Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Objective Answers to Subjective Morals?

Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 6:58:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If we take moral values to be linked with subject well-being, and take very basic example.

For Person A, raping them would cause them immense discomfort, pain and trauma
For Person B, raping them would cause them maximal bliss, pleasure, excitement, etc.

Essentially, raping person B would be welcomed, and person A would be abhored.

If we take a moral system in which moral values are linked to subject well being, then it would be moral to rape person B, and to not rape/save from rape Person A.

Here we have an objective answer (there is an optimal way, and pragmatically determinable) to the question of whether or not it's moral to rape, but it's subjective depending on who is involved, and how they perceive various stimuli (rape in this case).

As such, would this classify as subjective morality, or objective morality?

It's not a list of do's or don'ts, but neither is it 'one person's opinion over another', so it doesn't prima facie qualify under either category of morality. Help?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 8:31:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 6:58:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
If we take moral values to be linked with subject well-being, and take very basic example.

For Person A, raping them would cause them immense discomfort, pain and trauma
For Person B, raping them would cause them maximal bliss, pleasure, excitement, etc.

Essentially, raping person B would be welcomed, and person A would be abhored.

If we take a moral system in which moral values are linked to subject well being, then it would be moral to rape person B, and to not rape/save from rape Person A.

Here we have an objective answer (there is an optimal way, and pragmatically determinable) to the question of whether or not it's moral to rape, but it's subjective depending on who is involved, and how they perceive various stimuli (rape in this case).

As such, would this classify as subjective morality, or objective morality?

It's not a list of do's or don'ts, but neither is it 'one person's opinion over another', so it doesn't prima facie qualify under either category of morality. Help?

Morality is subjective in the sense it relates to the actor and on that which he, or she, is acting. The subject and the object place a value on the action. Consequently, the action links the actor with that on which he, or she, is acting. In this sense, the action becomes greater than the actor because it involves something other than his, or her, self. The action becomes a shared property that links both subject and object. Therefore, the action can only make sense, or have meaning, as it involves the two. It is neither a thesis nor an antithesis but a synthesis of two evaluations. To say the actor alone gives moral value to the action is to make the action and, therefore, the evaluation incomplete. Every logical proposition involves both thesis and antithesis, and it is this dynamic which gives it meaning, and value. Morality is subjective in that it is relational; however, it is objective in that it is impartial.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 10:21:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 6:58:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
If we take moral values to be linked with subject well-being, and take very basic example.

For Person A, raping them would cause them immense discomfort, pain and trauma
For Person B, raping them would cause them maximal bliss, pleasure, excitement, etc.

Essentially, raping person B would be welcomed, and person A would be abhored.

If we take a moral system in which moral values are linked to subject well being, then it would be moral to rape person B, and to not rape/save from rape Person A.

Here we have an objective answer (there is an optimal way, and pragmatically determinable) to the question of whether or not it's moral to rape, but it's subjective depending on who is involved, and how they perceive various stimuli (rape in this case).

As such, would this classify as subjective morality, or objective morality?

It's not a list of do's or don'ts, but neither is it 'one person's opinion over another', so it doesn't prima facie qualify under either category of morality. Help?

I'd classify this whole subject as a waste of time. Who cares if morality is objective or not? Just don't fvcking rape people.
suaveguy
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 3:30:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
That's a rather simplistic way of looking at it, because rape isn't just about the intercourse itself feeling good or not, it's inconveniencing/in breach of one's freedoms by definition, can cause public shame/loss of reputation, and often not hygienic or healthy. So even for example B, these external factors may out-weigh the sheer pleasure of being raped, making it not in the interest of person B's well-being.

To answer your question though, if we assume morality is the principles that looks out for the subject's well-being, we can say that morality itself is objective in that the principles are universally applicable to other people, but the actions and ideas about how we go about being moral is subjective.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 7:56:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/9/2014 3:30:06 AM, suaveguy wrote:
That's a rather simplistic way of looking at it, because rape isn't just about the intercourse itself feeling good or not, it's inconveniencing/in breach of one's freedoms by definition, can cause public shame/loss of reputation, and often not hygienic or healthy. So even for example B, these external factors may out-weigh the sheer pleasure of being raped, making it not in the interest of person B's well-being.

It was supposed to be simplistic, because the point of the OP is not about rape.

To answer your question though, if we assume morality is the principles that looks out for the subject's well-being, we can say that morality itself is objective in that the principles are universally applicable to other people, but the actions and ideas about how we go about being moral is subjective.

Pretty much what I thought... I think it was be made even more axiomatic than this but yeah...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 8:39:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 10:21:52 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 9/8/2014 6:58:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
If we take moral values to be linked with subject well-being, and take very basic example.

For Person A, raping them would cause them immense discomfort, pain and trauma
For Person B, raping them would cause them maximal bliss, pleasure, excitement, etc.

Essentially, raping person B would be welcomed, and person A would be abhored.

If we take a moral system in which moral values are linked to subject well being, then it would be moral to rape person B, and to not rape/save from rape Person A.

Here we have an objective answer (there is an optimal way, and pragmatically determinable) to the question of whether or not it's moral to rape, but it's subjective depending on who is involved, and how they perceive various stimuli (rape in this case).

As such, would this classify as subjective morality, or objective morality?

It's not a list of do's or don'ts, but neither is it 'one person's opinion over another', so it doesn't prima facie qualify under either category of morality. Help?

I'd classify this whole subject as a waste of time. Who cares if morality is objective or not? Just don't fvcking rape people.

Why not rape people if there is nothing objectively wrong with it though?
suaveguy
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 11:17:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/9/2014 8:39:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Why not rape people if there is nothing objectively wrong with it though?

Could there ever be a situation where there's nothing objectively wrong with rape?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 11:29:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/9/2014 11:17:45 PM, suaveguy wrote:
At 9/9/2014 8:39:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Why not rape people if there is nothing objectively wrong with it though?

Could there ever be a situation where there's nothing objectively wrong with rape?

Perhaps, but that would just mean that there is no absolute morality, not that there isn't objective morality. This distinction is crucial.
suaveguy
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 3:20:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/9/2014 11:29:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/9/2014 11:17:45 PM, suaveguy wrote:
Could there ever be a situation where there's nothing objectively wrong with rape?

Perhaps, but that would just mean that there is no absolute morality, not that there isn't objective morality. This distinction is crucial.

A lack of absolute morality is a given. I'm talking objective morality here.
crazedAtheist
Posts: 39
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 10:42:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Why not rape people if there is nothing objectively wrong with it though?

your question is ill phrased. it seems to imply that the only reason someone would have not to rape someone would be an objective and moral one. as though any given person cannot have a subjective non moral reason not to rape someone. people will rape or not rape for their own reasons. for example, a man might not rape someone because they are their business partner and it would be against that mans monetary interest to rape the person, as they have good reason to believe the person would break up business ties. the reasons we do things are not purely moral, and your question is to closed to represent that. however, to avoid being thought of as unfair i may, perhaps take your question as meaning; "what moral reason do you have to avoid raping people if there are no objective morals?" however, worded this way, the answer seems (to my mind) apparent, a subjective moral reason.


Could there ever be a situation where there's nothing objectively wrong with rape?

the way i see it, its not any given moral conclusion that is subjective but rather the moral systems from which they derive. take a moral system based on human well being. depending on what is understood to be 'well being' various different (yet objective) conclusions can be made. if it is decided that a certain level of strictness in parental authority is detrimental to a child's well being, then it will be objectively true (given the moral systems definition of well being) that being at or surpassing that level of strictness is immoral. but what that level is, or whether or not there even is a time where it is immoral for parents to use their authority, will be dependent entirely on what is considered 'detrimental to well being' in that given moral system. figuring out what various things constitute well being will be subjective to those who constructed that system. since all evaluations, moral or not, are subjective by virtue of being 'evaluations'. thus, though i have a hard time imagining it, there could be a system that views rape as moral acceptable or even morally laudable. (though i can't imagine such a system would be based on well being, unless it was some messed up religious system that genuinely thought that women will die if they are not raped or something like that. but thats a bit abstract and (honestly) ridiculous for my tastes)


Perhaps, but that would just mean that there is no absolute morality, not that there isn't objective morality. This distinction is crucial.


i would say that any moral system will not have things that are 'objectively' true, but rather are 'conditionally necessary' that is to say, given the definition(condition) of the systems prime motivation (well being, peice, serving god, etc), certain conclusions will necessarily follow. not unlike how in some mathematical systems, certain 'truths' follow necessarily from various axioms within those systems, but in other mathematical systems those truths do not follow. (as they do not share the axioms that are needed to have those truths follow from)
suaveguy
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 6:06:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 10:42:10 AM, crazedAtheist wrote:
..thus, though i have a hard time imagining it, there could be a system that views rape as moral acceptable or even morally laudable.

The possibility of rape being moral is pretty much only a theoretical possibility. Even if we're talking about girls that have rape fantasies, they most often only think about the positive feelings of being taken advantage of. Because they only think about the positives, we can assume girls will only want to be raped under the strictest conditions:
- that the guy is attractive
- the guy has no STD's and is wearing a condom
- the act is done in a way that doesn't have repercussions on her reputation
- the girl at the time is not inconvenienced from other things at the time, unless she's willing to accept that inconvenience
- the girl's property and belongings aren't damaged, unless she's willing to accept that damage
- the girl will not be negatively affected physically and psychologically there after

Which assuming all these things are true, it would no longer be rape anyway, just surprise sex.
suaveguy
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 6:13:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
On the other hand, if there was an acceptable theory that viewed women as secondary or disposable (whether directly women, or by correlation/association, such as being physically weaker, being less able to prevent emotions getting in the way of rational thinking, or having certain body parts) that doesn't necessitate treating women in a moral way, then that could expose the possibility of at least not making the act immoral. But again, only a theoretical possibility until we challenge some more fundamental moral concepts and ideas.
crazedAtheist
Posts: 39
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 6:18:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 6:06:00 PM, suaveguy wrote:
At 9/10/2014 10:42:10 AM, crazedAtheist wrote:
..thus, though i have a hard time imagining it, there could be a system that views rape as moral acceptable or even morally laudable.

The possibility of rape being moral is pretty much only a theoretical possibility. Even if we're talking about girls that have rape fantasies, they most often only think about the positive feelings of being taken advantage of. Because they only think about the positives, we can assume girls will only want to be raped under the strictest conditions:
- that the guy is attractive
- the guy has no STD's and is wearing a condom
- the act is done in a way that doesn't have repercussions on her reputation
- the girl at the time is not inconvenienced from other things at the time, unless she's willing to accept that inconvenience
- the girl's property and belongings aren't damaged, unless she's willing to accept that damage
- the girl will not be negatively affected physically and psychologically there after

Which assuming all these things are true, it would no longer be rape anyway, just surprise sex.

i do a whole spiel about moral systems and you go toward the thing about rape? (sigh) well the point was to use rape as the token example, but yes, viewing rape as morally permissible is only theoretical. however, it is not impossible that some absurd religion might make a moral system where rape is morally permissible or even laudable. again i brought up the moral system where people thought that if women aren't raped (and i could add 'against their will' if you want) then they could be possessed by demons or something. in such a system, raping women could be viewed as a moral duty. sorta comparable to the whole, doctor giving emergency eye surgery or something, without anesthetic. if its for the patients well being, than even if the patient doesn't want to do it, many people will consider it necessary and perhaps even the doctors duty.

its all about how people evaluate things. any evaluation made will be subjective unless based on some set of criterion. however, if it is not a directly subjective evaluation, then it will be an indirectly subjective evaluation, since those same criterion must be made by some individual or group, and that was the point i was trying to get across.

this is the function of any system of morals. or any system of evaluation period.
suaveguy
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 6:47:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 6:18:24 PM, crazedAtheist wrote:
i do a whole spiel about moral systems and you go toward the thing about rape? (sigh)

Sorry if it looks like I glanced over it. I didn't reply directly to it because I didn't see a point of contention there; it's consistent with my thinking.

At 9/10/2014 6:18:24 PM, crazedAtheist wrote:
it is not impossible that some absurd religion might make a moral system where rape is morally permissible or even laudable. again i brought up the moral system where people thought that if women aren't raped (and i could add 'against their will' if you want) then they could be possessed by demons or something. in such a system, raping women could be viewed as a moral duty.

I guess the key there is "some ABSURD religion". The religion could make moral standings based from thin air and claimed to be of some word of an absolute credible source, supported by the validity of the religion's existence. If the religion is proven to be invalid, then its moral standings that were previously accepted could be called into questioning again.

So yeah, very much so based on evaluation like you said. So really, my question could be interpreted as: could rape in particular, keeping in mind its definition, be evaluated as something moral to do? Based on our thoughts, the answer is a 'yes', but it would take A LOT of rational deconstruction of existing concepts and forward philosophical analysis to get to that point, and an even bigger step to get society to accept that view point.
crazedAtheist
Posts: 39
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 7:32:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
i do a whole spiel about moral systems and you go toward the thing about rape? (sigh)

Sorry if it looks like I glanced over it. I didn't reply directly to it because I didn't see a point of contention there; it's consistent with my thinking.


no problem

it is not impossible that some absurd religion might make a moral system where rape is morally permissible or even laudable. again i brought up the moral system where people thought that if women aren't raped (and i could add 'against their will' if you want) then they could be possessed by demons or something. in such a system, raping women could be viewed as a moral duty.

I guess the key there is "some ABSURD religion". The religion could make moral standings based from thin air and claimed to be of some word of an absolute credible source, supported by the validity of the religion's existence. If the religion is proven to be invalid, then its moral standings that were previously accepted could be called into questioning again.


i agree

So yeah, very much so based on evaluation like you said. So really, my question could be interpreted as: could rape in particular, keeping in mind its definition, be evaluated as something moral to do? Based on our thoughts, the answer is a 'yes', but it would take A LOT of rational deconstruction of existing concepts and forward philosophical analysis to get to that point, and an even bigger step to get society to accept that view point.

well as you noted, to me the answer is yes, and for all i know, there could be some african village religion that holds that to be true, but heres another way to look at it. in a world where the 'daemon possessing non-raped women' is actually a thing (absurd? yes, but its just to demonstrate a point) assuming that the daemon possessing people is against their well being, then a well being based morality, in that world, would (assuming they had reason to believe those daemons exist) would actually view raping people as moral.

now in 'this' world, i think that any person could come up with any moral system. however, from the perspective of MY moral system, any moral system that does make that claim, is an immoral moral system. (in other words, i believe that, given certain moral systems, it is possible from the perspective of those systems, for other moral systems to be 'immoral'.)

i had a more concise point, but i forgot it, so ill just leave it at that. :P
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 7:12:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/9/2014 8:39:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Why not rape people if there is nothing objectively wrong with it though?

Because you know better.

Good people don't need a moral reason to be good; they just do it automatically. If you only abstain from raping somebody because of morality, then there's a deeper problem that you should be getting counselling for.