summerof2010 said:
Well, like I was trying to say earlier, it's hard to really argue that ethics are purely subjective. While it's not easy to pin down what exactly is good and evil, there are some things that are clearly more evil than others. When we observe these things, we say they're wrong, and we don't mean "I think they're wrong" like we might say "I think chocolate ice cream is tasty." Take honor killings, for example. You can go on all day about cultural relativism, but look me in the face (er... the monitor... fucking internet) and tell me they're just as right to say that people should decapitate their daughters for getting raped as you are to say they shouldn't. The implication of this observation is that a person believing something doesn't make it right.
It is indeed difficult to bite the bullet and call something like honour killing good to a fellow person of your moral society. There are plenty of things that, when I hear of them, I can't help but decry them to those around me. Unfortunately, that's different from *arguing* for ethical subjectivity.
When it comes down to it, there is a growing body of evidence that suggests that ethics are a largely (though not entirely) emotionally-driven pro-social behavior evolved in humans in order to facilitate cooperation and encourage in-group loyalty (both these things greatly enhance inclusive fitness, which is different from regular fitness, so look that up if you're not sure what it is).
Unfortunately, when arguing for or against something, what we're looking for are reasons: sets of premises from which a conclusion is ultimately inferred. When it comes to ethics, then, this can get complex. I understand that when I'm calling something wrong, it's different than me expressing a preference; namely, in the former case I also believe that my judgement should be shared by others (X is wrong, or so I think, so therefore you should agree with me and think so too). In short, we tend to treat ethics like facts.
To bad it ain't. As someone who has been studying ethics for several years now at the university level, I can assure that the hard arguments to come by are good ones for the *objectivity* of ethics, not the subjectivity of it. Just look up John Mackie's 'argument from queerness' if you're feeling doubtful (that's queerness as in oddness, by the way). I'd love to say more on this topic and give you many of those arguments, but I ask you to take my word for it as educated and simply move on. I took an undergrad and counting to get this far; I can't summarize that in a forum post.
As for things that are 'clearly more evil than others,' we can explain those quite simply as acts which are as uncooperative as it can get. Killing, stealing, etc. All these things run directly contrary to the behaviors that ethics (should they be evovled pro-social behaviors) seek to promote. This evolutionary account then easily explains why our reaction to them is universally negative (unless you're a psychopath, but that's a whole other story).
A person merely believing in a proposition indeed does not make that proposition correct. Analogously, my inability to stare you in the monitor and tell you honour killings are anything other than objectively wrong does not make such killings so wrong. I can believe all I d*mn well please that honour killings are wrong, and I can feel it in my ethical heart of hearts, but all of that is far from sufficient in demonstrating that honour killings are indeed factually (objectively) wrong. For that, argument is necessary, and good luck arguing for moral facts. They're elusive littls sobs.
I'm not sure if you'll consider this convincing, but let me say to you that I was once in your shoes. Then I took a degree in philosophy. As I continue that education, I've become more and more sure that objective morality is a lost cause. Ethical values are not facts, however much we may want them to be. But cheer up; you can talk about them like they are anyway. Only a few people will ever disagree with you
Feel free to disagree with me and all that. I'll do what I can to respond but I'm a busy guy. If you're really interested, here's a link:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-anti-realism/
This is the Stanford University online encyclopedia of Philosophy. It ain't wikipedia. It's written entirely by PhDs who focus on what they are hired to write articles on. If you're looking to get educated on ethics, this is the place to start.
So I hope I haven't offended, and happy hunting!
PS: Inb4 'evolution is just a theory'. Honestly, theory has a completely different meaning in science, and the academic field of biology at large agrees that evolution is correct; they're just arguing the hows and coming up with the stories now.
