples because most people agree that rape and murder are wrong. And even if they don't think those things are wrong they most likely won't confess to it publicly. But what about less obvious situations? Drug use? Euthanasia? Are these things objectively morally wrong? Are they morally right? The answers will vary depending who you ask. And how are you meant to discern which of you is correct and which of you is incorrect? I think it's pretty obvious morality is subjective.

[jessicalynn-xx]

Then would you care to explain your "No."?

Would you care to explain your, "Yes?"

[topher465]

I'm going to go with Dostoevsky, who studied human morality on a level far greater than any of us or our professors have. Morality is objective.

What have you read of his?

[caveBEAR]

How, in 4 pages, did a thread on Subjective Morality somehow bring up melting glass houses?

[Jennurna Gray]

Well, everyone has made wrong choices at some point. But I don't see what the problem with that is (everyone making wrong choices, not making wrong choices in general).
People don't just wake up in the morning and say 'Oh, I'm going to make bad choices today'. When someone makes a choice that isn't for the best, it's usually because at the time, it's what looked like the best choice.

[Love As Arson]

I just find it depressing that people find it difficult to create new values, which are actually universal.

[Matthew Tsai]

Often when people try to argue that morality is objective they use extreme examples like rape and murder. I feel like those are unfair examples because most people agree that rape and murder are wrong. And even if they don't think those things are wrong they most likely won't confess to it publicly. But what about less obvious situations? Drug use? Euthanasia? Are these things objectively morally wrong? Are they morally right? The answers will vary depending who you ask. And how are you meant to discern which of you is correct and which of you is incorrect? I think it's pretty obvious morality is subjective.

Would you care to explain your, "Yes?"

Sure. I think there are a set of deeply ingrained values that lie out of reach from evolutionary and social pressures that every human has. That's how I define morality. It's not something that we are taught to do, but something that is inherent in us. As one famous author who studied morality (I won't name him to prevent unnecessary bias) noted, morality is the thing that guides our instincts, telling us which one we should encourage and which one we should suppress. Every human is born with it.

For example, you'll be hard pressed to find a culture in history that thinks cold-blooded murder for no reason whatsoever is acceptable. Or that killing babies or stealing from the poor is acceptable. Of course, morality is often much more sophisticated than just a blanket sweet statement "do not kill." There are "exceptions," like when we kill somebody in self defense. But even that is part of our morality. There are a select few situations when killing is acceptable, and we all know what those situations are. That there are varying situations when unacceptable things become acceptable doesn't make morality subjective, because those situations are still well defined by morality.

But morality can definitely be suppressed. Deep, deep, deep down inside, we all know what is right and what is wrong. But various things can condition us so that we suppress that knowledge, whether it be society, disease or even our own will. That's why we have psychopaths, robbers, and the like. So in modern society, morality may seem like it's drifting more and more toward subjectivity, but it's an illusion. That's a rough overview of my view. We can always go into specifics on any point. :-)

[Jennurna Gray]

How, in 4 pages, did a thread on Subjective Morality somehow bring up melting glass houses?
And it's not even in PL!

[Matthew Tsai]

What have you read of his?

Crime and Punishment, Brothers Karamazov, several of his short stories, and a whole bunch of biographies on him analyzing his philosophy. I would probably call him my favorite author just from what I've read from him. Brilliant, brilliant guy.

[tkamB]

I wouldn't say that morality is black and white, but I also wouldn't say its completely subjective. I just think there is black, white, and gray. There are some obviously morally wrong actions, for example the raping of a newborn. No sane person would say that isn't a wrong thing to do. While there are some obviously right actions, for example saving the same newborn from the raping. The problem is most of the world is in the gray area, and thats where the subjectivity comes from, but just because some actions are subjective doesn't necessitate there isn't a right or wrong.

[circasuicide]

It's subjective. Different people can have different morals.

i want to give you a high five.

[topher465]

Crime and Punishment, Brothers Karamazov, several of his short stories, and a whole bunch of biographies on him analyzing his philosophy. I would probably call him my favorite author just from what I've read from him. Brilliant, brilliant guy.

Did you read Notes From Underground?

[caveBEAR]

I wouldn't say that morality is black and white, but I also wouldn't say its completely subjective. I just think there is black, white, and gray. There are some obviously morally wrong actions, for example the raping of a newborn. No sane person would say that isn't a wrong thing to do. While there are some obviously right actions, for example saving the same newborn from the raping. The problem is most of the world is in the gray area, and thats where the subjectivity comes from, but just because some actions are subjective doesn't necessitate there isn't a right or wrong.

...:-|

I'm pretty sure 'rape' is pretty much wrong. No black and white there, so I'm not sure why we had to specify a newborn...but thanks for that visual. X-)

[Spencer Control]

People don't just wake up in the morning and say 'Oh, I'm going to make bad choices today'. When someone makes a choice that isn't for the best, it's usually because at the time, it's what looked like the best choice.

Not always. For instance, I highly doubt murderers think what they're doing is morally right or the best thing to do. They do it because, weighing the choices of doing what they think is right and what they want to do, what they want to do is more important than what they think is right. There are some instances where something that is wrong may seem right (and vice versa), and that's unintentional. But there are situations in which one does what they know to be wrong. I can think of some for myself and I suspect you could too.

[Matthew Tsai]

Did you read Notes From Underground?

Ah yes I have. Forget about that one.

[tkamB]

...:-|

I'm pretty sure 'rape' is pretty much wrong. No black and white there, so I'm not sure why we had to specify a newborn...but thanks for that visual. X-)

I agree, but I was just trying to think of the worst possible thing I could think of that absoutely no one could come up with a reason that it wouldn't be absolutely wrong. Sorry about the visual though haha.

[Spencer Control]

I wouldn't say that morality is black and white, but I also wouldn't say its completely subjective. I just think there is black, white, and gray. There are some obviously morally wrong actions, for example the raping of a newborn. No sane person would say that isn't a wrong thing to do. While there are some obviously right actions, for example saving the same newborn from the raping. The problem is most of the world is in the gray area, and thats where the subjectivity comes from, but just because some actions are subjective doesn't necessitate there isn't a right or wrong.



I can see where your reasoning is based on, but your argument has one flaw. (And I've said this already on this thread, I think.) WHY is it wrong to rape a newborn? I know I sound like a sick person for saying this, I'm sure, but WHY? Where is the moral basis that it IS wrong? I agree with you wholly that it is wrong. It's gnasty, sick, wrong, wrong, wrong. But I believe it's wrong because God (I'm a Christian) says it's wrong. I have basis to back it up. Why do you believe it's wrong? My first conclusion would be a construction of society - you've been raised up to believe it's wrong, so it seems the most logical thing to you.

[Matthew Tsai]

I can see where your reasoning is based on, but your argument has one flaw. (And I've said this already on this thread, I think.) WHY is it wrong to rape a newborn? I know I sound like a sick person for saying this, I'm sure, but WHY? Where is the moral basis that it IS wrong? I agree with you wholly that it is wrong. It's gnasty, sick, wrong, wrong, wrong. But I believe it's wrong because God (I'm a Christian) says it's wrong. I have basis to back it up. Why do you believe it's wrong? My first conclusion would be a construction of society - you've been raised up to believe it's wrong, so it seems the most logical thing to you.

That's an interesting point, but I think it branches into another subject altogether. That subject being, if morality can not originate from society or evolution, then where does it come from? That leads into a much broader area where people have all sorts of interpretations.

[Spencer Control]

That's an interesting point, but I think it branches into another subject altogether. That subject being, if morality can not originate from society or evolution, then where does it come from? That leads into a much broader area where people have all sorts of interpretations.

I agree. I'm just pointing out that his argument that certain things are absolute without basis is flawed.

[tkamB]

I can see where your reasoning is based on, but your argument has one flaw. (And I've said this already on this thread, I think.) WHY is it wrong to rape a newborn? I know I sound like a sick person for saying this, I'm sure, but WHY? Where is the moral basis that it IS wrong? I agree with you wholly that it is wrong. It's gnasty, sick, wrong, wrong, wrong. But I believe it's wrong because God (I'm a Christian) says it's wrong. I have basis to back it up. Why do you believe it's wrong? My first conclusion would be a construction of society - you've been raised up to believe it's wrong, so it seems the most logical thing to you.

Well I would argue that a completely innocent does not deserve ill-treatment, and that any sane individual has an inherent knowing of that to be true. But of course this is going to lead down what is sane and if sanity itself is a byproduct of society. And I truthfully don't know.

[Jennurna Gray]

Not always. For instance, I highly doubt murderers think what they're doing is morally right or the best thing to do. They do it because, weighing the choices of doing what they think is right and what they want to do, what they want to do is more important than what they think is right. There are some instances where something that is wrong may seem right (and vice versa), and that's unintentional. But there are situations in which one does what they know to be wrong. I can think of some for myself and I suspect you could too.
Although I do agree with most of what you said, I feel like people aren't quite that bad yet. If I'm not much of a realist, I apologize for my overabundance of faith in humanity. When it comes to murderers, you are right about a good portion of one time offenders. Some people just feed off of the kill and nothing more. Some feel that they're doing what is right by eliminating a person who has wronged them or another person. Most serial killers, however, do not kill for the mere feeling of being a 'bad ass', they actually feel that what they're doing is right. I heard about a man a while back who felt as if it were God's will to kill everyone who committed a sin. When he heard about a neighbor cheating on her husband, this man lured her into the woods and tortured her, raped her and killed her. Now, I'm not saying that this case is moral in any way, just that he truly believed it was. I don't believe morality can be black and white if everyone has a different opinion of it. Morality is not a color or a shape.

[jawstheme]

Crime and Punishment, Brothers Karamazov, several of his short stories, and a whole bunch of biographies on him analyzing his philosophy. I would probably call him my favorite author just from what I've read from him. Brilliant, brilliant guy.

The Brothers Karamazov is the best book I have ever read.

[Matthew Tsai]

The Brothers Karamazov is the best book I have ever read.

Word.

[GeeBee]

Crime and Punishment, Brothers Karamazov, several of his short stories, and a whole bunch of biographies on him analyzing his philosophy. I would probably call him my favorite author just from what I've read from him. Brilliant, brilliant guy.
Insulted and Humiliated ftw. That book oozes misery.

[jessicalynn-xx]

Sure. I think there are a set of deeply ingrained values that lie out of reach from evolutionary and social pressures that every human has. That's how I define morality. It's not something that we are taught to do, but something that is inherent in us. As one famous author who studied morality (I won't name him to prevent unnecessary bias) noted, morality is the thing that guides our instincts, telling us which one we should encourage and which one we should suppress. Every human is born with it.

For example, you'll be hard pressed to find a culture in history that thinks cold-blooded murder for no reason whatsoever is acceptable. Or that killing babies or stealing from the poor is acceptable. Of course, morality is often much more sophisticated than just a blanket sweet statement "do not kill." There are "exceptions," like when we kill somebody in self defense. But even that is part of our morality. There are a select few situations when killing is acceptable, and we all know what those situations are. That there are varying situations when unacceptable things become acceptable doesn't make morality subjective, because those situations are still well defined by morality.

But morality can definitely be suppressed. Deep, deep, deep down inside, we all know what is right and what is wrong. But various things can condition us so that we suppress that knowledge, whether it be society, disease or even our own will. That's why we have psychopaths, robbers, and the like. So in modern society, morality may seem like it's drifting more and more toward subjectivity, but it's an illusion. That's a rough overview of my view. We can always go into specifics on any point. :-)

How can you say "deep down inside we all know what is right and what is wrong?" Now you're assuming 1) that you know what everyone else's views really are, even better than they do and 2) that their views all match your own. You didn't address the two specific points I gave you: drug use and euthanasia. I'm looking deep, deep, deep down inside myself and I think both of these things are morally acceptable. Do you agree? Even if you do, there are many people who don't. Are you seriously going to tell them (or me depending what your views are) that they don't know what they think? That you know what they think better than they do? That "deep down inside" they actually think the opposite of what they think they think? That's a pretty bold statement I think. But maybe I don't think that. Maybe deep down inside I don't think it's a bold statement... ;)

"There are a select few situations when killing is acceptable, and we all know what those situations are." No we don't. Consider this situation. You're a nurse in a hospital in a city that has just experienced a terrible natural disaster. Your hospital is flooding and has had no electricity for the past few days. Riots have broken out. Gunshots can be heard outside. Sewage is backing up into the hospital and the temperature is over 100 degrees inside. The hospital is on lockdown and you have to evacuate the hospital by the end of the day. You know that you don't have enough time to transport every patient and that some of them will inevitably drown when the hospital floods completely or will die from the heat, lack of proper medical attention/sanitation. They are going to die regardless so the doctor in charge of your floor instructs you to euthanize the ones who will not make it so that they will suffer less. What would you do? Euthanize them? Not? If so, how would you determine which ones to euthanize? If not, how would you determine which patients to evacuate first, which ones to leave behind? Different people would do different things in this scenario. If morality were objective the answer would be clear and everyone would agree. But the answer isn't clear and people disagree on what the right thing to do in this particular scenario is. I'm sure most people put in this situation would look "deep down inside themselves" but they would still come up with different answers.

[Matthew Tsai]

How can you say "deep down inside we all know what is right and what is wrong?" Now you're assuming 1) that you know what everyone else's views really are, even better than they do and 2) that what their views all match your own. You didn't address the two specific points I gave you: drug use and euthanasia. I'm looking deep, deep, deep down inside myself and I think both of these things are morally acceptable. Do you agree? Even if you do, there are many people who don't. Are you seriously going to tell them (or me depending what your views are) that they don't know what they think? That you know what they think better than they do? That "deep down inside" they actually think the opposite of what they think they think? That's a pretty bold statement I think. But maybe I don't think that. Maybe deep down inside I don't think it's a bold statement. Can you please tell me what I think? ;)

"There are a select few situations when killing is acceptable, and we all know what those situations are." No we don't. Consider this situation. You're a nurse in a hospital in a city that has just experienced a terrible natural disaster. Your hospital is flooding and has had no electricity for the past few days. Riots have broken out. Gunshots can be heard outside. Sewage is backing up into the hospital and the temperature is over 100 degrees inside. The hospital is on lockdown and you have to evacuate the hospital by the end of the day. You know that you don't have enough time to transport every patient and that some of them will inevitably drown when the hospital floods completely or will die from the heat, lack of proper medical attention/sanitation. They are going to die regardless so the doctor in charge of your floor instructs you to euthanize the ones who will not make it so that they will suffer less. What would you do? Euthanize them? Not? If so, how would you determine which ones to euthanize? If not, how would you determine which patients to evacuate first, which ones to leave behind? Different people would do different things in this scenario. If morality were objective the answer would be clear and everyone would agree. But the answer isn't clear and people disagree on what the right thing to do in this particular scenario is. I'm sure most people put in this situation would look "deep down inside themselves" but they would still come up with different answers.

I say "deep down inside we all know what is right and what is wrong" based on widely accepted works of psychology produced by authors I greatly respect. In the end, maybe we don't really know. But when you look at human cultures throughout history, you'll see that no culture, for example, finds it acceptable to rape babies, as one of the users above suggested. All cultures are in agreement on something like that, which shows (pretty strongly, I might add) there's a common, shared strand of morality in humanity.

I think drugs is too shallow of an example. Our inherent morality tends to deal with big picture things, like murder, stealing, obedience and the like. Drugs? Ehh. I personally don't find anything wrong with it except for that it hurts the body. It's only amoral if my parents specifically told me not to do them, but I decide to do them anyway. In humanity's natural state, is morality concerned with doing drugs? No. That's more of a reason thing as opposed to a morality thing.

Euthanasia may be a different story in terms of extremity, but the conclusion isn't much different. Our morality dictates that it's wrong to murder someone, but if that person is begging for his life to be ended? That throws things for a loop. That things are open for interpretation doesn't disprove an objective morality. It just shows that our morality hasn't defined a definite right or wrong for the topic of euthanasia.

As for your example, I think we might be on different pages in terms of what morality really is. When I say "There are a select few situations when killing is acceptable, and we all know what those situations are," I don't mean that we always know what to do in specific situations. I mean that we are capable of understanding when the act of murder is acceptable based on the concepts that are involved, ie. justice or self-defense. Morality doesn't define what we must do in every situation ever. Certainly, some situations present us with gray areas. In your example, you're faced with death, or death. I think the majority of people would end up asking the patient whether they want to be euthanized or not. Yes, the answer isn't clear. But that doesn't rule out an objective moral standard. Because while such situations may involve gray areas, there are other situations where things are black and white. Thus, objective morality still exists.

[zion the lion]

...:-|

I'm pretty sure 'rape' is pretty much wrong. No black and white there, so I'm not sure why we had to specify a newborn...but thanks for that visual. X-)

I read that some infant actually got raped in south africa...and not just raped but gang raped, it was fucking disgusting.

she was I think 16months or something like that, but I didnt even think that kind of thing was possible.

[Alou]

It's subjective in my opinion. And I really don't want to explain my opinion as I hate these types of debates and probably shouldn't have posted here in the first place.

[perceptrons]

I say "deep down inside we all know what is right and what is wrong" based on widely accepted works of psychology produced by authors I greatly respect. In the end, maybe we don't really know. But when you look at human cultures throughout history, you'll see that no culture, for example, finds it acceptable to rape babies, as one of the users above suggested. All cultures are in agreement on something like that, which shows (pretty strongly, I might add) there's a common, shared strand of morality in humanity.
I'm not sure you can claim that no cultures finds it acceptable because of some shared strand of morality that we have. Could it not be the case that humans have evolved to not to those things because it would not be advantageous to do so? A baby cannot get pregnant, and the likelihood that a baby would die under such a circumstance is undoubtedly quite high. What advantage would there be to do it?

[Spencer Control]

Well I would argue that a completely innocent does not deserve ill-treatment, and that any sane individual has an inherent knowing of that to be true. But of course this is going to lead down what is sane and if sanity itself is a byproduct of society. And I truthfully don't know.

But why is it inherent? How do we know our emotions aren't just lying to us?
I think we're going to go about in circles here now :-) I'm cool with leaving it at we can't really know and have to have faith in some absolute. You?

[Spencer Control]

Although I do agree with most of what you said, I feel like people aren't quite that bad yet. If I'm not much of a realist, I apologize for my overabundance of faith in humanity. When it comes to murderers, you are right about a good portion of one time offenders. Some people just feed off of the kill and nothing more. Some feel that they're doing what is right by eliminating a person who has wronged them or another person. Most serial killers, however, do not kill for the mere feeling of being a 'bad ass', they actually feel that what they're doing is right. I heard about a man a while back who felt as if it were God's will to kill everyone who committed a sin. When he heard about a neighbor cheating on her husband, this man lured her into the woods and tortured her, raped her and killed her. Now, I'm not saying that this case is moral in any way, just that he truly believed it was. I don't believe morality can be black and white if everyone has a different opinion of it. Morality is not a color or a shape.

I agree, there are certainly some people that believe what they're doing is right. HOWEVER, if we have just ONE person who knows what he's doing is wrong, my point is proven - that some people willingly "sin" (for lack of a more objective word) even if they know/believe it's wrong.

Unfortunately, I forget how that relates to this original thread at all, haha.

[Spencer Control]

I think morality being subjective is a scary thought.. the person with no morals goes around and does whatever the hell they want, kicking puppies and punching babies, and that's alright because morality is different for them? I don't see how it can hold any value if it's simply up to the individual.


Good point. Without SOME moral absolute, there would only be chaos. Who's to say it's wrong to bomb the White House, or throw babies into gas chambers, slit dogs' throats? What, the government?

[Jennurna Gray]

I agree, there are certainly some people that believe what they're doing is right. HOWEVER, if we have just ONE person who knows what he's doing is wrong, my point is proven - that some people willingly "sin" (for lack of a more objective word) even if they know/believe it's wrong.

Unfortunately, I forget how that relates to this original thread at all, haha.
I can agree with that much.

And yeah, every reply just kind of got more and more off topic, haha.

[Zeran]

Did you read Notes From Underground?

such a good book.

[Matthew Tsai]

I'm not sure you can claim that no cultures finds it acceptable because of some shared strand of morality that we have. Could it not be the case that humans have evolved to not to those things because it would not be advantageous to do so? A baby cannot get pregnant, and the likelihood that a baby would die under such a circumstance is undoubtedly quite high. What advantage would there be to do it?

Now that's a different subject. That's the question "what is morality and where does it come from?" There's a whole line of reasoning about how morality can not be produced by evolution, but since this is thread about whether or not morality is subjective, I won't post it here. But if you're interested, PM me.

[movingxpictures]

And yeah, every reply just kind of got more and more off topic, haha.

No care, every reply has been very interesting. Morality is an interesting subject to say the least.

[Jennurna Gray]

No care, every reply has been very interesting. Morality is an interesting subject to say the least.
Oh, I didn't mean in the thread, I meant in the conversation that I was having, haha. It was to the point that we didn't know what the argument was about anymore.

[jessicalynn-xx]

I say "deep down inside we all know what is right and what is wrong" based on widely accepted works of psychology produced by authors I greatly respect. In the end, maybe we don't really know. But when you look at human cultures throughout history, you'll see that no culture, for example, finds it acceptable to rape babies, as one of the users above suggested. All cultures are in agreement on something like that, which shows (pretty strongly, I might add) there's a common, shared strand of morality in humanity.

I think drugs is too shallow of an example. Our inherent morality tends to deal with big picture things, like murder, stealing, obedience and the like. Drugs? Ehh. I personally don't find anything wrong with it except for that it hurts the body. It's only amoral if my parents specifically told me not to do them, but I decide to do them anyway. In humanity's natural state, is morality concerned with doing drugs? No. That's more of a reason thing as opposed to a morality thing.

Euthanasia may be a different story in terms of extremity, but the conclusion isn't much different. Our morality dictates that it's wrong to murder someone, but if that person is begging for his life to be ended? That throws things for a loop. That things are open for interpretation doesn't disprove an objective morality. It just shows that our morality hasn't defined a definite right or wrong for the topic of euthanasia.

As for your example, I think we might be on different pages in terms of what morality really is. When I say "There are a select few situations when killing is acceptable, and we all know what those situations are," I don't mean that we always know what to do in specific situations. I mean that we are capable of understanding when the act of murder is acceptable based on the concepts that are involved, ie. justice or self-defense. Morality doesn't define what we must do in every situation ever. Certainly, some situations present us with gray areas. In your example, you're faced with death, or death. I think the majority of people would end up asking the patient whether they want to be euthanized or not. Yes, the answer isn't clear. But that doesn't rule out an objective moral standard. Because while such situations may involve gray areas, there are other situations where things are black and white. Thus, objective morality still exists.

If morality was objective there would be no gray areas. The gray areas prove morality is subjective.

"Morality doesn't define what we must do in every situation ever. " Then what does it define?

"I say "deep down inside we all know what is right and what is wrong" based on widely accepted works of psychology produced by authors I greatly respect." All psychologists don't agree that the inherent sense of right and wrong within each of us is the same. I just don't see how you can say that deep down Charles Manson feels bad for the things he's done. He doesn't seem to. It sounds to me like you're saying "he's just repressed his morality and that he must know he was wrong, he just has to I mean, how can he not, right? He just has to!" It's not holding much water for me. I dunno.

[jessicalynn-xx]

I think morality being subjective is a scary thought.. the person with no morals goes around and does whatever the hell they want, kicking puppies and punching babies, and that's alright because morality is different for them? I don't see how it can hold any value if it's simply up to the individual.

You don't need objective morality to see that it benefits and protects society to keep baby punchers off the street. And just because you find the thought of subjective morality intimidating doesn't mean that it isn't the case.

[GeeBee]

You don't need objective morality to see that it benefits and protects society to keep baby punchers off the street. And just because you find the thought of subjective morality intimidating doesn't mean that it isn't the case.

I like you.

[theguy77]

i think that guy would fail my Philosophy of Ethics class.

[perceptrons]

Now that's a different subject. That's the question "what is morality and where does it come from?" There's a whole line of reasoning about how morality can not be produced by evolution, but since this is thread about whether or not morality is subjective, I won't post it here. But if you're interested, PM me.
I disagree. If answers to such questions are part of your argument for how morality is subjective, it is completely on point.

Plus, if we have a side conversation, everyone wont benefit, which is one of the best parts of the internet.

[Matthew Tsai]

If morality was objective there would be no gray areas. The gray areas prove morality is subjective.

"Morality doesn't define what we must do in every situation ever. " Then what does it define?

"I say "deep down inside we all know what is right and what is wrong" based on widely accepted works of psychology produced by authors I greatly respect." All psychologists don't agree that the inherent sense of right and wrong within each of us is the same. I just don't see how you can say that deep down Charles Manson feels bad for the things he's done. He doesn't seem to. It sounds to me like you're saying "he's just repressed his morality and that he must know he was wrong, he just has to I mean, how can he not, right? He just has to!" It's not holding much water for me. I dunno.

Then it goes back to the definition of morality. I still think we're on different pages as to exactly what morality is.

As for Charles Manson, I agree that he probably doesn't feel bad for the things he's done, even if it's deep down inside. I believe it's completely possible for a moral sense to be suppressed so far down that it's virtually non-existent. A few posts above, I talked about factors that could influence and distort our morality. Of course, that doesn't rule out that at one time he may have still been in touch with his moral compass.

[perceptrons]

Then it goes back to the definition of morality. I still think we're on different pages as to exactly what morality is.

As for Charles Manson, I agree that he probably doesn't feel bad for the things he's done, even if it's deep down inside. I believe it's completely possible for a moral sense to be suppressed so far down that it's virtually non-existent. A few posts above, I talked about factors that could influence and distort our morality. Of course, that doesn't rule out that at one time he may have still been in touch with his moral compass.
Morals, the way you describe them, sound like animal instincts that we have risen above.

[Matthew Tsai]

I disagree. If answers to such questions are part of your argument for how morality is subjective, it is completely on point.

Plus, if we have a side conversation, everyone wont benefit, which is one of the best parts of the internet.

Right now, we're just talking about whether or not morality is subjective. How morality originated isn't really relevant. Even if we established that morality is indeed spawned through evolution, it wouldn't help us determine whether or not it's subjective or objective.

[Matthew Tsai]

Morals, the way you describe them, sound like animal instincts that we have risen above.

Morality is the part of the conscience that chooses which instinct to suppress and which instinct to encourage.

[perceptrons]

Right now, we're just talking about whether or not morality is subjective. How morality originated isn't really relevant. Even if we established that morality is indeed spawned through evolution, it wouldn't help us determine whether or not it's subjective or objective.
I wasn't positing that morality is spawned through evolution, but that they are two sides of the same coin (at least, morality in the sense you appear to be describing it). To me, it seems you are adding this extra cog into a system that can work just fine without it.

Morality is the part of the conscience that chooses which instinct to suppress and which instinct to encourage.
Could you elaborate on this some more?

[Matthew Tsai]

I wasn't positing that morality is spawned through evolution, but that they are two sides of the same coin (at least, morality in the sense you appear to be describing it). To me, it seems you are adding this extra cog into a system that can work just fine without it.


Could you elaborate on this some more?

Let's look at two of our instincts, our self-preservation instinct and our herd instinct, to borrow terms. The self-preservation instinct tells me to flee danger and save myself at all costs. Our herd instinct tells us to save other members of our species from danger. Now suppose I come across a man being mauled by a bear. Both these instincts activate in my head. But they're at odds. I can't both run away AND help save the man. Morality dictates which instinct I ought to go with.

[perceptrons]

Let's look at two of our instincts, our self-preservation instinct and our herd instinct, to borrow terms. The self-preservation instinct tells me to flee danger and save myself at all costs. Our herd instinct tells us to save other members of our species from danger. Now suppose I come across a man being mauled by a bear. Both these instincts activate in my head. But they're at odds. I can't both run away AND help save the man. Morality dictates which instinct I ought to go with.
That situation seems extremely context dependent, and extremely subjective. How could the decision be made as to which choice would be objectively "right," morally, in that situation?

[Matthew Tsai]

That situation seems extremely context dependent, and extremely subjective. How could the decision be made as to which choice would be objectively "right," morally, in that situation?

Don't you think you would be compelled to help the man?

[perceptrons]

Don't you think you would be compelled to help the man?
It depends on the situation. How likely am I going to be injured from doing so? How badly would said injury be? Do I have a family I need to survive for? Who is this man? I could go on, but I think the point is clear.

Even if I did feel compelled, what would that matter?

[Matthew Tsai]

It depends on the situation. How likely am I going to be injured from doing so? How badly would said injury be? Do I have a family I need to survive for? Who is this man? I could go on, but I think the point is clear.

Even if I did feel compelled, what would that matter?

Even if you had a family to support, I think the average person would feel a certain amount of guilt, a sense of "I should've helped the guy," if they just let him get torn to pieces by the bear.

[perceptrons]

Even if you had a family to support, I think the average person would feel a certain amount of guilt, a sense of "I should've helped the guy," if they just let him get torn to pieces by the bear.
Does feeling bad necessarily mean you made the wrong decision?

[Matthew Tsai]

Does feeling bad necessarily mean you made the wrong decision?

There's a reason we feel bad. You may have made the right decision if you live with a strictly self-interested philosophy. But in terms of the moral decision? You probably made the wrong choice, because that's why your conscience is beating you up for it.

[Love As Arson]

"Ethics, which is to say, a typology of immanent modes of existence, replaces Morality, which always refers existence to transcendent values. Morality is the judgment of God, the system of Judgment. But Ethics overthrows the system of judgment. The opposition of values (Good-Evil) is supplanted by the qualitative difference of modes of existence (good-bad).."
http://www.mic.ul.ie/stephen/vol11/Deleuze.html

It would be a matter of showing all that concretely. In a morality, you always have the following operation: you do something, you say something, you judge it yourself. It is the system of judgement. Morality is the system of judgement. Of double judgement, you judge yourself and you are judged. Those who have the taste for morality are those who have the taste for judgement. Judging always implies an authority superior to Being, it always implies something superior to an ontology. It always implies one more than Being, the Good which makes Being and which makes action, it is the Good superior to Being, it is the One. Value expresses this authority superior to Being. Therefore, values are the fundamental element of the system of judgement. Therefore, you are always referred to this authority superior to Being for judging.

"In an ethics, it is completely different, you do not judge. In a certain manner, you say: whatever you do, you will only ever have what you deserve. Somebody says or does something, you do not relate it to values. You ask yourself how is that possible? How is this possible in an internal way? In other words, you relate the thing or the statement to the mode of existence that it implies, that it envelops in itself. How must it be in order to say that? Which manner of Being does this imply? You seek the enveloped modes of existence, and not the transcendent values. It is the operation of immanence."

http://www.webdeleuze.com/php/texte.php?cle=190&groupe=Spinoza&langue=2

[perceptrons]

There's a reason we feel bad. You may have made the right decision if you live with a strictly self-interested philosophy. But in terms of the moral decision? You probably made the wrong choice, because that's why your conscience is beating you up for it.
I agree, but again, where is the link from, "I wish I helped that guy" to "it was objectively wrong for me to not help that guy"?

Let's say I am married with 2 young kids. We live from paycheck to paycheck to stay afloat. The situation with the bear arises. I choose to help the guy and I get killed in the process. That will have a terrible ripple effect throughout the lives of my family, and presumably have a good ripple effect through his. Why was objectively right for me to do what I did? What makes a decision right?

[Matthew Tsai]

I agree, but again, where is the link from, "I wish I helped that guy" to "it was objectively wrong for me to not help that guy"?

Let's say I am married with 2 young kids. We live from paycheck to paycheck to stay afloat. The situation with the bear arises. I choose to help the guy and I get killed in the process. That will have a terrible ripple effect throughout the lives of my family, and presumably have a good ripple effect through his. Why was objectively right for me to do what I did? What makes a decision right?

Interesting point, but I think this situation is a different subject altogether. Both options, whether it's helping the man or choosing not to help the man for the sake of your family, are moral, would you agree? So it's moral vs. moral. Now it comes down to which situation is "right," not in a moral sense but in a situational sense, and that may be open to a number of different interpretations, hence, subjectivity.

[caveBEAR]

I feel hesitant to save people without knowing whether they like stupid shit or not. God know's I don't want to stick myself out there for a Twilight fan or something.

[perceptrons]

Interesting point, but I think this situation is a different subject altogether. Both options, whether it's helping the man or choosing not to help the man for the sake of your family, are moral, would you agree? So it's moral vs. moral. Now it comes down to which situation is "right," not in a moral sense but in a situational sense, and that may be open to a number of different interpretations, hence, subjectivity.
You'd have to define morality before I can answer. If we take away everything and the situation is just: Man is being attacked by a bear, what is my decision? I wouldn't say it is immoral for me to just walk away. Would I feel bad? Probably. But again, where is the link from, "I wish I helped that guy" to "it was objectively wrong for me to not help that guy"?

[Matthew Tsai]

You'd have to define morality before I can answer. If we take away everything and the situation is just: Man is being attacked by a bear, what is my decision? I wouldn't say it is immoral for me to just walk away. Would I feel bad? Probably. But again, where is the link from, "I wish I helped that guy" to "it was objectively wrong for me to not help that guy"?

It was objectively wrong in a moral sense to not have helped that guy. Only in a moral sense. In a purely self-interest sense, it was the right thing to do.

[caveBEAR]

It was objectively wrong in a moral sense to not have helped that guy. Only in a moral sense. In a purely self-interest sense, it was the right thing to do.

How is it morally wrong to not help the guy? If by help you mean pick up the phone and call 911, throw rocks from a distance, or shoot the bear, then that's fine, but going over to bare handed (tee hee) fight the bear is essentially suicide. How is that the right thing to do?

[peder458]

i don't understand what supports that idea besides a feeling?

[perceptrons]

It was objectively wrong in a moral sense to not have helped that guy. Only in a moral sense. In a purely self-interest sense, it was the right thing to do.
But what makes it objectively wrong? Why is it my responsibility, in a moral sense, to help him?

[Matthew Tsai]

How is it morally wrong to not help the guy? If by help you mean pick up the phone and call 911, throw rocks from a distance, or shoot the bear, then that's fine, but going over to bare handed (tee hee) fight the bear is essentially suicide. How is that the right thing to do?

Wait, I'm not sure I ever said that "help" specifically refers to fighting the bear bare handed. Also, stop giving the bears beer.

But what makes it objectively wrong? Why is it my responsibility, in a moral sense, to help him?

Isn't that a question you have to consult your own morality to figure out?

Anyway folks, it's been real nice chatting with you all, but I'm out for the night because I've got some studying to do. I'd definitely be down to continue this discussion tomorrow. :-)

[perceptrons]

Wait, I'm not sure I ever said that "help" specifically refers to fighting the bear bare handed. Also, stop giving the bears beer.



Isn't that a question you have to consult your own morality to figure out?

Anyway folks, it's been real nice chatting with you all, but I'm out for the night because I've got some studying to do. I'd definitely be down to continue this discussion tomorrow. :-)
If I have my own, how is it objective?

[peder458]

If I have my own, how is it objective?

the plot thickens... :)

[caveBEAR]

Wait, I'm not sure I ever said that "help" specifically refers to fighting the bear bare handed.

I just assumed that you'd have to do something physical to stop it. If we're in the bear situation, there's a good chance a call to 911 wouldn't get anyone to the guy in time, the average person doesn't carry guns, and bears don't scare off from some jackass yelling at it 30 yards away. How else are you supposed to help the guy? I assumed it'd have to be a physical altercation with the bear, attempting to help the man get away, but the bear could easily ruin both your days.

Of course, these are all hypothetical, but you catch my drift. I hope.

Also, stop giving the bears beer.

It loosens 'em up. You don't want to deal with a surly bear. See above.

[theguy77]

i think the notion that there are moral facts out in the world is really neanderthal, and those who tend to believe there are somehow end up finding circumstances that go against their principles; for example most people think killing someone is one of the most morally wrong things you can do, but most people also think that when someone is doing evil things, through their moral principle of "justice", killing is the RIGHT thing to do, and to give a very obvious instance of this, i doubt there are very many people during WWII who believed hitler should not be killed. (this kind of disproves that killing someone is "factually" wrong; if it were, it would not be justifiable in any capacity, just as you cannot justify that 2+2 = 5.) in my opinion the only reason ALL humanity is averse to murder stems from evolution and every living organism's desire to prolong its survival as a species. even in the world of animals, which many assume to be too unsophisticated to include morality, same-species kills are far rarer than interspecies, and are generally avoided by that animal unless it feels threatened by the other animal, a situation where the survival of self is in conflict with and supersedes the survival of species. when you think about it, humans behave in much the same manner about the issue of murder even though they attribute it to different reasons.

going further along that line of logic, i think it's possible and valid to suggest that every instance of human morality has a long line of roundabout evolution from one basic principle: trying to avoid that which hinders us from surviving and progressing as a species, and the reason that morality has become so complex for us and has so many rules about things that are seemingly irrelevant to our survival as a species is our intelligence. throughout our existence we've thought and overthought and rethought everything, to the point where we've covered almost every imaginable circumstance where our interactions could even be indirectly detrimental to our coexistence. even comparatively trivial moral constructs, like manners, which vary from culture to culture and don't generally have an effect on whether we want to kill someone or not, all seem to have the same goal in mind -- to avoid offending the other person. this is the part of our morality that is too sophisticated for the animal world; an animal does not have the philosophical intelligence to understand the nuances of how to avoid provoking another animal. but if you really start to question it, i believe it devolves into something like this at the source: we don't want to offend the other person because we're trying to avoid confrontation. we're trying to avoid confrontation because that can escalate into conflict and possibly violence. [and then you start getting into those ancient, "is this good for our survival?" kinds of issues,] we don't want conflict or violence because if we're attacking and/or killing each other, we're directly harming our survival as a species, and if we're not cooperating with each other, that harms our ability to adapt to our environment and share resources, goods, and technology, which also hurts our survival as a species. in a nutshell, the animal line of thinking is "don't kill same-species unless you feel threatened", while humans have expanded that to the point of "do everything in your power to avoid confrontation with same-species so you won't even have to worry about feeling threatened and having to kill."

i realize that this is a very emotionally detached and impersonal way of describing something that many people have passion for and define their individuality with, not to mention it sounds very selfish and may be incendiary to suggest that the only reason we try to do the right thing is so we can survive. it's also a very animalistic way of describing something so specifically human. so let me step back and clarify that this is me merely trying to postulate how morality came about in the first place and developed within humanity as a whole, and i don't actually think that the survival of humanity is on anyone's mind when they're helping an old lady carry groceries to her car. on a case by case, individual basis, morality comes from two things: 1) your upbringing/culture, the "nurtured" aspect and 2) the "nature" aspect, which is what you perceive to be right and wrong in your gut once you have the maturity and experience to really start developing into your own person. on a smaller, more personal scale, THIS is where morality comes from, and "how do other people deserve to be treated" is pretty much the only thing each person is considering when making day-to-day moral decisions. but i think it's this construct as a whole that has, over countless generations throughout our existence, advanced morality from the simple need to survive into this complex labyrinth of rules of civilized coexistence -- we are nurtured with everything that humanity has learned so far about how to coexist for the good of the species (with variations based on locational, ethnic, and family cultures), and every time someone gets old enough to think about morality for themselves and starts to indulge how their own experience and opinions differs from what they were taught, and then teaches THAT to THEIR kids, our morality is advanced further.

when you consider the scope of this theory, namely, how many fucking generations have added their own perspective to the pre-existing rules of right and wrong over the course of our existence, i think it's very possible that all of these sophisticated rules of interaction and right and wrong that currently exist in society eventually descended, by way of human intelligence, from a very primitive and biological need to survive. if i were to make a parallel, it's just like how all this incredible technology we have started with simple tools like the wheel and the spear, and is the result of thousands of years of intelligence and human resourcefulness being applied to create things that didn't previously exist in nature, for our benefit. so ultimately, while in some cases the rules of morality are nearly unanimous, they're not the result of inherent fact that has always existed in the world. rather, they come from what humanity has learned about how to survive and progress as a species, and when making a moral decision, each individual person is making a subjective judgment based on a human framework that is ultimately artificial.

[BornUnderPunches]

holy shit.

[theguy77]

holy shit.

i know you probably think its lame that i just posted another monster post, but on a side-note, nice avatar/subtitle.

[Matthew Tsai]

If I have my own, how is it objective?

It was just a figure of speech, not meant to be taken literally.

It loosens 'em up. You don't want to deal with a surly bear. See above.

;-)

[Spencer Control]

No care, every reply has been very interesting. Morality is an interesting subject to say the least.

I agree. More in general, why we exist and how we should live.

[perceptrons]

It was just a figure of speech, not meant to be taken literally.



;-)
Then what is your actual answer to said questions?

[Matthew Tsai]

Then what is your actual answer to said questions?

Asking "But what makes it objectively wrong? Why is it my responsibility, in a moral sense, to help him?" just goes back to morality, doesn't it? There's no answer to "why," because it just is. There isn't necessarily an explanation, we just feel obligated to follow it.

[tkamB]

But why is it inherent? How do we know our emotions aren't just lying to us?
I think we're going to go about in circles here now :-) I'm cool with leaving it at we can't really know and have to have faith in some absolute. You?

I would argue the opposite though, our mind tricks us into justifying bad behavior. Such as when people see a homeless man on the street, they will feel compelled to help them, but little will and will justify their stinginess by saying "Oh he will probably just spend it on drugs/alcohol." And this goes directly towards what Mr. Tsai was saying in a conflict between self-interest/preservation, keeping your money, and your responsibility to the group dynamic, helping the guy. If morality were truly created by society then a lot of the progress we've seen in the world would not have come about. Think slavery, the majority rationalized that slavery was an okay thing to do and society stressed that, because of how dependent they were on slaves to be successful. It wasn't until the North moved away from their dependence on slavery that they were able to realize that it was wrong to force a human being to work, even though society as a whole told them it was okay. If in the absence of rationalization for actions and absence of need for self-preservation we all feel guilt for certain things, then wouldn't that lead to some sort of objective morality? Now I'm not arguing that morality is some transcendent experience(I'm also not in agreement with what is considered morally right by most religions), in fact I would agree that it came out of evolution of our two basic instincts, but that doesn't mean that it isn't objective.

[theguy77]

lol no one's probably going to read my post

[perceptrons]

lol no one's probably going to read my post
I read between 1/2 and 3/4's of it, if it makes you feel better.

Asking "But what makes it objectively wrong? Why is it my responsibility, in a moral sense, to help him?" just goes back to morality, doesn't it? There's no answer to "why," because it just is. There isn't necessarily an explanation, we just feel obligated to follow it.
You need to give an explanation for how your conception of morality "just is." If you have no other explanation other than it "just is," then what's the point?

[Matthew Tsai]

I read between 1/2 and 3/4's of it, if it makes you feel better.


You need to give an explanation for how your conception of morality "just is." If you have no other explanation other than it "just is," then what's the point?

Let's look at two of our instincts, our self-preservation instinct and our herd instinct, to borrow terms. The self-preservation instinct tells me to flee danger and save myself at all costs. Our herd instinct tells us to save other members of our species from danger. Now suppose I come across a man being mauled by a bear. Both these instincts activate in my head. But they're at odds. I can't both run away AND help save the man. Morality dictates which instinct I ought to go with.

see above

[perceptrons]

see above
We're going in circles. You aren't presenting an argument, you're just saying that morality is X, Y, and Z, without providing an explanation for why X, Y, and Z are true.

[Matthew Tsai]

We're going in circles. You aren't presenting an argument, you're just saying that morality is X, Y, and Z, without providing an explanation for why X, Y, and Z are true.

My bad, I misread "explanation" as "definition." I don't think I could present a complete argument as to why morality "just is" without delving into a wide range of science and psychology, which I don't have the time to do at the moment. However, you never disproved my definition, so let's get into that. My argument is that all humans are, in such a situation, are faced with a similar dilemma, with a conscious urge to encourage the weaker instinct, but a fleshly urge to follow the stronger instinct. Do you have any objections to that? If not, we can move on.

[perceptrons]

My bad, I misread "explanation" as "definition." I don't think I could present a complete argument as to why morality "just is" without delving into a wide range of science and psychology, which I don't have the time to do at the moment. However, you never disproved my definition, so let's get into that. My argument is that all humans are, in such a situation, are faced with a similar dilemma, with a conscious urge to encourage the weaker instinct, but a fleshly urge to follow the stronger instinct. Do you have any objections to that? If not, we can move on.
Of course I didn't, it is not my responsibility to do so. Anyway, assuming I've correctly parsed that meal of a sentence, I may have an objection. Are you positing that the weaker and stronger instincts will be the same for all humans?

[Spencer Control]

I would argue the opposite though, our mind tricks us into justifying bad behavior. Such as when people see a homeless man on the street, they will feel compelled to help them, but little will and will justify their stinginess by saying "Oh he will probably just spend it on drugs/alcohol." And this goes directly towards what Mr. Tsai was saying in a conflict between self-interest/preservation, keeping your money, and your responsibility to the group dynamic, helping the guy. If morality were truly created by society then a lot of the progress we've seen in the world would not have come about. Think slavery, the majority rationalized that slavery was an okay thing to do and society stressed that, because of how dependent they were on slaves to be successful. It wasn't until the North moved away from their dependence on slavery that they were able to realize that it was wrong to force a human being to work, even though society as a whole told them it was okay. If in the absence of rationalization for actions and absence of need for self-preservation we all feel guilt for certain things, then wouldn't that lead to some sort of objective morality? Now I'm not arguing that morality is some transcendent experience(I'm also not in agreement with what is considered morally right by most religions), in fact I would agree that it came out of evolution of our two basic instincts, but that doesn't mean that it isn't objective.

I meant it either way - our emotions can tell us what we're doing is right OR wrong even if it's the opposite of what our emotions say.

[kyle is hk]

lol no one's probably going to read my post


I read it! and mostly agreed, except for some of the finer points.

[Matthew Tsai]

Of course I didn't, it is not my responsibility to do so. Anyway, assuming I've correctly parsed that meal of a sentence, I may have an objection. Are you positing that the weaker and stronger instincts will be the same for all humans?

Yes. Unless you have a mental disease, or unless you're proud and vain, I find it pretty unlikely that you would find that the stronger instinct is calling you to put yourself in the way of the bear, and thus, danger.

[perceptrons]

Yes. Unless you have a mental disease, or unless you're proud and vain, I find it pretty unlikely that you would find that the stronger instinct is calling you to put yourself in the way of the bear, and thus, danger.
I without my objections with this point until you're done with your line of reasoning. So, assuming this is true, what next?

[Matthew Tsai]

I without my objections with this point until you're done with your line of reasoning. So, assuming this is true, what next?

Ok cool. I was trying to establish my definition of morality, but honestly, I think I've lost track of where this conversation was headed. :-d

[Takk...Ros]

Lots of stuff
I agree with most of what you said. Well done.

Yes. Unless you have a mental disease, or unless you're proud and vain, I find it pretty unlikely that you would find that the stronger instinct is calling you to put yourself in the way of the bear, and thus, danger.
People with mental illnesses are not moral people? Really? Or did I misunderstand your post?
Also, since when does not wanting to be mauled to death by a bear make you mentally ill or a narcissistic asshole?

[Matthew Tsai]

I agree with most of what you said. Well done.


People with mental illnesses are not moral people? Really? Or did I misunderstand your post?
Also, since when does not wanting to be mauled to death by a bear make you mentally ill or a narcissistic asshole?

Whoa whoa whoa, take it easy there buddy! You're blowing what I say way out of proportion. What I said was that unless you had some kind of mental illness, your stronger instinct would probably push you to run away from the bear. This does not in any way imply that the mentally ill aren't moral. In fact, since I've been arguing about objective morality, as opposed to subjective, it doesn't matter which instinct you follow, or which instinct is stronger, as long as you follow the "right" one. Also, I'm not sure how any of my comments could lead to an interpretation remotely close to the bolded sentence. I think you need to go back and re-read the thread carefully before commenting.

[perceptrons]

Whoa whoa whoa, take it easy there buddy! You're blowing what I say way out of proportion. What I said was that unless you had some kind of mental illness, your stronger instinct would probably push you to run away from the bear. This does not in any way imply that the mentally ill aren't moral. In fact, since I've been arguing about objective morality, as opposed to subjective, it doesn't matter which instinct you follow, or which instinct is stronger, as long as you follow the "right" one. Also, I'm not sure how any of my comments could lead to an interpretation remotely close to the bolded sentence. I think you need to go back and re-read the thread carefully before commenting.
The bolded is still where my issue lies.

[Takk...Ros]

Whoa whoa whoa, take it easy there buddy! You're blowing what I say way out of proportion. What I said was that unless you had some kind of mental illness, your stronger instinct would probably push you to run away from the bear. This does not in any way imply that the mentally ill aren't moral. In fact, since I've been arguing about objective morality, as opposed to subjective, it doesn't matter which instinct you follow, or which instinct is stronger, as long as you follow the "right" one. Also, I'm not sure how any of my comments could lead to an interpretation remotely close to the bolded sentence. I think you need to go back and re-read the thread carefully before commenting.
I wasn't angry at all when I wrote that. They were honest questions that, after rereading the way I worded them, do seem like I was upset. Just asking for clarification :shrug:. It's silly to get angry over the internet anyway haha.
I also thought you said you had to be mentally ill or vain for the stronger instinct to be helping, not running, thus the bolded. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm a terrible insomniac and hadn't slept in a while so I doubt my reading comprehension was completely functional.

Edit: Jesus christ I mixed it up again. Running, not helping. I think. Hopefully. I should go sleep.

[Matthew Tsai]

I wasn't angry at all when I wrote that. They were honest questions that, after rereading the way I worded them, do seem like I was upset. Just asking for clarification :shrug:. It's silly to get angry over the internet anyway haha.
I also thought you said you had to be mentally ill or vain for the stronger instinct to be helping, not running, thus the bolded. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm a terrible insomniac and hadn't slept in a while so I doubt my reading comprehension was completely functional.

Edit: Jesus christ I mixed it up again. Running, not helping. I think. Hopefully. I should go sleep.

No worries man. I totally understand not being able to convey the tone you want over the internet, happens to me all the time haha. Sorry to hear you're an insomniac. I have a friend who's an insomniac and I have an idea of how annoying it can be.