|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 10, 2007 12:38:48 GMT -4
I suspect we're vehemently agreeing again.
The difficulty in proving an objective moral code, and the existence of God, is by design.
No problem; you just have to own the difficulty.
Do you mean the application of all morals is local?
Yes, in the same spirit as all politics being local. A lot of the lofty moral (and political) concepts really don't seem pertinent. Morality to me is how I treat my (literal) neighbor. And that includes you, since the only reason we haven't had lunch is because we simply lack the will to do it.
Beyond this age the vast majority of people are above the intellectual threshold [at age 8] that means they are capable of discerning right from wrong and are therefore accountable for their actions.
Sure; while everyone below that age is presumed unaccountable, not everyone above it is presumed accountable. There are still circumstances not related to age that apply. I accept the rationale behind the LDS age of accountability and generalize it for the purpose of this discussion as, "Accountability varies from person to person according to various factors that include but are not limited to age."
That makes it subjective in my opinion.
The morality or immorality of his action was independent of her opinion of it.
But a big part of moral philosophy is the basis for our moral judgment of others' behavior. That affects religion, for example, because religions separate from their fellowship those who do not conform to the community's expectations of moral conduct. Judgment and punishment are the primary motivating factor behind moral philosophy, however based.
So you can say that there exists some frame of reference in which the boy's actions did not change in terms of moral rectitude, but that is not necessarily a practical framework. We judge both our actions and others' actions subjectively, and that is the basis of all moral behavior.
If there is some hidden moral imperative that doesn't change as a result of the boy's admittedly broken compass and our admittedly misguided application of presumption, then good for everyone. Because it's hidden it doesn't seem to apply, although it may ineffectually exist. Hence my answer: God and morality may have something to do with each other, but removing God from the equation doesn't change the subjectivity of the outcome.
Objective in the sense that the moral duty is independent of the person's opinion of what his duty may be.
And if you can provide a framework for that which isn't subjective or circular, then I will personally lobby that the university of your choice grant you an honorary doctorate in philosophy, because you will have solved one of the Great Questions.
What you believe and what you can prove never seem to be the same thing.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 10, 2007 13:02:11 GMT -4
I think this round of discussion has just about played out.
I can often prove what I believe. Unfortunately I often find the most interesting questions to be those that cannot be easily demonstrated one way or the other, this thread being a prime example.
A framework for showing that one's moral duty is independent of that person's opinion of his or her moral duty that is neither subjective (in the sense of varying by individual circumstance) nor circular? Yeah, that's a pretty tall order.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Oct 10, 2007 13:51:03 GMT -4
It doesn't solve the hard moral questions, and its proponents have universally failed to show that their ethical "methodology" is self-existent and not just a well-dressed subjective belief.
Isn't this a case of the false alternative fallacy? To avoid the stigma of subjective, there doesn't have to be a "self-existent" ideal. There is no such thing as a Platonic, Ideal bridge that all real bridges are mere inferior shadows of, yet the work of the bridge designer is not thus subjective. The bridge designer follows techniques and methods that have worked well in the past. Does this not absolve his work from the charge of subjectivity?
Keep in mind that by arguing against subjectivity, I am not necessarily arguing for objectivity. I don't think there is always much value in the objective-subjective dichotomy.
Ethics are primarily about how we behave around others,
Not necessarily. See Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, for example. In the system he proposes, one's own happiness is the highest good for which one must aim. His ethics first focus on the personal and then uses that basis to discuss the public matters. One should be honest with others, in this scheme of things, because one will be better off in the long run, etc.
so a better example might be other aspects of hygeine such as bathing
I bathe because I gain value from being in the company of others and because I understand what it is like to put up with body odor and do not wish to inflict that on others if I can easily avoid it. I gain goodwill by being considerate to others.
And that's not a global human value; but it is generally valid in America.
True, but it is still the case that my conduct really matters in the culture I live in.
Moral philosophy is all about how to create, formulate, discuss, and defend those moral imperatives in a way that identifies whether a responsibility exists that compels action.
If morality is subjective, how could it ever compel action? Doesn't subjective give you a free pass to do whatever you feel like? And if your neighbor doesn't like it, tough toenails; his idea that your behavior is wrong is likewise subjective.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 10, 2007 14:42:36 GMT -4
Isn't this a case of the false alternative fallacy?
It would be if interpreted beyond its scope.
Many proofs of self-existence are really just demonstrations of its avoidance of known modes of subjectivity. So refutations often take the form of showing the new mode of subjectivity that undermines them; giving proof, in passing, of subjectivity that does not commit the alternative fallacy. In other words, "Here is my self-existing truth; I say this because it doesn't seem to be subjective in any way we know about." And the response: "It's subjective in this other way."
The bridge designer follows techniques and methods that have worked well in the past. Does this not absolve his work from the charge of subjectivity?
But "bridge" means different things to different people. Specifically it means one thing to the customer and another thing to the supplier. Agreeing on what precise properties of bridgehood apply is the exercise at hand. If the bridgebuilder says, "If this property is desired, then here is the tested method of achieving that," that could be considered objective. But it is conditional. If his premise is wrong, his conclusion will follow from it, but still be wrong in the meaningful way.
In bridgebuilding those factors are generally explicit. But in ethics they are not. People's opinions are based on factors they often can't identify or articulate, which is the foundation of subjectivity. Every person defines the Good Life differently, and rarely explicitly.
His ethics first focus on the personal and then uses that basis to discuss the public matters.
Good point.
If morality is subjective, how could it ever compel action?
Because subjectivity in groups nevertheless exhibits trends that suggest imperatives valid for that group.
Doesn't subjective give you a free pass to do whatever you feel like?
No. Actions have consequences, and the consequences feed back into your experience to refine the subjective imperative. Where there is no consequence, it can be argued, there is no imperative. Your neighbor may react by applying a consequence to you. When you realize that you have the power to deny him the Good Life and he has the power to deny you the Good Life, that creates the motivation to agree mutually on limits to behavior that balance responsibility and benefit across the fence. You agree to quit stealing his apples and he agrees to quit letting the air out of your tires. The framework for that negotiation is what moral philosophy studies.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 10, 2007 14:58:54 GMT -4
Interestingly enough, what you describe is not really altruism - doing the right thing because it is right. Instead it's sort of an enlightened self-interest - doing the right thing because you'll be able to get along better with your neighbor that way.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Oct 10, 2007 18:31:15 GMT -4
Because subjectivity in groups nevertheless exhibits trends that suggest imperatives valid for that group.
I would be careful about deriving moral validity from the group, especially if the group is comprised of people's opinions “based on factors they often can't identify or articulate.” Assume that you were surrounded by Mormon neighbors and the group insisted that you erect a statue of Joe Smith in your front yard at your own expense. (On the chance this is already the case in Utah, and the statue came with the place, substitute any minority persecuted by a majority.)
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 10, 2007 18:34:59 GMT -4
Jay probably is surrounded by Mormon neighbors, but they wouldn't consider it moral to force him to construct a monument to something he didn't himself believe.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Oct 11, 2007 5:46:03 GMT -4
I find God to be pretty damn important without having to turn him into the mingling Santa Claus God everybody conjures up. I'm purely agnostic about the whole matter. I believe God exists or at one point did exist, but I'm not sure. All I can say about God is that God created the Universe (for all I know anyway). That's a pretty important role in my book.
To be fair, the Qu'ran forbids the spilling innocent blood or the blood of muslims (I'm assuming that's the connection you're making). Extremists have foregone this by twisting certain passages into allowing them to declare jihads on whoever they want. But that's beside the point. The God I believe in does not give points or get horrified. I have my own set of morals that don't approve of the blowing up of children, but there is no set of morals to speak of cast down by god for us all to follow. As long as we have the freedom to have individual opinions, morality will be subjective.
Then what is God and who cares anyway? If we can't even figure out what the hell he's supposed to be then why are we so obsessed with impressing him? What's the point of anything? Seriously, what would God be if not perfect? Not God, that's the whole point, isn't it? All I'm saying is that if God is supposed to be perfect, then God has to be completely unknowable. That's the only way God could remain perfect. Pure perfection is unattainable in this world. But you're right. I don't know if he's unknowable. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know any of this for sure. I believe God is unknowable, but hell I might be completely wrong.
Eh whatever. Who cares.
Morals and objective just don't mix. You can't make everyone happy with one set of rules. The universe is too complicated for that.
technically, yes. Though, I gotta admit, most stuff like that I just take as fact and forget about all that objective nonsense
Well yeah, but those people are morally bankrupt anyway, so you gotta take what you can get.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Oct 11, 2007 10:26:14 GMT -4
I have my own set of morals that don't approve of the blowing up of children, but there is no set of morals to speak of cast down by god for us all to follow. As long as we have the freedom to have individual opinions, morality will be subjective.
We have the freedom to have individual opinions on whether stars should be visible in the Apollo lunar surface photographs too, but that does not completely undermine our ability to justifiably argue that the conspiracy theorists are wrong—or at least, are not offering a better alternate theory. You guys are falling all over yourselves casting fear, uncertainty, and doubt about religious beliefs in order to gain freedom for your personal beliefs. That doesn't cut it when arguing against the conspiracy theorists, and it shouldn't cut it here.
You need a leg to stand on such that you can—to the best of your ability at this time--make a positive case (in the sense of not negative) for a society that does not approve of blowing up children, of killing the non-Muslims in the neighborhood, of keeping the town dry of liquor, etc. Don't get to hung up by the subjective-objective dichotomy. To move away from subjectivism is not to fall into a trap of objective dogmatism. Just be prepared to change your views as better evidence and arguments come to light. These can be tough issues, but the goal is to latch on to any technique that provides progress over what was in place before.
The fact that we will endlessly disagree and bicker over particular issues does not have a bearing on the fact that we can make our lives better. Don't let philosophy discourage you. In general, your entire life is a story of progress.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 11, 2007 11:26:42 GMT -4
To be fair, the Qu'ran forbids the spilling innocent blood or the blood of muslims (I'm assuming that's the connection you're making). Extremists have foregone this by twisting certain passages into allowing them to declare jihads on whoever they want. I think we can agree that many muslims the world over are as horrified as we are about the abuses these extremists have put their religious texts too. But it's not beside the point. The point is whether such an extremist appraoch can be judged as less valuable than the more mainstream muslim. Your earlier post said "none are better or worse than any of the other ones" and I think that's obviously untrue. Some definitely are worse than others. I disagree that perfection = unknowable. Even if perfection is unattainable for us mere mortals during this life, I don't see how that makes it unknowable by default. In fact I view the whole idea that God must be unknowable and incomprehensible as a heresy foisted upon early Christianity by the Gnostics that unfortunately stuck.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 11, 2007 11:57:52 GMT -4
Jay probably is surrounded by Mormon neighbors...
Surprisingly not surrounded. My western property line is with two large apartment buildings that house a number of LDS and non-LDS university students. I am good friends with the building manager, who is LDS, and who hails from the same region of the country as my parents. He sends his impoverished tenants to my place to "shop" for desperately-needed furniture free of charge among my collection of abandoned furntture from my own rental properties. In return he applies his tree-keeping skills (he's a retired logger) to the trees on my property. I live within the boundaries of the LDS Tenth Ward, where I am apparently known as the person you go see when you need bric-a-brack. The Tenth Ward is the church president's boyhood ward and a city historical site, so they get a lot of visitors.
My neighbor to the east is a middle-aged lesbian who lives alone. Next east is a retired non-LDS architect with a passion for gardening; he and I take turns mowing our in-between neighbor's yard because she has physical limitations that make it difficult. Her father is a delightful immigrant from Germany who gardens in liederhosen. Moving eastward we have a student rental house (tenants vary widely as time passes), a young gay couple, and finally the original vintner's house now owned by the patriarch of the Park Stake.
So surprisingly few LDS neighbors. And we all get along. Religion, age, sexual orientation -- they're simply not issues.
...but they wouldn't consider it moral to force him to construct a monument to something he didn't himself believe.
But they do consider it moral to attempt other faith-centered restrictions: incorporate by reference our discussion from months ago on Utah liquor laws. The line between civil liberties and community standards is a constant debate -- as it should be.
Morality as the consensus of the group is still done semi-rationally. Subjectivity does not preclude the notion of a belief that is held as one's own moral imperative but not necessary appropriate to the group. Finding the dividing line between what I believe and what I should impose upon others is the ongoing battle.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 11, 2007 12:08:13 GMT -4
I would be careful about deriving moral validity from the group, especially if the group is comprised of people's opinions “based on factors they often can't identify or articulate.”You better believe it. Moral philosophy is the art of trying to recognize and articulate the source of beliefs you didn't know you had. That sometimes requires listening to the minority instead of voting them down. The notion of community standards harks to the arguable validity of specific subjective morals that are nevertheless shared by a substantial enough portion of the community to warrant a compulsion to respect them as a condition participating in it. That's specifically part of legal philosophy, but it is grounded in the larger art. Assume that you were surrounded by Mormon neighbors and the group insisted that you erect a statue of Joe Smith in your front yard at your own expense.Are you ragging on my statue?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Oct 11, 2007 12:49:43 GMT -4
Are you ragging on my statue?
I'm not religious, but all I can say is, "Oh, my God!" That's, uh, oh, man, I have to sit down now.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 11, 2007 22:06:49 GMT -4
That statue isn't on your front lawn Jay, unless you live at the Gilgal Garden.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 11, 2007 23:55:33 GMT -4
That statue isn't on your front lawn Jay, unless you live at the Gilgal Garden.
Darn. Busted.
I live about 10 minutes' walk from Gilgal Garden.
|
|