Should freedom be restricted by moral...

[Zeru]

Dilemma: morals are subjective.

 

[quatona]

If there's not a transcendance in morality, then there is nobody to logically say that killing someone is immoral.

You are putting the cart before the horse.
If, as your line of reasoning implies, we need a god for determining morality, we can´t work from the assumption that this god holds the morality we find desirable.
Thus, the sentence
If there's not a transcendance in morality, then there is nobody to logically say that killing someone is moral.
is supported by your line of reasoning just as well.

 

[Jnwaco]

You are putting the cart before the horse.
If, as your line of reasoning implies, we need a god for determining morality, we can´t work from the assumption that this god holds the morality we find desirable.
Thus, the sentence
If there's not a transcendance in morality, then there is nobody to logically say that killing someone is moral.
is supported by your line of reasoning just as well.

Desire is subjective.

I haven't gotten to God just yet.
If one person believes killing is okay and you do not, how do you decide who's right?

a. Appeal to human rights, and then to the question of where rights come from. No doubt many who claim morality is subjective claim rights are objective.
b. Appeal to societal constructs, which have are notoriously unreliable in determining morality.
c. Appeal to might makes right. Works in practice, but the "right" might still be immoral.
d. Appeal to moral objectivity.
e. other....

 

[Shemjaza]

Desire is subjective.

I haven't gotten to God just yet.
If one person believes killing is okay and you do not, how do you decide who's right?

a. Appeal to human rights, and then to the question of where rights come from. No doubt many who claim morality is subjective claim rights are objective.
b. Appeal to societal constructs, which have are notoriously unreliable in determining morality.
c. Appeal to might makes right. Works in practice, but the "right" might still be immoral.
d. Appeal to moral objectivity.
e. other....

One person thinks God says killing is okay... another disagrees.
Now where are we?

 

[SithDoughnut]

One person thinks God says killing is okay... another disagrees.
Now where are we?

We are at the point where we realise that not even religion is objective.

 

[Keres]

It is not ok in case it breaks 2 main commandments of love

So you are stating here that the moral values of the bible are not absolute, and in fact, not even consistent?

 

[Jnwaco]

One person thinks God says killing is okay... another disagrees.
Now where are we?

Wow, thanks for avoiding the questions.

From a Christian standpoint, if a Christian said God told them to kill someone, I'd doubt their sanity. Jesus left no orders to kill anyone.

But, let's assume God did tell someone today to kill. If you believe morality is subjective, you cannot even logically criticize it. Your argument self-destructs, because moral subjectivity eradicates the notions of right and wrong in a true sense, and makes them mere personal opinions. So from a moral relativist standpoint, who cares if God told them to kill someone, your values are yours and might not be legitimate for someone else.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Wow, thanks for avoiding the questions.

From a Christian standpoint, if a Christian said God told them to kill someone, I'd doubt their sanity. Jesus left no orders to kill anyone.

But, let's assume God did tell someone today to kill. If you believe morality is subjective, you cannot even logically criticize it. Your argument self-destructs, because moral subjectivity eradicates the notions of right and wrong in a true sense, and makes them mere personal opinions. So from a moral relativist standpoint, who cares if God told them to kill someone, your values are yours and might not be legitimate for someone else.

Or you could just say 'I think that it is wrong to kill so I won't do it thanks'. Right and wrong are personal opinions, and you are perfectly capable of acting upon them. Of course, you'll then be judged by the moral consensus in the law.

 

[Jnwaco]

Or you could just say 'I think that it is wrong to kill so I won't do it thanks'. Right and wrong are personal opinions, and you are perfectly capable of acting upon them. Of course, you'll then be judged by the moral consensus in the law.

I disagree that they're personal opinions. Wrong implies a truth, so what you're now saying is that truth is relative, too. Wrong implies that there is something to compare the act to that measures it as wrong or right. You cannot even tell yourself that killing is wrong if morality and truth are subjective. It's just like your preference for the color blue or the color pink.

You could disagree with someone that killing is wrong, but if it's between the two of you, and he thinks it's okay to kill you, you would know it's wrong, and it would be more than just an opinion. If I stole something from you, you would know it was wrong, not just your subjective opinion. You would not treat my stealing from you in the same way you'd treat my opinion on my favorite color or whether Mexican food is better than Chinese food. The fact that people so adamantly criticize actions indicates that they believe in actual right and wrong.

In fact, you probably feel that me stealing from you is wrong more strongly than you believe your own statement that morality is subjective. The fact that these are true for everyone provides evidence of moral objectivity, even if disagreement exists.

What's even more interesting is to watch moral relativists make the argument that the God of the Bible is evil, as if good and evil exist objectively. It's sort of a have your cake and eat it, too claim.

Appeal to the law is flawed, as is appeal to consensus, and I will provide examples of errors of both:
1) Appeal to consensus - Nazi Germany, and the Germans whose consensus was to kill Jews.
2) Appeal to laws - The constitution says a black man is 3/5 of a person. Separate but equal, etc. Both laws, both immoral.

 

[SithDoughnut]

I disagree that they're personal opinions. Wrong implies a truth, so what you're now saying is that truth is relative, too. Wrong implies that there is something to compare the act to that measures it as wrong or right. You cannot even tell yourself that killing is wrong if morality and truth are subjective. It's just like your preference for the color blue or the color pink.

Wrong is an opinion, not a truth. It is a preference, if you'd like to call it that. You compare actions to your own conscience to decide if they are right or wrong, and your conscience is different to everyone else's. Hence subjectivity.

You could disagree with someone that killing is wrong, but if it's between the two of you, and he thinks it's okay to kill you, you would know it's wrong, and it would be more than just an opinion. If I stole something from you, you would know it was wrong, not just your subjective opinion. You would not treat my stealing from you in the same way you'd treat my opinion on my favorite color or whether Mexican food is better than Chinese food. The fact that people so adamantly criticize actions indicates that they believe in actual right and wrong.

I believe in my own personal view of right and wrong, as do you. Objective truths don't come into it at all.

In fact, you probably feel that me stealing from you is wrong more strongly than you believe your own statement that morality is subjective. The fact that these are true for everyone provides evidence of moral objectivity, even if disagreement exists.

Yet there are robbers who don't think that stealing is wrong - oh look, it's moral subjectivity. If morals were objective then we'd all agree, so why don't we?

What's even more interesting is to watch moral relativists make the argument that the God of the Bible is evil, as if good and evil exist objectively. It's sort of a have your cake and eat it, too claim.

A wonderful paragraph that doesn't apply to anything said so far...

Appeal to the law is flawed, as is appeal to consensus, and I will provide examples of errors of both:
1) Appeal to consensus - Nazi Germany, and the Germans whose consensus was to kill Jews.
2) Appeal to laws - The constitution says a black man is 3/5 of a person. Separate but equal, etc. Both laws, both immoral.

There you go. You've just proven moral subjectivity. In the past people thought it was moral to be racist, now most people don't. That's two different moral codes, right there - moral subjectivity. Thank you for proving my point for me.

 

[Jnwaco]

Wrong is an opinion, not a truth. It is a preference, if you'd like to call it that. You compare actions to your own conscience to decide if they are right or wrong, and your conscience is different to everyone else's. Hence subjectivity.

Wrong is an objective statement. You're saying something is not right. Now, you are really saying that truth is relative, not morality. Because if you state to yourself that murder is wrong, that is a statement of truth that you believe, a statement of fact.

I believe in my own personal view of right and wrong, as do you. Objective truths don't come into it at all.

So if I want to steal something from you, who are you to say I'm wrong? You say that stealing or killing is only wrong for you, not me.

Yet there are robbers who don't think that stealing is wrong - oh look, it's moral subjectivity. If morals were objective then we'd all agree, so why don't we?

Yes, but we know it's wrong. The fact that people do not live up to an objective morality does not disprove its existence.

There you go. You've just proven moral subjectivity. In the past people thought it was moral to be racist, now most people don't. That's two different moral codes, right there - moral subjectivity. Thank you for proving my point for me.

Actually, I've proven that your two sources of morality are not objective, not that morality itself is subjective.

 

[Letalis]

At both ends of the spectrum you will find terror and destruction. Absolute freedom leads to absolute destruction (see the effects of Nietzsche, Hegel, and Marx on communism). Absolute morality leads to absolute destruction (see the effects of religion and morality imposed by law).

 

[Jnwaco]

Religion leads to absolute destruction?

 

[Letalis]

It can, yes. Utopian ideals of a society free of sin will always end by employing terror and fear to subjugate its citizens. Eventually it will self-destruct.

 

[Jnwaco]

It can, yes. Utopian ideals of a society free of sin will always end by employing terror and fear to subjugate its citizens. Eventually it will self-destruct.

Even if the religion itself says that using fear to subjugate people is wrong (in which case any use of fear to subjugate others would be, by definition, against the religion)?

 

[SithDoughnut]

Wrong is an objective statement. You're saying something is not right. Now, you are really saying that truth is relative, not morality. Because if you state to yourself that murder is wrong, that is a statement of truth that you believe, a statement of fact.

I'm saying I think something is wrong, even if the word 'think' is implied.

So if I want to steal something from you, who are you to say I'm wrong? You say that stealing or killing is only wrong for you, not me.

Exactly, which is why we have the law to decide upon such matters.

Yes, but we know it's wrong. The fact that people do not live up to an objective morality does not disprove its existence.

No it doesn't. It proves that people have different ideas of morality. I for example think that abortion is moral, other people don't. That is subjective morality.

Unless of course you can prove that objective morality exists.

Actually, I've proven that your two sources of morality are not objective, not that morality itself is subjective.

Um... so you've proven that two people have morality that isn't objective, but that means that morality is objective?

Everyone has a moral code, and different people have different codes. Look at vegetarians - they follow a different moral code to those who eat meat. That is moral subjectivism in action.

If morals were objective then we'd all agree on what is right and what is wrong. The fact that we don't disproves moral objectivity.

 

[Shemjaza]

Wow, thanks for avoiding the questions.

From a Christian standpoint, if a Christian said God told them to kill someone, I'd doubt their sanity. Jesus left no orders to kill anyone.

But, let's assume God did tell someone today to kill. If you believe morality is subjective, you cannot even logically criticize it. Your argument self-destructs, because moral subjectivity eradicates the notions of right and wrong in a true sense, and makes them mere personal opinions. So from a moral relativist standpoint, who cares if God told them to kill someone, your values are yours and might not be legitimate for someone else.

I apologise for not being clear.

I personally think that through a combination of reasoning and empathy we can arrive on more or less workable morals.

Being hurt causes us to be upset and we can empathise that others will feel the same; therefore we should seek to prevent causing that in others. Also having our free will and autonomy removed upsets us so we should also avoid causing that in others.

You'll notice that I haven't described some kind of meta truth, but still a workable set of principles for a good and moral society. Christianity has the golden rule for this very concept.

As to what I was on about in my post; it was glib because I assumed my point was clear. I find it strange that you attack a moral structure that doesn't have a clear ultimate arbiter of right and wrong, while endorsing a moral structure that even though it allegedly has an ultimate right and wrong, there is no objective way to access it except through humanity's flawed subjective lens.

 

[Letalis]

Even if the religion itself says that using fear to subjugate people is wrong (in which case any use of fear to subjugate others would be, by definition, against the religion)?

Haha. Yes. Most definitely. To create the utopian society ideals and morality must be placed aside for the greater good. The government must become the criminal in order to destroy criminality. Very paradoxical, yes?

 

[Jnwaco]

I find it strange that you attack a moral structure that doesn't have a clear ultimate arbiter of right and wrong, while endorsing a moral structure that even though it allegedly has an ultimate right and wrong, there is no objective way to access it except through humanity's flawed subjective lens.

That's a fair description. Because the objectivity is often obscured does not make it subjective. Science is obscured, but we pursue it because we believe certain truths exist that we can know. This is even the case when objective morality is obscured when presented with moral "dilemmas" where we are pitted not between right and wrong, but between one wrong and another wrong.

 

[Jnwaco]

Haha. Yes. Most definitely. To create the utopian society ideals and morality must be placed aside for the greater good. The government must become the criminal in order to destroy criminality. Very paradoxical, yes?

Yes, it is something of a paradox, although if everyone acted perfectly morally, no government would be necessary. In a utopia, of course. Since humans cannot all be perfectly moral, government is necessary as a choice of lesser evils (bigger government being bigger evil!).