Poll: Is morality objectively real?
- Thread starter Sewblon
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Science, by definition, is simply the study of the natural world and is is thus already devoid of any interaction with morality, religion, ethics, philosophy etc. A scientist's job is simply to observe and understand the workings of the natural world. Therefore, morality whether entirely subjective or objective is already irrelevant to science. (Engineering deals with using science/scientific findings to achieve some purpose and the issue of morality is very relevant to this.)Sewblon said:
Logic, similarly, deals with the study of thought. (Do NOT confuse his with psychology which deals with the study of Human thought, emotions etc.) Morality arise from philosophy which is the application of logic to different scenarios (hypothetical or otherwise) and judging whether the outcomes, motives, means etc. involved in achieving those outcomes are amenable to the person judging (the 'philosopher'). Therefore, the objectivity of morality is already irrelevant to logic also.
In some ways, philosophy is the 'engineering' to the 'science' of logic.
E.g. Understanding nuclear fission is the science. Making technological applications of nuclear reactors, bombs, medical instruments etc. is the engineering and morality exists to judge how and if to use these technologies. This final judgement may vary from person to person with or without the existence of a universal 'right' or 'wrong' technology or its use. The core fields are and must be unaffected by these judgements.
Morality is just like the law. We want the law to be fair; if everybody has to live to the same standards of conduct, the world should be just. However, because human beings aren't perfect, adhering too rigidly to the law can result in miscarriages of justice.
For example, let's say we live in a society where murder is a capital offense. It is illegal to take another human being's life; to do so has severe consequences. Now, let's say Trever McAllen is trying to kill Bob Jenkin's wife and family. Let's say the only way Bob Jenkins can stop Trever from doing this is to kill Trever first. In a society that rigidly adheres to the law, Bob would have to be punished because he killed Trever, in spite of the mitigating factor of Trever's malicious conduct.
I think most of us agree that sending Bob to jail for the rest of his life for defending his family would be a pretty raw deal for Bob. Fortunately for us, most countries have clauses in their legal codes that allow for self defense.
My point is this: morality is like law in that it's almost impossible to create a stone-solid system of morality that can yield the best outcome in every situation. (I think) This supposition forms the basis for objective morality; you have to decide what choices are moral based upon what your values are and what the situation is.
Ultimately, I feel there really is no question of whether morality should be objective or subjective. The answer is that it simply is subjective; that's just the way humans are. It's up to the individual to do what they believe is right in a morally ambiguous situation. The fact that there is a lot of overlap in what most people would say the 'moral' and 'immoral' choices are in a given situation is due to our nature as social beings. To varying degrees, we all want to live together in peace and prosperity, and most of us are hardwired to react a certain way to circumstances like murder, theft, exploitation, etc.
Of course, the subjectivity of morality doesn't mean you can do whatever you want and get away with it. Not unless you live alone in the fucking wilderness. Bob might kill Trever to protect his family, and that may be what he thinks is the right thing to do. That doesn't change the fact that tomorrow he has to leave his home and face the rest of society, knowing that Trever's blood is on his hands and that his decisions will have to face the subjective moral judgments of others.
The only objectivity in morality is that the moral judgments of the many will outweigh those of the few in the grand scheme of things. So don't be a dick.
For example, let's say we live in a society where murder is a capital offense. It is illegal to take another human being's life; to do so has severe consequences. Now, let's say Trever McAllen is trying to kill Bob Jenkin's wife and family. Let's say the only way Bob Jenkins can stop Trever from doing this is to kill Trever first. In a society that rigidly adheres to the law, Bob would have to be punished because he killed Trever, in spite of the mitigating factor of Trever's malicious conduct.
I think most of us agree that sending Bob to jail for the rest of his life for defending his family would be a pretty raw deal for Bob. Fortunately for us, most countries have clauses in their legal codes that allow for self defense.
My point is this: morality is like law in that it's almost impossible to create a stone-solid system of morality that can yield the best outcome in every situation. (I think) This supposition forms the basis for objective morality; you have to decide what choices are moral based upon what your values are and what the situation is.
Ultimately, I feel there really is no question of whether morality should be objective or subjective. The answer is that it simply is subjective; that's just the way humans are. It's up to the individual to do what they believe is right in a morally ambiguous situation. The fact that there is a lot of overlap in what most people would say the 'moral' and 'immoral' choices are in a given situation is due to our nature as social beings. To varying degrees, we all want to live together in peace and prosperity, and most of us are hardwired to react a certain way to circumstances like murder, theft, exploitation, etc.
Of course, the subjectivity of morality doesn't mean you can do whatever you want and get away with it. Not unless you live alone in the fucking wilderness. Bob might kill Trever to protect his family, and that may be what he thinks is the right thing to do. That doesn't change the fact that tomorrow he has to leave his home and face the rest of society, knowing that Trever's blood is on his hands and that his decisions will have to face the subjective moral judgments of others.
The only objectivity in morality is that the moral judgments of the many will outweigh those of the few in the grand scheme of things. So don't be a dick.
For all practical purposes utterly irrelevant. Even if there is an objective morality, it'll still have to go through the subjective filter of all moral subjects whenever applied or evaluated, and the outcome will be the same as if there wasn't any objective standard.
The idea that it is an illusion is an illusion itself. Today you see thoughtless morality being flung around like monkey shit. It is easy to look at it and say that morality is just BS.
It is not. Morality is ethics. Ethics is simple. You are the person next to you or the other side of the world. What you are doing to another person you are doing to yourself.
If we disregard morality as thoughtless reactionaries, this planet will never have a chance of sustaining sentient life.
It is not. Morality is ethics. Ethics is simple. You are the person next to you or the other side of the world. What you are doing to another person you are doing to yourself.
If we disregard morality as thoughtless reactionaries, this planet will never have a chance of sustaining sentient life.
so its an '' is good good and evil evil '' thread, sort of thing?
frankly spoken, no XD, their not objectifiable.
only if you look at the 'avarage' moral you can call evil evil and good good.
but stil then, an 'evil' person can just call the rest of the world evil. making him goo by default cause off his argumentations..(however random they may be)
frankly spoken, no XD, their not objectifiable.
only if you look at the 'avarage' moral you can call evil evil and good good.
but stil then, an 'evil' person can just call the rest of the world evil. making him goo by default cause off his argumentations..(however random they may be)
That is your morality; Others have deemed it "moral" to execute people for being protestants, and what authority do you have to offer to proclaim your view on objective morality superior?Kair said:
While the idea that objective morality does not exist may be an illusion, so might the idea that it does. In any case, it matters little, since all moral subjects are inherently subjective in their understanding of even the objective things in this world; there's no (reasonable) doubt that a "tree" or an ideology ("set of dogmas") such as "fascism" objectively exists, but whether it is a beautiful wonder to nurture or an abomination to cut down is all in the individual minds of the beholders.
This certainly is no travesty; one should not confuse no objective standards with no standards at all. Every individual must find out where it stands on ethical issues, and then fight for its views all the harder for them not being objective; all that is left out is objective condemnation of ones fellow man (though one can certainly punish them if they commit what democracy has deemed as crimes), and who ever needed that?
I say morality is just ethics. And if the moral do not follow basic ethics, the morality is void. This is the objective part about morality.Imperator_DK said:
The real problem is prejudice and ignorance. True ethics cant exist without information and an open mind. If people were taught dialectics and objectivity, we could all agree on a common morality.
"Ethics" is hardly a well-defined or singular term (Are we talking utalitarian or deontological ethics for starters?), and once again that is your choice as a baseline; Others have choosen to base their entire world view, including morality (and thus ethics) on vile old "holy" books. Unless you can offer some authoritative (to all humans on the planet...) academic source which say with 100 % certainty: "morality =(this kind of) ethics", then your view can be called void as well with the same entitlement.Kair said:
I very much agree that the main reason morality differs is different views on ("slices of") reality though. Humans are not all that different, so given the same informations on (part of) reality and the same positions to expirience it from (wealth, status etc.), a consensus would soon appear amongst the vast majority. There will always be dissent though, however slight.
Utilitarianism is flawed. It is always the meaning of an action that is essential.Imperator_DK said:
My view of ethics is as mentioned before, what you are doing to another person you are doing to yourself. This way of thinking has been around for millennia, but most of the time corrupted by spiritualism.
The meaning in actions is what is important. Most other things are practical issues (as long as they are not justified as 'means' to and 'ends'). Both the meaning and practical issues could be solved if we got rid of prejudice and ignorance.
As much as I agree with you from a basic philosophical point of view, in reality the universe relies on imbalance. Matter and anti-matter must be present in different amounts. The speed at which matter moves away from the centre of the universe and the universe's density must not balance or it would simply stagnate. We need more chaos in order to continue change.canadamus_prime said:
So in order to maintain balance we need... imbalance???
I think I prefer your version. My head hurts.
OT: It is completely subjective. It depends on your knowledge, your beliefs, your emotional drive and what you have experienced. The World is coming to a general consensus, but we still have a long way to go before we can all agree on right and wrong.
That's hardly an uncontroversian statement. If an old lady sends tons of clothes as foreign aid to a poor country which then destroys its clothing industry, plungeing it even deeper into poverty, that's hardly a "good" action by default. There are certainly philosophers who would claim otherwise, and I've yet to see anything authoritative which would make their claims void and yours right.Kair said:
So? That a way of thinking is popular or ancient does not make it normative for everyone. You can say that this way of thinking objectively exist as a dogma, but once you're going to impose it on others to the effect that this is the one true and only possible way to be "ethical", then proving its mere existance is not enough; proof of it being necessarily normative for all humans regardless whether they choose it or not is required...
Again, not uncontroversial (or proven objective/exclusive). I certainly find prejudice and ignorance to be bad as well, but I do so based in standards I've choosen to adhear to; not something I had to adhear to because it was some kind of exclusive truth.
Well you are hard to persuade aren't you?Imperator_DK said:
I really can't express it any further than that an open mind to what is right and a willingness to do what is right with no reward in mind is the true ethical behaviour. Any bias will tear this to shreds as we have seen throughout history.
It is not the accepted definition of objective morality. I can only use what information I have gathered and device such a statement, and I do really have a lot of information gathered about the subject.
PS: The old lady with the clothes. Let's look away from the fact that this concept of a capitalist economy is useless (and not take into account everything that could be done differently). She had no idea it would cause any harm. She also had no real way of acquiring this information. It was in no way bias that lead her to believe that clothes would benefit the less fortunate. It was right of her to do what seemed the right thing to do. The fact that it crippled the economy was a practical issue.
An example of why utilitarianism is flawed:
A man with a pistol aims at a person and fires. He misses the person but hits his dog in the other room. The man is punished, but only for killing the dog. This is because utilitarianism teaches that the consequences of an action is what defines the correctness of an action.
I think I have actually come across an Elcor Spectre somewhere on the internets.RaphaelsRedemption said:
It was epic.
OT: I do believe that omnicide is perfectly moral and just, as long as I get some nice loot ouf of it.
Wait, that doesn't apply to the real world.
I guess that "right" and "wrong" can be sometimes obviously measured: murdering a whole bunch of people for no real reason is obviously wrong. But then there come those times, when some asshole philosopher / ridiculous situation makes a difficult choice necessary, and there is no right (or wrong) decision.
Not really, I just like to see some solid proof before I sign away my free will to decide what I should do to any kind of dogma.Kair said:
No disagreements there, but such conclusion can be reached subjectively as well.
Were you the wisest and most knowlegdeable human alive, that still wouldn't give you any special authority on how all people everywhere should live their lives, unless you presented evidence not only that your conclusion was ethical, but that no other could be so as well.
And what of "Practical ethics"? Do they not exist?
Except that laws and ethics are two completely different things. What's found in the penal code is a healthy mix of generally accepted (but therefore not objective) ethics, social norms, practical concerns for security and stability, and political signals. Ethics are not the sole standard by which actions are to be judged, various preventive concern might lead to conviction & punishment for attempt - though not objective utilitarian condemnation - in that scenario.