Objective morality?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 09:46:55 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Religion & Philosophy (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  Objective morality?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Poll
Question: Is there such a thing as objective morality?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
#3
Other choice
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 38

Author Topic: Objective morality?  (Read 3100 times)
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: December 22, 2014, 04:00:12 PM »

Discuss.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: December 22, 2014, 04:29:50 PM »

No.
Logged
Redalgo
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,681
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: December 22, 2014, 04:39:24 PM »

Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: December 22, 2014, 05:06:27 PM »

I don't understand the argument for 'yes'. Please explain it to me.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,678


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: December 22, 2014, 05:16:04 PM »

No, but that doesn't make it any less important. I have pretty strong moral qualms with cannibalism. Someone else might find it a totally natural part of life. I don't ever want to have dinner at that guy's house.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 22, 2014, 05:33:27 PM »

Yes.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: December 22, 2014, 05:56:16 PM »

Just because the the line between right and wrong might be nuanced or hard to find doesn't mean it's not there.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: December 22, 2014, 06:15:34 PM »

I don't understand the argument for 'yes'. Please explain it to me.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: December 22, 2014, 06:30:30 PM »

Just because the the line between right and wrong might be nuanced or hard to find doesn't mean it's not there.

If it's nuanced then it means it's subjective and not objective surely?
Logged
Brewer
BrewerPaul
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,622


Political Matrix
E: -6.90, S: -6.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: December 22, 2014, 08:06:10 PM »

Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,720
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: December 22, 2014, 10:43:56 PM »

Of course not, but I don't think it always hurts to superimpose an "objective" moral line in the sand.
Logged
Murica!
whyshouldigiveyoumyname?
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,295
Angola


Political Matrix
E: -6.13, S: -10.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: December 22, 2014, 11:19:19 PM »

There is no such thing as moral absolutes.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: December 23, 2014, 12:50:09 AM »

Just because the the line between right and wrong might be nuanced or hard to find doesn't mean it's not there.

If it's nuanced then it means it's subjective and not objective surely?

Nuance can be due to variables that are hard to measure, yet are measurable.  It's still objective. Objective simply means that two observers applying the same system would come to the same conclusion. Objective does not mean that two observers have to agree the system in question is the right way to make a moral choice.

For example suppose some states that the moral choice is the one that results in the least suffering. In principle, deaths and illness can be measured, there are objective tools to measure pain, and physical and financial resources can be quantified. If the proponent states what specific value they place on those measurements, then they have created an objective system. In practice it would be very hard to gather all the necessary data, but the principle remains.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,678


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: December 23, 2014, 02:47:11 AM »

Of course not, but I don't think it always hurts to superimpose an "objective" moral line in the sand.

That's still not "objective." Not that it matters. For example, nearly the entire human race agrees with my stance that cannibalism is morally wrong. The collective "subjective" moral sanction of a near-universal consensus may not be the same as an objective consensus in theory, but it means the same thing in practice. Societal morals are basically the (super?)majority societal consensus and can drift as individuals' moral tastes drift. There's nothing wrong with society deciding "these are the rules we are going to live by" and then upholding them as long as the door's open for the next generation to go "these worked, these didn't, let's change it up."
Logged
Foucaulf
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,050
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: December 23, 2014, 04:06:32 AM »

"Subjective" and "objective" morality are notoriously hard to define. Fewer and fewer people would argue that a code of morality exists, suspended in the cosmos, and revealed to us with perfect clarity. Even fewer would argue the reverse: all moral statements are true because they are grammatically valid propositions (that would be stupidly trivial, wouldn't it?) An objectivism worthy of debate lies somewhere in the middle.

The accepted definition of "objective ethics" is the belief that when we say something is right or wrong, we are referring to some property of the world outside of the mind. This is important because you can't really have an ethical science - in the way that science ought to validate or falsify facts - without it. (Utilitarians, like the negative utilitarians Muon cites, really like this.) "Subjective" equals to anything that's not objective: we always have different ways of imagining goodness, morality is based off of what we feel, morality is BS, etc.

But "objective ethics," at least how people in this thread are using it, is referring to something like morality that applies to anyone, regardless of social context. Utilitarians like this too. Then subjectivism is defined as anything that is against that. (Except ethicists refer to "universalist/relativist ethics" instead of reusing words, thank god)

Why did I bother writing all that instead of giving an argument for objective ethics? Because I don't know any great ones off the top of my head, and it may be more illustrative to give an example for why it matters:

Pricing a life. Suppose you run over a teenager and she's now a quadriplegic. Is it right to ask you to reimburse your victim - even though you're behind on your debt - and how much?
-A subjective relativist may argue that, since there's no moral rightness outside of the mind, you and the teenager should just mediate a settlement on which both of you agree.
-A subjective universalist would think you have to be held to a common standard compared to everyone else, and have to be judged in court and ordered to repay an amount found socially commonplace, or a number economists remeasure every now and then. (This is what usually happens.)
-An objective relativist could argue that you have committed a moral wrong and has to pay, though it is up to the judge to dole out the punishment whichever way he pleases; it could be a small fine in one society and your right hand in another.
-An objective universalist would demand that recompensation be made and that there is a "right sum," which ought to have been discovered when considering past cases like these and which we can hope was written into precedent.

This matrix-style collection of beliefs is bizarre and unnatural, but I guess Atlas users are used to it. Choosing what I think is the best argument, I would be an objective universalist. Maybe you are too, who knows.
Logged
DemPGH
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,755
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: December 23, 2014, 12:16:24 PM »

In ways, yes, of course. Murder, rape, prejudice, and racketeering come to mind as objectively wrong. There are a few other things, probably.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: December 23, 2014, 12:17:11 PM »


I'll bite. I suppose the problem with saying there is no objective morality is that then all morality is subjective - for instance, one could take the subjective relativist position Foucaulf describes above. Well in that case, how do you say that murder, for instance, is wrong? All you can say is you don't like murder, maybe you don't like it a lot, and you really don't want anyone to do it. But if someone else, for whatever reason, really wants to do it, why is their desire invalid, if it is of the same nature as your desire? Two desires of the same nature conflicting, neither is inherently better than the other.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: December 23, 2014, 02:09:34 PM »

Ultimately that which is considered "moral" either is or at one point was the descriptive empirical results of what rules of conduct are most conducive to survival and/or prosperity in one's environment. While that is not "objective" in the sense of being universally true or axiomatically verifiable, that it not to say that it does not exist.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: December 23, 2014, 02:44:40 PM »


I'll bite. I suppose the problem with saying there is no objective morality is that then all morality is subjective - for instance, one could take the subjective relativist position Foucaulf describes above. Well in that case, how do you say that murder, for instance, is wrong? All you can say is you don't like murder, maybe you don't like it a lot, and you really don't want anyone to do it. But if someone else, for whatever reason, really wants to do it, why is their desire invalid, if it is of the same nature as your desire? Two desires of the same nature conflicting, neither is inherently better than the other.

You can't say murder is wrong. That's why we dress up the act of taking another human life in words like murder, or self defence or war or mercy. The taking of another life cannot simply be wrong in itself because as a society, it happens. It is initiated. So you cannot say that taking another human life is absolutely morally 'wrong' because that's not what an absolute wrong or objective wrong is. The same goes for theft; the taking of an item that does not belong to you. The 'morality' of who you are thieving from and whether they have any stake on that item in the first place is a complex matter in itself. Rape is wrong (though we can only hope that most people think that way). But if you, he casual observer was given a button to subject a victim we perceive to be innocent to either rape or death, we would more than likely choose rape. The alternative is, in it's comparison, less wrong.

And that's essentially why you cannot take morals and line them up against each other. They interact and subvert each other and this is situational. The opposite of the state of murder is 'not murder' which the super majority of us currently reside in. It is a happy state. It is a state that as social animals ensures our survival. Because we don't want to die. We don't want to have to mistrust every person that we see because we could not function emotionally or even sexually. And what is true of us is true of chimps and of lions and so on. There are some species that rely on death and the elimination of everything but the self in order to propagate. That is not a human concern. But if we are jolted out of the state of 'not murder' and face the loss of life or the risk of personal harm or community harm as a real or even perceived threat, then we will make judgements facing that alternative. We may 'permit' murder as a right action, or as a correction to the situation.

Strictly speaking a sociopath or psychopath cannot be considered to be erring against his own nature. However human society has always done it's best for its own cohesiveness to 'remove' sociopathic elements from it, if those elements do not remove themselves first.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: December 23, 2014, 04:44:16 PM »


I'll bite. I suppose the problem with saying there is no objective morality is that then all morality is subjective - for instance, one could take the subjective relativist position Foucaulf describes above. Well in that case, how do you say that murder, for instance, is wrong? All you can say is you don't like murder, maybe you don't like it a lot, and you really don't want anyone to do it. But if someone else, for whatever reason, really wants to do it, why is their desire invalid, if it is of the same nature as your desire? Two desires of the same nature conflicting, neither is inherently better than the other.

You can't say murder is wrong. ...

Strictly speaking a sociopath or psychopath cannot be considered to be erring against his own nature. However human society has always done it's best for its own cohesiveness to 'remove' sociopathic elements from it, if those elements do not remove themselves first.

So basically, the only thing that makes us different from sociopaths is that society will try to remove them for reasons of cohesiveness?
Logged
Yelnoc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,149
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: December 23, 2014, 05:37:36 PM »

I haven't read the literature to know what is meant by "objective morality" but I know rape, murder, usury, etc are anti-social behaviors which should be guarded against.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: December 23, 2014, 05:58:07 PM »


I'll bite. I suppose the problem with saying there is no objective morality is that then all morality is subjective - for instance, one could take the subjective relativist position Foucaulf describes above. Well in that case, how do you say that murder, for instance, is wrong? All you can say is you don't like murder, maybe you don't like it a lot, and you really don't want anyone to do it. But if someone else, for whatever reason, really wants to do it, why is their desire invalid, if it is of the same nature as your desire? Two desires of the same nature conflicting, neither is inherently better than the other.

You can't say murder is wrong. ...

Strictly speaking a sociopath or psychopath cannot be considered to be erring against his own nature. However human society has always done it's best for its own cohesiveness to 'remove' sociopathic elements from it, if those elements do not remove themselves first.

So basically, the only thing that makes us different from sociopaths is that society will try to remove them for reasons of cohesiveness?

Um...no.
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: December 23, 2014, 10:38:50 PM »
« Edited: December 23, 2014, 10:42:52 PM by Deus Naturae »

I haven't read the literature to know what is meant by "objective morality" but I know rape, murder, usury, etc are anti-social behaviors which should be guarded against.
lol

You believe that banning people from lending their property to others would be more "pro-social?" Violently preventing people from engaging in consensual interactions with one another strikes me as far more anti-social.
Logged
Yelnoc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,149
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: December 24, 2014, 07:39:09 PM »

I haven't read the literature to know what is meant by "objective morality" but I know rape, murder, usury, etc are anti-social behaviors which should be guarded against.
lol

You believe that banning people from lending their property to others would be more "pro-social?" Violently preventing people from engaging in consensual interactions with one another strikes me as far more anti-social.

Charging interest is a fundamentally sociopathic behavior.

And whoever said anything about violence? Religion in Europe and the Near East successfully prevented members of that religion from charging each other interest for centuries without undue violence.

The meaning of the word "consensual" in the context ought to be explored, but I don't get the feeling this is going to be a particularly meaningful interaction.
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: December 24, 2014, 08:23:38 PM »


Charging interest is a fundamentally sociopathic behavior.
Actually, posting on an online politics forum is a fundamentally sociopathic behavior. See, I can also call things "sociopathic" with no explanation too.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
What do you think happened (or happens, in countries with Sharia) when somebody is caught engaging in usury?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.058 seconds with 14 queries.