Total Posts:72|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Morality, Subjective or Objective?

Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 3:17:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I want to see people's opinions, and their reasoning why.

I don't quite understand why people say morality is subjective. If it is, then nothing is fundamentally wrong. But people act as if morality is objective, and act as if right and wrong have meaning.

I'm curious to see people's reasons, on either side
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 4:38:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 3:17:20 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
I want to see people's opinions, and their reasoning why.

I don't quite understand why people say morality is subjective. If it is, then nothing is fundamentally wrong. But people act as if morality is objective, and act as if right and wrong have meaning.

I'm curious to see people's reasons, on either side

Morality is subjective because morality is contingent on human perception. Lets look at the definition of objective.
"not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts"
Morality cant be objective because morality itself *is* "personal feelings or opinions".
Look at all the people around you that don't share the same morals, morality is clearly subjective.

Since I acknowledge there is no objectivity to my moral statements, I lapse into nihilism.
Nihilism however, isn't very pragmatic. So generally I rely on utilitarianism to make decisions.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 6:32:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 3:17:20 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
I want to see people's opinions, and their reasoning why.

I don't quite understand why people say morality is subjective. If it is, then nothing is fundamentally wrong. But people act as if morality is objective, and act as if right and wrong have meaning.

I'm curious to see people's reasons, on either side

I think subjectivism is demonstrably false and objective accounts of morality are definitely more likely true.
Moral disagreement for example only makes sense if there are objective facts to disagree about. If moral claims like "murder is wrong" are true in virtue of being approved by me, i.e., I disapprove of murder, then nobody can disagree with me. I had to be lying for it to be false that I disapprove of murder.
On the other hand, if there are objective moral facts, then disagreement is exactly what you would expect. Cultural/personal bias, faulty reasoning, lack of information all factor in and distort judgements.
Just because people disagree, it does not follow that there is no objective truth. Reasonable people have disagreed and will probably always disagree about the existence of God. Is it therefore not an objective fact whether or not God exists?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Chaosism
Posts: 2,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 7:24:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 6:32:42 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/19/2015 3:17:20 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
I want to see people's opinions, and their reasoning why.

I don't quite understand why people say morality is subjective. If it is, then nothing is fundamentally wrong. But people act as if morality is objective, and act as if right and wrong have meaning.

I'm curious to see people's reasons, on either side

I think subjectivism is demonstrably false and objective accounts of morality are definitely more likely true.

Interesting. I am of the stance of subjectivity along with Kozu.

Moral disagreement for example only makes sense if there are objective facts to disagree about. If moral claims like "murder is wrong" are true in virtue of being approved by me, i.e., I disapprove of murder, then nobody can disagree with me. I had to be lying for it to be false that I disapprove of murder

What about two people arguing about the best color? Clearly, each person can have there favorite color, but there is no "best" color in any objective sense. The same goes with food preferences; certainly each person can have the perfect food, but the description of "perfect" only pertains to the individuals opinions and has no objective relevance.

On the other hand, if there are objective moral facts, then disagreement is exactly what you would expect. Cultural/personal bias, faulty reasoning, lack of information all factor in and distort judgments.

Why would this not be the case if morality was subjective? Certainly, we have similar personal values being the same species and all, but no two people will agree on every moral point. The same factors that you listed would apply equally as well.

In fact, I think that a narcissistic person would have the closest thing to an objective view of morality, since a lack of empathy leads to less influence upon one's judgment from feelings. To one who lacks empathy, the killing of another human being is simply an occurrence without any feeling attached to the act. Equivalently, imagine destroying an obvious robot to which you have no associated person values; is that immoral?

Just because people disagree, it does not follow that there is no objective truth. Reasonable people have disagreed and will probably always disagree about the existence of God. Is it therefore not an objective fact whether or not God exists?

I agree with this; the fact that people can disagree doesn't indicate subjectivity. However, the realization that truth can be objectively demonstrated is important, too. God's existence could technically be proven if He revealed Himself. Is there any way that an action be objectively demonstrated to be immoral?
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 8:30:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I believe morality is subjective. Morality is just a measure of value, after all. It tries to categorize actions into subsets of "good" and "bad."

However, people don't often adopt beliefs they know to be wrong. Human psychology studies have shown that people, on average, will actually defend their beliefs that are proven wrong rather than admitting as much. This is the strength of the human psyche, the desire to be correct. No idiot thinks of themselves as such. While most people know they aren't infallible, they do believe themselves to be correct most of the time. If everyone thought like them, they reason, the world would be better off. People with different values and beliefs are, in their perspective, wrong.

This is where treating subjective morality as objective comes from.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 8:36:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 7:24:40 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/19/2015 6:32:42 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/19/2015 3:17:20 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
I want to see people's opinions, and their reasoning why.

I don't quite understand why people say morality is subjective. If it is, then nothing is fundamentally wrong. But people act as if morality is objective, and act as if right and wrong have meaning.

I'm curious to see people's reasons, on either side

I think subjectivism is demonstrably false and objective accounts of morality are definitely more likely true.

Interesting. I am of the stance of subjectivity along with Kozu.

Moral disagreement for example only makes sense if there are objective facts to disagree about. If moral claims like "murder is wrong" are true in virtue of being approved by me, i.e., I disapprove of murder, then nobody can disagree with me. I had to be lying for it to be false that I disapprove of murder

What about two people arguing about the best color? Clearly, each person can have there favorite color, but there is no "best" color in any objective sense. The same goes with food preferences; certainly each person can have the perfect food, but the description of "perfect" only pertains to the individuals opinions and has no objective relevance.
Frankly we don't have any reason to think that objective facts about food exist. If we had, then it would be another story.

On the other hand, if there are objective moral facts, then disagreement is exactly what you would expect. Cultural/personal bias, faulty reasoning, lack of information all factor in and distort judgments.

Why would this not be the case if morality was subjective? Certainly, we have similar personal values being the same species and all, but no two people will agree on every moral point. The same factors that you listed would apply equally as well.
I understand individualist subjectivism to be "X is good" means "I approve of X". Under this view there are no disagreements. I think I did not properly explain what I meant by that in my original post.
If you say "murder is wrong" and I say "murder is right", then what we are really saying is "I disapprove murder" and "I approve of murder" respectively. We are both correct as these are just reports of our cognitive attitudes towards murder.

In fact, I think that a narcissistic person would have the closest thing to an objective view of morality, since a lack of empathy leads to less influence upon one's judgment from feelings. To one who lacks empathy, the killing of another human being is simply an occurrence without any feeling attached to the act.
Probably.

Equivalently, imagine destroying an obvious robot to which you have no associated person values; is that immoral?
If the robot is conscious.

Just because people disagree, it does not follow that there is no objective truth. Reasonable people have disagreed and will probably always disagree about the existence of God. Is it therefore not an objective fact whether or not God exists?

I agree with this; the fact that people can disagree doesn't indicate subjectivity. However, the realization that truth can be objectively demonstrated is important, too. God's existence could technically be proven if He revealed Himself. Is there any way that an action be objectively demonstrated to be immoral?
First we have to establish that there are in fact moral facts. Secondly we have to settle for a normative ethic, then we can answer this question.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Chaosism
Posts: 2,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 9:00:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 8:36:14 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/19/2015 7:24:40 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/19/2015 6:32:42 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/19/2015 3:17:20 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
I want to see people's opinions, and their reasoning why.

I don't quite understand why people say morality is subjective. If it is, then nothing is fundamentally wrong. But people act as if morality is objective, and act as if right and wrong have meaning.

I'm curious to see people's reasons, on either side

I think subjectivism is demonstrably false and objective accounts of morality are definitely more likely true.

Interesting. I am of the stance of subjectivity along with Kozu.

Moral disagreement for example only makes sense if there are objective facts to disagree about. If moral claims like "murder is wrong" are true in virtue of being approved by me, i.e., I disapprove of murder, then nobody can disagree with me. I had to be lying for it to be false that I disapprove of murder

What about two people arguing about the best color? Clearly, each person can have there favorite color, but there is no "best" color in any objective sense. The same goes with food preferences; certainly each person can have the perfect food, but the description of "perfect" only pertains to the individuals opinions and has no objective relevance.
Frankly we don't have any reason to think that objective facts about food exist. If we had, then it would be another story.

Alright.

On the other hand, if there are objective moral facts, then disagreement is exactly what you would expect. Cultural/personal bias, faulty reasoning, lack of information all factor in and distort judgments.

Why would this not be the case if morality was subjective? Certainly, we have similar personal values being the same species and all, but no two people will agree on every moral point. The same factors that you listed would apply equally as well.
I understand individualist subjectivism to be "X is good" means "I approve of X". Under this view there are no disagreements. I think I did not properly explain what I meant by that in my original post.
If you say "murder is wrong" and I say "murder is right", then what we are really saying is "I disapprove murder" and "I approve of murder" respectively. We are both correct as these are just reports of our cognitive attitudes towards murder.

"Murder" is a bad thing to use as an example, because it is defined as "unlawful killing" which already has the moral/ethical implications of wrongness build it.

Anyhow, I agree that two people with opposing views on such a subject are correct to themselves and the counter opinion is incorrect. This is, of course, mirrored for the opposing stance. Objectively, there is neither a right nor wrong, so there is no disagreement.

When attempting to reach a consensus, a given act and resulting consequence must be considered from the perspective of the victim/recipient. The majority opinion is what should be agreed upon an established basis for moral judgment, which is ethics, I believe.

In fact, I think that a narcissistic person would have the closest thing to an objective view of morality, since a lack of empathy leads to less influence upon one's judgment from feelings. To one who lacks empathy, the killing of another human being is simply an occurrence without any feeling attached to the act.
Probably.

Equivalently, imagine destroying an obvious robot to which you have no associated person values; is that immoral?
If the robot is conscious.

As it was intended to be an equivalent to the narcissist's POV, the robot would not be conscious because you hold value in conscious existence.

Just because people disagree, it does not follow that there is no objective truth. Reasonable people have disagreed and will probably always disagree about the existence of God. Is it therefore not an objective fact whether or not God exists?

I agree with this; the fact that people can disagree doesn't indicate subjectivity. However, the realization that truth can be objectively demonstrated is important, too. God's existence could technically be proven if He revealed Himself. Is there any way that an action be objectively demonstrated to be immoral?
First we have to establish that there are in fact moral facts. Secondly we have to settle for a normative ethic, then we can answer this question.

I knew I was biting off more than I could chew in replying to your post!
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 9:23:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Morality is totally subjective but a large part of it is shared due to its function to aid survival of the species.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 9:59:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 3:17:20 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
I want to see people's opinions, and their reasoning why.

I don't quite understand why people say morality is subjective. If it is, then nothing is fundamentally wrong. But people act as if morality is objective, and act as if right and wrong have meaning.

I'm curious to see people's reasons, on either side

Of course nothing is fundamentaly wrong. How could something possibly be wrong at a fundamental level? It is impossible. The very concept is strikingly absurd. It doesn't take much reasoning to figure out that in order for something to be wrong, there must be someone to label that thing as "wrong" and therefore something being "right or wrong" is entirely dependant on people's perception, which is the very definition of "subjective", isn't it?
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 10:03:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 6:32:42 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/19/2015 3:17:20 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
I want to see people's opinions, and their reasoning why.

I don't quite understand why people say morality is subjective. If it is, then nothing is fundamentally wrong. But people act as if morality is objective, and act as if right and wrong have meaning.

I'm curious to see people's reasons, on either side

I think subjectivism is demonstrably false and objective accounts of morality are definitely more likely true.
Moral disagreement for example only makes sense if there are objective facts to disagree about. If moral claims like "murder is wrong" are true in virtue of being approved by me, i.e., I disapprove of murder, then nobody can disagree with me. I had to be lying for it to be false that I disapprove of murder.
On the other hand, if there are objective moral facts, then disagreement is exactly what you would expect. Cultural/personal bias, faulty reasoning, lack of information all factor in and distort judgements.
Just because people disagree, it does not follow that there is no objective truth. Reasonable people have disagreed and will probably always disagree about the existence of God. Is it therefore not an objective fact whether or not God exists?

I don't see how a fact being objective is somehow ground for moral judgement to be objective too. No. Moral judgement will always depend on the person's feelings, ideology, perception, etc. and therefore will always be subjective. There's no "this is good because it is good, period", that's something you tell children, not adults.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 10:15:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The theo-utilitarianism I hold to is an ethical theory that, IMO, establishes that morality is objective.

I agree with Fkkize that subjectivism has fundamental flaws. The thing is, subjectivism denies that morality transcends the desires and whims of people, yet maintains that morality still exists in a meaningful sense. Yet if morality is simply 'that which is subjectively desired', it isn't meaningful in any way.

If one is to deny the existence of objective morality, then they are better off embracing nihilism. However, this seriously contradicts our intuition that there is some criteria that determines right and wrong. Of course, intuition doesn't ipso facto inform us of factual knowledge, but it does suggest inductively that there is some form of criteria determining the moral correctness of our actions.
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 11:41:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't see the reasoning behind subjective morality. Could someone please explain the reasoning behind it in detail?
Geogeer
Posts: 4,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 1:32:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 11:41:54 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
I don't see the reasoning behind subjective morality. Could someone please explain the reasoning behind it in detail?

Subjective morality - I do what I want to do and don't criticize me for doing it. It is justification of one's actions by denying a transcendent morality exists.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 2:36:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 4:38:18 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 8/19/2015 3:17:20 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
I want to see people's opinions, and their reasoning why.

I don't quite understand why people say morality is subjective. If it is, then nothing is fundamentally wrong. But people act as if morality is objective, and act as if right and wrong have meaning.

I'm curious to see people's reasons, on either side

Morality is subjective because morality is contingent on human perception. Lets look at the definition of objective.
"not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts"
Morality cant be objective because morality itself *is* "personal feelings or opinions".
Look at all the people around you that don't share the same morals, morality is clearly subjective.

Not everyone shares the same morals, therefore morality is subjective? Yikes.

Since I acknowledge there is no objectivity to my moral statements, I lapse into nihilism.
Nihilism however, isn't very pragmatic. So generally I rely on utilitarianism to make decisions.
Nolite Timere
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 2:40:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I am a moral realist, and I believe morality is rooted in doing the will of God. IMO, moral objectivism is strongest when rooted in the nature of God.
Nolite Timere
CorieMike
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 3:49:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 10:15:43 PM, Philocat wrote:
The theo-utilitarianism I hold to is an ethical theory that, IMO, establishes that morality is objective.

I agree with Fkkize that subjectivism has fundamental flaws. The thing is, subjectivism denies that morality transcends the desires and whims of people, yet maintains that morality still exists in a meaningful sense. Yet if morality is simply 'that which is subjectively desired', it isn't meaningful in any way.

If one is to deny the existence of objective morality, then they are better off embracing nihilism. However, this seriously contradicts our intuition that there is some criteria that determines right and wrong. Of course, intuition doesn't ipso facto inform us of factual knowledge, but it does suggest inductively that there is some form of criteria determining the moral correctness of our actions.

Our intuition or your intuition? lol If intuition is merely a seeming, correct me if Im wrong, then can't things seem contrary to the way they seem to others?
****Wisdom Begins In Wonder - Socrates****
The path of sound credence is through the thick forest of skepticism - George Jean Nathan
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 8:52:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 3:49:26 AM, CorieMike wrote:
At 8/19/2015 10:15:43 PM, Philocat wrote:
The theo-utilitarianism I hold to is an ethical theory that, IMO, establishes that morality is objective.

I agree with Fkkize that subjectivism has fundamental flaws. The thing is, subjectivism denies that morality transcends the desires and whims of people, yet maintains that morality still exists in a meaningful sense. Yet if morality is simply 'that which is subjectively desired', it isn't meaningful in any way.

If one is to deny the existence of objective morality, then they are better off embracing nihilism. However, this seriously contradicts our intuition that there is some criteria that determines right and wrong. Of course, intuition doesn't ipso facto inform us of factual knowledge, but it does suggest inductively that there is some form of criteria determining the moral correctness of our actions.

Our intuition or your intuition? lol If intuition is merely a seeming, correct me if Im wrong, then can't things seem contrary to the way they seem to others?

I would posit that everyone has an intuition that there is some form of right or wrong.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 9:03:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 8:52:02 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/20/2015 3:49:26 AM, CorieMike wrote:
At 8/19/2015 10:15:43 PM, Philocat wrote:
The theo-utilitarianism I hold to is an ethical theory that, IMO, establishes that morality is objective.

I agree with Fkkize that subjectivism has fundamental flaws. The thing is, subjectivism denies that morality transcends the desires and whims of people, yet maintains that morality still exists in a meaningful sense. Yet if morality is simply 'that which is subjectively desired', it isn't meaningful in any way.

If one is to deny the existence of objective morality, then they are better off embracing nihilism. However, this seriously contradicts our intuition that there is some criteria that determines right and wrong. Of course, intuition doesn't ipso facto inform us of factual knowledge, but it does suggest inductively that there is some form of criteria determining the moral correctness of our actions.

Our intuition or your intuition? lol If intuition is merely a seeming, correct me if Im wrong, then can't things seem contrary to the way they seem to others?

I would posit that everyone has an intuition that there is some form of right or wrong.

And theres nothing as subjective as intuition. We all know that.

Also, why do u think that "if it is subjective then it meaningless"? Can you elaborate on that?
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 9:20:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 10:03:09 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 8/19/2015 6:32:42 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/19/2015 3:17:20 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
I want to see people's opinions, and their reasoning why.

I don't quite understand why people say morality is subjective. If it is, then nothing is fundamentally wrong. But people act as if morality is objective, and act as if right and wrong have meaning.

I'm curious to see people's reasons, on either side

I think subjectivism is demonstrably false and objective accounts of morality are definitely more likely true.
Moral disagreement for example only makes sense if there are objective facts to disagree about. If moral claims like "murder is wrong" are true in virtue of being approved by me, i.e., I disapprove of murder, then nobody can disagree with me. I had to be lying for it to be false that I disapprove of murder.
On the other hand, if there are objective moral facts, then disagreement is exactly what you would expect. Cultural/personal bias, faulty reasoning, lack of information all factor in and distort judgements.
Just because people disagree, it does not follow that there is no objective truth. Reasonable people have disagreed and will probably always disagree about the existence of God. Is it therefore not an objective fact whether or not God exists?

I don't see how a fact being objective is somehow ground for moral judgement to be objective too.
Not sure what you mean by that.

No. Moral judgement will always depend on the person's feelings, ideology, perception, etc. and therefore will always be subjective.
It would be nice if you actually read what I said.

There's no "this is good because it is good, period", that's something you tell children, not adults.
True, but that's not what a moral realist tells people either. Only a batshit-crazy dogmatist thinks he knows all moral facts there are.
Look, if you want to debate subjectivism vs moral realism or whatever, just say the word.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 9:22:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 9:03:51 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 8/20/2015 8:52:02 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/20/2015 3:49:26 AM, CorieMike wrote:
At 8/19/2015 10:15:43 PM, Philocat wrote:
The theo-utilitarianism I hold to is an ethical theory that, IMO, establishes that morality is objective.

I agree with Fkkize that subjectivism has fundamental flaws. The thing is, subjectivism denies that morality transcends the desires and whims of people, yet maintains that morality still exists in a meaningful sense. Yet if morality is simply 'that which is subjectively desired', it isn't meaningful in any way.

If one is to deny the existence of objective morality, then they are better off embracing nihilism. However, this seriously contradicts our intuition that there is some criteria that determines right and wrong. Of course, intuition doesn't ipso facto inform us of factual knowledge, but it does suggest inductively that there is some form of criteria determining the moral correctness of our actions.

Our intuition or your intuition? lol If intuition is merely a seeming, correct me if Im wrong, then can't things seem contrary to the way they seem to others?

I would posit that everyone has an intuition that there is some form of right or wrong.

And theres nothing as subjective as intuition. We all know that.

It depends on what the intuition is about. I contend that there are some intuitions, such as the intuition that unnecessary suffering is bad and the intuition that right and wrong exists, that are shared by all rational human beings.


Also, why do u think that "if it is subjective then it meaningless"? Can you elaborate on that?

If morality is subjective, morality is just 'that which is desired'. In other words, to say 'X is morally right' is to say nothing more substantial than 'I like X'.

But in this case, morality is completely meaningless. If morality is identical with personal whims and desires, then we may as well do away with all talk of morality and just talk about what we like.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 9:53:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 9:22:53 AM, Philocat wrote:

David Enoch wrote that he does not even know any contemporary philosopher who accepts subjectivism. Cultural relativism is as far as I know pretty much dead, too.
Moral Realism, Expressivism, Error-Theory. That's about what you are going to find.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
CorieMike
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 12:03:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 9:22:53 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/20/2015 9:03:51 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 8/20/2015 8:52:02 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/20/2015 3:49:26 AM, CorieMike wrote:
At 8/19/2015 10:15:43 PM, Philocat wrote:
The theo-utilitarianism I hold to is an ethical theory that, IMO, establishes that morality is objective.

I agree with Fkkize that subjectivism has fundamental flaws. The thing is, subjectivism denies that morality transcends the desires and whims of people, yet maintains that morality still exists in a meaningful sense. Yet if morality is simply 'that which is subjectively desired', it isn't meaningful in any way.

If one is to deny the existence of objective morality, then they are better off embracing nihilism. However, this seriously contradicts our intuition that there is some criteria that determines right and wrong. Of course, intuition doesn't ipso facto inform us of factual knowledge, but it does suggest inductively that there is some form of criteria determining the moral correctness of our actions.

Our intuition or your intuition? lol If intuition is merely a seeming, correct me if Im wrong, then can't things seem contrary to the way they seem to others?

I would posit that everyone has an intuition that there is some form of right or wrong.

And theres nothing as subjective as intuition. We all know that.

It depends on what the intuition is about. I contend that there are some intuitions, such as the intuition that unnecessary suffering is bad and the intuition that right and wrong exists, that are shared by all rational human beings.

Yet I don't share those intuitions. How can you even begin to defend that premise? By means of induction? That would be a hasty generalization. By your logic, I must be irrational 0_0 either that or I'm not even a human being!

Also, why do u think that "if it is subjective then it meaningless"? Can you elaborate on that?

If morality is subjective, morality is just 'that which is desired'. In other words, to say 'X is morally right' is to say nothing more substantial than 'I like X'.

But in this case, morality is completely meaningless. If morality is identical with personal whims and desires, then we may as well do away with all talk of morality and just talk about what we like.
****Wisdom Begins In Wonder - Socrates****
The path of sound credence is through the thick forest of skepticism - George Jean Nathan
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 12:27:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 9:22:53 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/20/2015 9:03:51 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 8/20/2015 8:52:02 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/20/2015 3:49:26 AM, CorieMike wrote:
At 8/19/2015 10:15:43 PM, Philocat wrote:
The theo-utilitarianism I hold to is an ethical theory that, IMO, establishes that morality is objective.

I agree with Fkkize that subjectivism has fundamental flaws. The thing is, subjectivism denies that morality transcends the desires and whims of people, yet maintains that morality still exists in a meaningful sense. Yet if morality is simply 'that which is subjectively desired', it isn't meaningful in any way.

If one is to deny the existence of objective morality, then they are better off embracing nihilism. However, this seriously contradicts our intuition that there is some criteria that determines right and wrong. Of course, intuition doesn't ipso facto inform us of factual knowledge, but it does suggest inductively that there is some form of criteria determining the moral correctness of our actions.

Our intuition or your intuition? lol If intuition is merely a seeming, correct me if Im wrong, then can't things seem contrary to the way they seem to others?

I would posit that everyone has an intuition that there is some form of right or wrong.

And theres nothing as subjective as intuition. We all know that.

It depends on what the intuition is about. I contend that there are some intuitions, such as the intuition that unnecessary suffering is bad and the intuition that right and wrong exists, that are shared by all rational human beings.

"Unnecesary suffering" is a highly subjective concept as it is linked to the subjective needs of someone (which will label it as necesary or unnecesary). Also I dont see how it would be a bad thing to create more suffering than thar I deem is needed. I can agree it would be useless if it demands effort on my part, but moraly wrong? thats clearly a subjective perception imo.

About the notion of right and wrong, I dont think it is wired on the human mind. But as soon as someone accepts those are relative concepts, then it is possible to put aside the concepts and not using them, you can simply change them by: desirable-not desirable, useful-not useful, funny-depressing, etc.


Also, why do u think that "if it is subjective then it meaningless"? Can you elaborate on that?

If morality is subjective, morality is just 'that which is desired'. In other words, to say 'X is morally right' is to say nothing more substantial than 'I like X

I like X is not substantial, true, but " I like X because _______" can be pretty substantial and compelling.

But in this case, morality is completely meaningless. If morality is identical with personal whims and desires, then we may as well do away with all talk of morality and just talk about what we like.

I always assumed we were doing that. It is through the unraveling of people's desires that you can relate to them, befriend them, earn their love, etc. To care about the desires of those around is probably the most important thing on a society and the one thing needed to build and mantain the mentioned society together.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 12:38:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 12:31:14 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
Does anyone have a reason for subjective morality?

The perhaps most prominent reasons are tolerance and apparent moral disagreement. Neither of which is any good.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 1:45:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 12:27:28 PM, Otokage wrote:
If morality is subjective, morality is just 'that which is desired'. In other words, to say 'X is morally right' is to say nothing more substantial than 'I like X

I like X is not substantial, true, but " I like X because _______" can be pretty substantial and compelling.
Please explain how you can extract the space in "because _______" from a moral claim. For example, if I say to you "murder is wrong". That would mean "I dislike murder, because _______". Because...what? That is additional information I did not convey by simply saying "murder is wrong".

But in this case, morality is completely meaningless. If morality is identical with personal whims and desires, then we may as well do away with all talk of morality and just talk about what we like.

I always assumed we were doing that. It is through the unraveling of people's desires that you can relate to them, befriend them, earn their love, etc. To care about the desires of those around is probably the most important thing on a society and the one thing needed to build and mantain the mentioned society together.
Of course we do that. But we also engage in moral discourse.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Chaosism
Posts: 2,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 1:50:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 1:32:13 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/19/2015 11:41:54 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
I don't see the reasoning behind subjective morality. Could someone please explain the reasoning behind it in detail?

Subjective morality - I do what I want to do and don't criticize me for doing it. It is justification of one's actions by denying a transcendent morality exists.

I don't believe that is an accurate representation of the concept. From where did you get this impression? As I am currently of the stance of subjective morality, I do not use it to justify my actions nor do I use it to deter people from criticizing my actions.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 2:03:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I generally adhere to an evolutionary origin of morality. First, "morality" is not as vast a subject as we like to think, per my (current) beliefs. Most things are amoral, but the basic essence of "morality" is to ensure the survival of the individual, and, by extension, the species. That is what natural selection is about. Morality is merely an evolutionary trait that was selected for to ensure the survival of social animals. In that sense, it has an objective origin. But it is not truly "objective" as we know it, according to me. Once more, I am willing to be convinced either way.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Chaosism
Posts: 2,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 2:40:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 12:31:14 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
Does anyone have a reason for subjective morality?

A very quick run-down of my current reasoning:

Humans have undeniably developed as social creatures. We depend on each other as cohesive group for survival and a lot of our social traits (emotional expression, empathy/compassion for life, etc.) are a direct result of our social nature. A sense of morality follows, in that, we have innate value placed upon those things that aid in the group's survival and, subsequently, our own survival. Morality preserves the necessary cohesion of the group.

An action is judged as good or bad by an individual based on the perceived consequences of the action. This judgment is based on the individual's personal values. For instance, people can see the same action as worse if it is happening to them as opposed to it happening to someone else, since one can hold themselves in higher value than others (not necessarily as a conscious decision, though). Subjectivity indicates the influence of feelings and opinions, which is exactly what this is.

Why would you not take candy from a baby? It is because it is intrinsically wrong or because you value the happiness of the baby and wish to minimize harm to it? When someone does steal it, it is because he does not hold value in the baby's happiness, so the consequences (ignoring social repercussions) are nil, but the gain is the candy. Why would someone be able to perform this action without remorse if it was intrinsically wrong?