|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 10, 2007 21:39:17 GMT -4
If everyone did agree to a particular moral, such as "child molestation is wrong" would that mean it really is an objective moral, or would it still be subjective? I really don't know. I don't know if it really matters.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 10, 2007 23:37:25 GMT -4
Well, if morals are subjective then why should we follow them? They're only someone's opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 11, 2007 0:14:07 GMT -4
Some people's opinions are important. Like Jesus's for starters. Or Gandhi etc. That's the obvious. Anyway, I know in my heart it is wrong and so do you. Do you need someone to tell you so? Can you think about this yourself and come to a conclusion?
Society progresses through the thoughts, actions and accumulated experience of its members. We see how our actions affect people, we feel pain, we see it in other people, we feel grief, we understand loneliness. We understand cause and effect, and remember our history. We experience love, jealousy and rebellion. We learn to grow and learn about people and the world we are in. We see ourselves reflected in fellow humans - the children, parents and grandparents that we love. We find death amidst our lives and hope and build for a better future. We analize the effects of nature and the universe, grasping what truth it may give us. We puzzle at the mysteries and seek to unravel them. We feel our heart beating and know that we are alive and thinking creatures. We form our rights and wrongs from without and within, by observing and commenting, by being both a student of the world and a teacher as well. Look into the eyes of the children when you beat them, see the pain of an animal while you kill it, see the landscape after you've raped it, feel the hopelessness of someone unjustly condemned, and the terror felt by victims of injustice. It may be subjective, but not on a whim! Unless someone is a rock, I don't see how over time we can't come to some general agreement on what is right and wrong, whether it is purely subjective or divinely inspired by an objectiive God, who knows - maybe even yours.
I've been searching for God ever since I stopped being a Catholic 35 years ago. But I can't help being cynical because that is the place my search has brought me so far. But along the way I learned about other people's beliefs and understood that a there is a different God for different people. I just found that I couldn't choose, and God hasn't chose me.
I don't know how else to put it.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jul 11, 2007 2:22:02 GMT -4
Jason asked:
Because they make for a sane society.
Morality is, IMHO, the term for a set of rules which allow the people in a society to live together in reasonable harmony. They work by limiting individual freedoms to the extent that your ability to limit other individuals’ freedoms is itself curtailed, and thus making the business of being a social animal a much less stressful experience.
For example, forbidding murder limits everyone’s right to go over and kill some other person. The logical explanation is that being killed curtails your freedoms quite dramatically, and therefore killing the other person is wrong.
To me, the main piece of evidence in support of this opinion is the behaviour of non-human social animals. A lot of these behaviours would be called “moral” if done by humans.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 11, 2007 7:11:50 GMT -4
Well, if morals are subjective then why should we follow them? They're only someone's opinion. Oh, I've seen this one before. To make for a livable society in which it is not hard to survive.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 11, 2007 10:59:58 GMT -4
So if societies don't function without good morals, does that mean that they are objective?
Or does it merely beg the question "why should I care if society functions properly as long as I'm doing alright?"
History is full of broken societies where those that were on top still had it pretty good while those below them suffered. If you're on top and can stay there, should you really care if the massess have bread to eat?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 11, 2007 11:03:48 GMT -4
Anyway, I know in my heart it is wrong and so do you. Do you need someone to tell you so? Can you think about this yourself and come to a conclusion? Don't get me wrong - I feel that morals are important and that you can indeed feel in your heart what is right and wrong. I'm playing a little devil's advocate though. If you really believe something you should be able to justify it, or at least explain it, to others. It's easy to hold an opinion when everyone agrees with you. To develop well-thought out opinions that are worth holding you need a little opposition.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Jul 11, 2007 11:15:24 GMT -4
Well, if morals are subjective then why should we follow them? They're only someone's opinion. We don't. Is your behavior moral by someone else's standards? Well, if morals are subjective then why should we follow them? They're only someone's opinion. Oh, I've seen this one before. To make for a livable society in which it is not hard to survive. So behaving in a way that is called moral, but which we have not specified, makes society better in some way? To reference another thread, is society more or less livable if same-sex marriage is allowed? How about prostitution? According to some moralities, these things are prohibited, according to others they are not. Is morality defined as whatever makes society more livable? If so, according to whom? What about things that make life better for some people and worse for others? Would those be moral, or not?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 11, 2007 11:23:03 GMT -4
Okay. I'll play. I don't think I could counter your point better than my last post. When I was typing it out I almost felt as inspired as when I used to write poetry many years ago (before it became forced). You know, where everything is flowing out of you.
Basically what I was saying is that 'subjective morality' is not some flimsy opinion formed on the fly by 'some' person. It has developed over thousands or years, formed by our experience and history. Humans are seekers, thus we not only have religion and philosophy but science and mathematics as well. Taken as a whole, subjective morality results from everything that has gone on before. If the Ten Commandments codified God's 'objective morality', it surely it must be a disappointed to Him, - but wait - if he's God he would know what... Funny how He creeps in to all these posts.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Jul 11, 2007 11:34:43 GMT -4
Okay. I'll play. I think my last post sums it up. Basically what I was saying is that 'subjective morality' is not some flimsy opinion formed on the fly by 'some' person. It has developed over thousands or years, formed by our experience and history. Humans are seekers, thus we not only have religion and philosophy but science and mathematics as well. Taken as a whole, subjective morality results from everything that has gone on before. Well, I agree with much of what is above (exception below). I do not see how any of it makes morality less subjective. I don't see how science and mathematics tell us anything at all about what is right or wrong. They tell us about how the world works. Whether it is right or wrong, or good or evil - how does science tell us that?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 11, 2007 11:40:13 GMT -4
I don't see how science and mathematics tell us anything at all about what is right or wrong. They tell us about how the world works. Whether it is right or wrong, or good or evil - how does science tell us that? I don't think science can tell us what is right or wrong. It can perhaps tell us what might cause more or less pain, suffering, and death, but it can't prove that causing pain, suffering, and death is wrong in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 11, 2007 11:46:45 GMT -4
I don't see how science and mathematics tell us anything at all about what is right or wrong. They tell us about how the world works. Whether it is right or wrong, or good or evil - how does science tell us that? The point I was making is that we are seekers or truth searchers or whatever, not specifically that science and math provide insight into morality. On the other hand by studying science we learn about nature, and relationships with our environment. We rationalize the cosmos and find our place within in. It can be a curious blend of knowledge and enlightenment. And although I am no mathematician, math seems to provide the nails so that we can piece it all together.
I don't think science can tell us what is right or wrong. It can perhaps tell us what might cause more or less pain, suffering, and death, but it can't prove that causing pain, suffering, and death is wrong in the first place. But by understanding what causes pain, suffering and death does provide rationale as to how to prevent it, or limit it or more emotional responses such a dislike for the unnecessary pain that happens in the world. One result may be for instance that not providing medication to children in Africa is immoral. Or maybe experiments on animals may be immoral. Or not caring for cancer or AIDS victims is immoral. Or it is immoral not to take care of our environment. Can you think of a few more?
All knowledge that we have contributes to the makeup of self. If you're going to make judgments and decisions in life it is better to use your whole arsenal.
I think.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 11, 2007 12:16:02 GMT -4
I do not see how any of it makes morality less subjective. I don't think I said that any of it does make morality less subjective. It may still be subjective but by being informed by our past experience we make better decisions on what we find moral or immoral.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Jul 11, 2007 14:47:03 GMT -4
I do not see how any of it makes morality less subjective.I don't think I said that any of it does make morality less subjective. Fair enough, but I did think that was our subject, from the poll I don't think science can tell us what is right or wrong. It can perhaps tell us what might cause more or less pain, suffering, and death, but it can't prove that causing pain, suffering, and death is wrong in the first place. I agree with you. I will go further though. We are rarely faced with decisions with consequences as clean cut as "cause pain" or "don't cause pain." The decisions that people argue about in political debates or on the internet are usually things that make some people better off, and other people worse off. If we take it as given that we do not have the ability to eliminate all suffering (anyone want to argue that we do?), then the best you can do is ration it. Then it is not about whether or not to cause suffering, but who gets how much suffering. One result may be for instance that not providing medication to children in Africa is immoral. Or maybe experiments on animals may be immoral. Or not caring for cancer or AIDS victims is immoral. Or it is immoral not to take care of our environment. Can you think of a few more? No need for a few more, let's think about these. Those medications sent to children in Africa? If you don't send them, there will be more money, labor, and so on available to take care of the enviornment. Or to treat cancer victims. Is it moral to send medication to children in Africa, thereby denying the care that could otherwise have been provided to cancer victims?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 11, 2007 14:54:45 GMT -4
I guess with brains that think we have to make decisions about stuff like that all the time. Maybe if all the countries could divert their military spending to these issues we could live with that. Having peace would be the price we'd have to pay. It's hard to believe that with all the resources on this planet people still live in poverty. But living without war is better than not providing all the people on the planet with adequate housing, nutrition and health!
|
|