I don't believe in right and wrong.

[Zoot]

Not in the sense most Christians mean, which is to say, I don't believe in objective right and objective wrong. I believe that people evaluate actions by various criteria, and that this evaluation is necessarily subjective.

In other words, I don't think that rape is just plain wrong. I think rape is wrong-to-people, and perhaps not all people. I don't think that murder is just plain wrong. I think murder is wrong-to-people, and perhaps not all people. (Both are wrong-to-me.)

Now, I don't act very differently from Christians. I give to charities, I've sponsored a kid in Argentina since I was 20, I am a signed up supporter of Amnesty, I protest illegal invasions of countries, I often pick up litter I see on the street and put it in a rubbish bin, I only eat free-range eggs, I tell people when they've given me too much change, I hug people who need hugs and help people who need help. I don't think any of these deeds are "good" in the sense meant by Christians.

And yet often when Christians hear that I don't believe in objective morality, they start talking about how my attitude would spawn rape and murder and etc.

Why do you think I act the way I do? (this question is open for both objective-moralists and subjective-moralists - OMists and SMists).

 

[Dragar]

I think you act the way you do because you want to do it. You want to do it because it gives you pleasure. It gives you pleasure because that's how your brain's wired. 'Nuff said.

 

[YWGWYS]

i agree completely.
except i think that "murder" is already defined as "immoral killing", hence "murder" is by definition wrong.
if you approve of a particular killing, you won´t call it "murder". maybe "war", maybe "self-defense", "pre-emptive strike", "collateral damage", simply "killing", "defeating evil", but not "murder".

 

[Lifesaver]

You act the way you do because you do not take your own ideas to their practical conclusion.
You think about the world in one way, but when it comes to living, you let your feelings guide you.

 

[WaZoO]

Acting the way you do has proven itself to be an evolutionary advantage, you're accting the way you were designed to act.

 

[Zoot]

You act the way you do because you do not take your own ideas to their practical conclusion. You think about the world in one way, but when it comes to living, you let your feelings guide you.

My idea is that everyone's feelings guide them. How is that idea incongruous with letting my feelings guide me?

 

[Lifesaver]

My idea is that everyone's feelings guide them. How is that idea incongruous with letting my feelings guide me?

That idea is not.
The idea "objectively wrong actions do not exist" is.
Upon letting your feelings guide you, you effectively ignore your beliefs in matters of morality.
Afterall, your intellect is firmly set on the idea that the distinction between right and wrong depends entirely on the individual's opinion; therefore, it doesn't exist, and no group of moral convictions can be said to be superior to any other, and hence it is useless to have any.
And yet you do, and act upon it, even though you believe it to be meaningless and not based on reality.

Your feelings take precedence over your thoughts.
And considering the disordered and evil nature of your thoughts, that is a good thing in this case.

 

[JesusBeliever]

In other words, I don't think that rape is just plain wrong. I think rape is wrong-to-people, and perhaps not all people. I don't think that murder is just plain wrong. I think murder is wrong-to-people, and perhaps not all people. (Both are wrong-to-me.)

No offense and pardon my french, but that attitude frightens the hell out of me.

 

[Evee]

Acting the way you do has proven itself to be an evolutionary advantage, you're accting the way you were designed to act.

That is so true!

 

[Aimee30]

I believe there is a difference between good and evil. Good is something that helps people and does not destroy people literally, mentally, physically, or emotionally.
I think evil is the exact opposite.
I suppose there may be such things as necessary evils, but I don't believe rape or murder are part of these.

 

[Zoot]

That idea is not.
The idea "objectively wrong actions do not exist" is.
Upon letting your feelings guide you, you effectively ignore your beliefs in matters of morality.

I believe in subjective morality and I act on subjective morality. How is that incongruous?


Afterall, your intellect is firmly set on the idea that the distinction between right and wrong depends entirely on the individual's opinion; therefore, it doesn't exist,

You don't think opinions exist?


and no group of moral convictions can be said to be superior to any other, and hence it is useless to have any.

How do you figure that? Values seem unavoidable, to me.


And yet you do, and act upon it, even though you believe it to be meaningless and not based on reality.

I didn't say it was meaningless or unreal. I said it was subjective. Subjective meaning is still meaning.

 

[Zoot]

No offense and pardon my french, but that attitude frightens the hell out of me.

Fair enough, but what's really the difference between thinking something is "just plain wrong" and evaluating something as wrong-to-me?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Not in the sense most Christians mean, which is to say, I don't believe in objective right and objective wrong. I believe that people evaluate actions by various criteria, and that this evaluation is necessarily subjective.

In other words, I don't think that rape is just plain wrong. I think rape is wrong-to-people, and perhaps not all people. I don't think that murder is just plain wrong. I think murder is wrong-to-people, and perhaps not all people. (Both are wrong-to-me.)

Now, I don't act very differently from Christians. I give to charities, I've sponsored a kid in Argentina since I was 20, I am a signed up supporter of Amnesty, I protest illegal invasions of countries, I often pick up litter I see on the street and put it in a rubbish bin, I only eat free-range eggs, I tell people when they've given me too much change, I hug people who need hugs and help people who need help. I don't think any of these deeds are "good" in the sense meant by Christians.

And yet often when Christians hear that I don't believe in objective morality, they start talking about how my attitude would spawn rape and murder and etc.

Why do you think I act the way I do? (this question is open for both objective-moralists and subjective-moralists - OMists and SMists).

I think your environment has more to do with it than anything else. Children in homes where there is spousal abuse quite often grow up to abuse their spouses. etc. etc.

Not sure how much has to do with evolutionary development. Wonder how a study could be conducted. Raise a kid by robots?

Oh, and the media. If you go off and start shooting people randomly, it's the media's fault...

 

[Evee]

No offense and pardon my french, but that attitude frightens the hell out of me.

Gosh and Bilingual too!!
Sorry JesusBeliever I couldn't help it.

 

[copernicus]

...Why do you think I act the way I do? (this question is open for both objective-moralists and subjective-moralists - OMists and SMists).

In my opinion, you act the way you do for precisely the same reasons that Christians and non-Christians do. That is, you act out of instinct that has been shaped and modified by your experiences of life. All normal humans seem to have a sense of right and wrong, and that sense does not vary greatly across most cultures. Killing is bad. Disloyalty is bad. Hatred is bad. Truth is good. Love is good. And so on. But there are always hedges and exceptions to these generalizations. Different people rationalize their behavior differently.

In a way, the argument that morality is "objectively" defined is a red herring. Even if it were, that does not mean that people are able to discover the "objective" standard by any other than subjective means.

 

[Zoot]

Not sure how much has to do with evolutionary development. Wonder how a study could be conducted. Raise a kid by robots?

That would be an ethically questionable experiment.

Evolutionarily, I think empathy with the perceived herd (tribe) is a likely an evolved trait, mimetically if not genetically. Groups whose individuals cooperate have an advantage over groups whose individuals do not.

 

[Zoot]

In a way, the argument that morality is "objectively" defined is a red herring. Even if it were, that does not mean that people are able to discover the "objective" standard by any other than subjective means.

I think there's still a qualitative difference between subjective morality and subjective perceptions of an objective morality. In the latter case, someone can admit the possibility of being wrong, while agreeing that "wrong" is an evaluation that can be made of someone's morality. In the former case, "right" or "wrong" are not evaluations that can be made of moralities. There's no criteria by which values can be evaluated.

 

[Prometheus_ash]

I think I agree with the OP.

What is morality but a cultural standard which helps a particular culture in a particular environment function, and govern itself. As such, it would be subjective to the independent cultures, and an overall objective comparison would be meaningless and impossible.

Though we could still ask the question as to which morality helps culture in general function more efficiently.

-Ash

 

[Zoot]

Though we could still ask the question as to which morality helps culture in general function more efficiently.

To do so would simply make efficiency your morality. If you evaluate one morality as superior to another because it promotes more efficiency, the question arises - "What's so good about efficiency?"

 

[smog]

"What's so good about efficiency?"

What's efficiency?