Morality: subjective or objective?

[itsstillmatt]

Originally Posted by RSS

Morality doesn't exist ... it is invented.
I think it is less invented, which implies some sort of design, than it is evolutionary. People keep what works, or what seems to work, and discard what doesn't. We end up with a mass of interrelated rules which we cannot explain but which somehow function, and then we, as we always do, assign "blame" to various people and groups ("God," "the founders," the powerful," etc) for the entire network believing that nothing could possibly be unplanned. It is part of our sad little need to believe that everything can be understood and assigned -- we must have control over life.

 

[RSS]

Originally Posted by iammatt

evolutionary
Agreed ... "invented" over time ... and constantly changing.

Originally Posted by iammatt

It is part of our sad little need to believe that everything can be understood and assigned -- we must have control over life.
I recall overhearing someone say ... I love Disneyland because it's perfect ... with everthing nice and neat and in its place ... just as life should be.

To this day I occasionally use the saying "Everything is nice and neat and in its place." It is NEVER a compliment.

 

[emptym]

Originally Posted by iammatt

I prefer people to think morality is something that doesn't exist at all, because from what I can tell, too many people think their moral structure has some basis in truth and they keep trying to foist it on to me. What I think about the subject in general, I prefer to keep to myself.
I think that what I try to do when we talk is not foist mine on you, but coax you to admit that you have one and it's good.

Originally Posted by RSS

Morality doesn't exist ... it is invented.
Are you saying cars, computers, belt buckles, etc. don't exist?

Originally Posted by iammatt

I think it is less invented, which implies some sort of design, than it is evolutionary. People keep what works, or what seems to work, and discard what doesn't. We end up with a mass of interrelated rules which we cannot explain but which somehow function, and then we, as we always do, assign "blame" to various people and groups ("God," "the founders," the powerful," etc) for the entire network believing that nothing could possibly be unplanned. It is part of our sad little need to believe that everything can be understood and assigned -- we must have control over life.
Like cars, computers, belt buckles, etc. I would say there is some degree of invention but also some degree of discovery, since the world order is to some degree objective: certain actions have certain consequences. Of course, the consequences are not always certain in the sense of universal and necessary. But they are more or less probable. So drunk driving, for example, will not necessarily cause injury or death, but it does raise the probability.

 

[itsstillmatt]

Originally Posted by emptym

I think that what I try to do when we talk is not foist mine on you, but coax you to admit that you have one and it's good.

The problem here is that when you, who has I think a good sense of right, don't understand a concept in a comprehensive way, you make decisions and judgements, which you are willing to impose on others, that are deeply destructive. Now, you don't mean to be destructive, but that is the outcome. If it is true for you, who has a good sense of morality and a reasonable sense of restraint, imagine how bad it is in worse hands. I don't say this to accuse you of ruining lives or whatever, but because I think it is a major problem in society. That is the main problem when people fall in love with their own morality. Even in the best of times, their limited knowledge leads them to destroy a lot of good in the world.

 

[Mr. Clean]

Originally Posted by iammatt

I think it is less invented, which implies some sort of design, than it is evolutionary. People keep what works, or what seems to work, and discard what doesn't. We end up with a mass of interrelated rules which we cannot explain but which somehow function, and then we, as we always do, assign "blame" to various people and groups ("God," "the founders," the powerful," etc) for the entire network believing that nothing could possibly be unplanned. It is part of our sad little need to believe that everything can be understood and assigned -- we must have control over life.

You are probably saying that morality itself is evolving, which I agree with. But I also believe that many aspects of morality can be explained quite well in terms of human evolution. Because the nature of human beings can be determined empirically to some degree, some key aspects of this morality can, in my opinion, be considered objective in the sense that they apply to all human beings equally. More recent changes, or moral progress, can probably be attributed to the development of human societies which in return is largely due to our use of technology and science.

 

[rach2jlc]

Originally Posted by Mr. Clean

You are probably saying that morality itself is evolving, which I agree with. But I also believe that many aspects of morality can be explained quite well in terms of human evolution. Because the nature of human beings can be determined empirically to some degree, some key aspects of this morality can, in my opinion, be considered objective in the sense that they apply to all human beings equally. More recent changes, or moral progress, can probably be attributed to the development of human societies which in return is largely due to our use of technology and science.
If human beings are evolving, they're surely not all evolving in the same way, at least not in ways that can be observed empirically (which would be site specific and determined in large part by factors of environment or culture in the area being observed) so how can their evolving morality be "objective" in the sense you describe, namely applying to all human beings equally? In any case, I still think we all need to come to an agreement on our terms, as we're fifteen/sixteen pages into the thread and people have been using "objective/subjective" in a number of different ways. As well, within the history of philosophy/psychology/social sciences, etc., they all use the terms differently.

 

[itsstillmatt]

Originally Posted by Mr. Clean

You are probably saying that morality itself is evolving, which I agree with. But I also believe that many aspects of morality can be explained quite well in terms of human evolution. Because the nature of human beings can be determined empirically to some degree, some key aspects of this morality can, in my opinion, be considered objective in the sense that they apply to all human beings equally. More recent changes, or moral progress, can probably be attributed to the development of human societies which in return is largely due to our use of technology and science.
I don't really see it in those terms. Our accepted modes of being are continuously adapting to new inputs, new successes and new failures. I wouldn't say "morality evolves" as much as we adapt to outcomes the nest we can, and these adaptations end up codified, formally or informally, into our rule system. I totally disavow the other part for the same reason rach does. It wreaks, to me, of the idea that we are constantly being perfected, and that those on the forward of the lines are therefore more perfected.

 

[Mr. Clean]

Originally Posted by rach2jlc

If human beings are evolving, they're surely not all evolving in the same way, at least not in ways that can be observed empirically (which would be site specific and determined in large part by factors of environment or culture in the area being observed) so how can their evolving morality be "objective" in the sense you describe, namely applying to all human beings equally?

In any case, I still think we all need to come to an agreement on our terms, as we're fifteen/sixteen pages into the thread and people have been using "objective/subjective" in a number of different ways. As well, within the history of philosophy/psychology/social sciences, etc., they all use the terms differently.

I think I expressed myself poorly and would like to clarify. I meant the past evolution of the human species. I did not talk about ongoing evolution, which I doubt could be observed due to the timescales involved.

We can empirically observe human beings and evolution is a very powerful tool in explaining many of our traits, including traits relevant to morality. And yes, of course, many observations apply to all human beings and not just individuals.

Originally Posted by iammatt

I don't really see it in those terms. Our accepted modes of being are continuously adapting to new inputs, new successes and new failures. I wouldn't say "morality evolves" as much as we adapt to outcomes the nest we can, and these adaptations end up codified, formally or informally, into our rule system. I totally disavow the other part for the same reason rach does. It wreaks, to me, of the idea that we are constantly being perfected, and that those on the forward of the lines are therefore more perfected.

I am not sure what you are saying here. Which part do you disagree with?

 

[XenoX101]

Originally Posted by lawyerdad

No real difference. I was just being snarky, since "moral relativism" is a term that gets thrown around a fair bit around here.
Yes that's what I've been taught too, the "proper" poll answers would thus be "moral relativism" and "moral absolutism", but it all means the same thing anyway.

 

[emptym]

Originally Posted by iammatt

The problem here is that when you, who has I think a good sense of right, don't understand a concept in a comprehensive way, you make decisions and judgements, which you are willing to impose on others, that are deeply destructive. Now, you don't mean to be destructive, but that is the outcome. If it is true for you, who has a good sense of morality and a reasonable sense of restraint, imagine how bad it is in worse hands. I don't say this to accuse you of ruining lives or whatever, but because I think it is a major problem in society. That is the main problem when people fall in love with their own morality. Even in the best of times, their limited knowledge leads them to destroy a lot of good in the world.
Interesting. And I'm sure you're right. But so that I can better understand what you mean, could you give me an example?

 

[Nosu3]

Originally Posted by XenoX101

Yes that's what I've been taught too, the "proper" poll answers would thus be "moral relativism" and "moral absolutism", but it all means the same thing anyway.

Relativism is used in contrast to absolutism and subjective in contrast with objective. All of them are different from each other though.

 

[Bhowie]

 

[not_a_virus.exe]

it depends on your definition of morality, but whether morality should be subjective or objective, i firmly believe it should be objective and so does this guy:

http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_...t_s_right.html

 

[RSS]

Originally Posted by emptym

Are you saying cars, computers, belt buckles, etc. don't exist?
Of course not. There is a significant difference between a concrete invention which exists in the physical world ... and an abstract one imposed on the physcical world.

But ... as I said in another thread ... morailty is a necessary evil.

 

[emptym]

Originally Posted by RSS

Of course not. There is a significant difference between a concrete invention which exists in the physical world ... and an abstract one imposed on the physcical world.

But ... as I said in another thread ... morailty is a necessary evil.
I was joking mostly. I think you meant it was "merely" an invention, or something like that.

But I'm going to have to take issue with what seems to be your criterion for the real or what exists, namely what is "concrete" or "physical." As one professor would put it to us, "Is love real?" We would say yes, and of course, we would acknowledges other realities that are not physical. And, is the physical itself really physical?

Still waiting to hear from our friend iammatt about how my judgments and decisions have been deeply destructive. I'm assuming he meant they were objectively so as well...