I don't believe in right and wrong.

[smog]

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.

Actually, even God is by definition subjective, so even christians believe in subjective morality. It's just not their subjectivity, and they like to call it objective, although it evidently isn't. Objectivity has nothing to do with truth, it has to do with the inference of truths from other truths. You always have to base yourself on a set of axioms, and that set is necessarily subjective, God or not.

Also note that groups have a subjectivity, and so has humanity. Therefore, although it is true that every person has his own morality, it is also true that as soon as a group of people interact with each other, a global morality can emerge spontaneously for that group, and it may override the individuals' morality in certain situations. Humanity as a whole can be seen as a distinct entity from its parts, and you can derive moral principles that apply to all of humanity.

That's the closest you can get to the kind of "objective" morality religion promotes without resorting to sky daddies. Of course, that morality isn't constant in time - right and wrong won't be exactly the same in a thousand years, although there may remain some similarities.

Anyway, I think it is a mistake to say that morality is only subjective in relation to the individual. Every person has her own morality, but a global morality does emerge from their interaction, and it does produce some "top-down causality"

PS: I know what emergence means and no it doesn't imply that global morality is irreducible.

 

[YWGWYS]

Just because we don't know the moral law, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist objectively. The physical laws always existed, but we discovered them recently.

1. you haven´t yet explained, how exactly the existence of such laws, that merely describe the world, suggests the existence of "postulating laws".
a natural law ceases to exist, as soon as something does not happen in accordance with it.
the assumption of the existence of moral laws can be as much deduced from the existence of phyisical laws, as the existence of musical keys can be deduced from the existence of door-keys.
2. on a completely different note: your assumption that natural laws do exist objectively, is wrong. "natural law" is a human concept and term to describe those processes (and their causalities), that are safe to say to happen ever again. that´s all.

 

[The Seeker]

If morality is subjective, then of course, there is no wrong.

Depends on what you mean by "subjective", personally, I'm a moral relativist, that is to say, I believe that right and wrong are relatives to the individuals involved, hence rape is wrong because one participant is unwilling, that's why its rape, similarly, if we define murder as deliberately killing somebody without their permission, murder can be said to be wrong. This is all subjective yet there is still a concept of right and wrong.

Apparently people want to do whatever they want with no consequences .

Who the sneck said that exactly?

Well, sorry, there simply are consequences. No one is above reproach nor is anyone above God's laws.

Great, shame nobody can come to a consensus on what "God's laws" are

The more people try to be, the greater the punishment because they have ignored the warning signals to their own peril. Being under the delusion that we are are own gods has a heavy price because not only is it not the truth, but it is trying to defy the way the world is designed. "He who exalts himself will be humbled." Going against God's laws IS what causes the misery and suffering in the world!

See also: Pascal's Wager

 

[an7222]

1. you haven´t yet explained, how exactly the existence of such laws, that merely describe the world, suggests the existence of "postulating laws".a natural law ceases to exist, as soon as something does not happen in accordance with it.

A natural law exists and is objective because we can empiricaly observe the same behavior with a "dropping stone" and derive a law that the stone follows, sometimes even measuring it with numbers, predicting its future behaviour.

With morality, it's a lot more dificult to empiricaly know it, because there are too much bad and good consequences of an act to be measured, that maybe even the most advanced computer won't be able to say that an action was better or worse. It's impossible to know precisely wether it was better or worse for the future of mankind to defeat Hitler. But the fact we cannot (easily) measure the consequences of an action to mankind, doesn't mean it cannot be classified objectively as moral or immoral.

the assumption of the existence of moral laws can be as much deduced from the existence of phyisical laws, as the existence of musical keys can be deduced from the existence of door-keys.

I agree with you, but this was not my point.

2. on a completely different note: your assumption that natural laws do exist objectively, is wrong. "natural law" is a human concept and term to describe those processes (and their causalities), that are safe to say to happen ever again. that´s all.

Natural laws exist objectively in the sense that the behavior of the universe exists regardless of the existence of the planet earth, let alone individuals.

 

[YWGWYS]

A natural law exists and is objective because we can empiricaly observe the same behavior with a "dropping stone" and derive a law that the stone follows, sometimes even measuring it with numbers, predicting its future behaviour.

With morality, it's a lot more dificult to empiricaly know it, because there are too much bad and good consequences of an act to be measured, that maybe even the most advanced computer won't be able to say that an action was better or worse. It's impossible to know precisely wether it was better or worse for the future of mankind to defeat Hitler. But the fact we cannot (easily) measure the consequences of an action to mankind, doesn't mean it cannot be classified objectively as moral or immoral.

i´m afraid you are missing a substancial point here: in order to measure the moral value of an action by exploring and investigating its consequences, we would have to have standards to value the consequences, which would be what themselves? moral stances, exactly.
you need an already existing (human-made) moral system in order to detect "moral laws". you will merely be proving your preassumptions.
"breeding is evil.
proof: breeding produces more beings, who will breed again, and so on. a vicious circle of evil."

 

[Dragar]

With morality, it's a lot more dificult to empiricaly know it, because there are too much bad and good consequences of an act to be measured, that maybe even the most advanced computer won't be able to say that an action was better or worse.

What are 'good' and 'bad' consequences?

Doof, YWGWYS beat me to it.

 

[YWGWYS]

Natural laws exist objectively in the sense that the behavior of the universe exists regardless of the existence of the planet earth, let alone individuals.

yes, that is what we assume. and it is based on our human and individual experiences and perceptions.

 

[an7222]

i´m afraid you are missing a substancial point here: in order to measure the moral value of an action by exploring and investigating its consequences, we would have to have standards to value the consequences, which would be what themselves? moral stances, exactly.
you need an already existing (human-made) moral system in order to detect "moral laws". you will merely be proving your preassumptions.
"breeding is evil.
proof: breeding produces more beings, who will breed again, and so on. a vicious circle of evil."

What are 'good' and 'bad' consequences?

I am supposing that happy life is the ultimate moral value that must be maximized.

 

[Dragar]

I am supposing that happy life is the ultimate moral value that must be maximized.

Why are you supposing that?

 

[YWGWYS]

I am supposing that happy life is the ultimate moral value that must be maximized.

the fact, that you suppose it, doesn´t make it objective. (and i know many here, even christians, that will disagree). but we would need an objective in order to measure the consequences in terms of morality.
besides, your claim is pretty much meaningless. whose happy life? where do we take an objective definition for happiness from?

 

[an7222]

the fact, that you suppose it, doesn´t make it objective. (and i know many here, even christians, that will disagree). but we would need an objective in order to measure the consequences in terms of morality.
besides, your claim is pretty much meaningless. whose happy life? where do we take an objective definition for happiness from?

Again, it's very difficult to measure the average happiness of mankind, but it doesn't mean that this average happiness doesn't exist objectively. The best thing we can do is to know the average happiness of some selected group of individuals. We could know it making some questions to then like "Are you happy with your parents?" "Are you happy with your job?" "Are you happy with your health?" "Are you happy with your car?" and so on. They will give us some basis to measure something they have objectively, that is their level of happiness and satisfaction with their life. Of course, there are some that only will feel happy with a ferrari, others will suffice a Volkswagen. But their level of happiness exists objectively.

 

[Dragar]

Again, it's very difficult to measure the average happiness of mankind, but it doesn't mean that this average happiness doesn't exist objectively. The best thing we can do is to know the average happiness of some selected group of individuals. We could know it making some questions to then like "Are you happy with your parents?" "Are you happy with your job?" "Are you happy with your health?" "Are you happy with your car?" and so on. They will give us some basis to measure something they have objectively, that is their level of happiness and satisfaction with their life. Of course, there are some that only will feel happy with a ferrari, others will suffice a Volkswagen. But their level of happiness exists objectively.

Why is it 'right' or 'good' for people to be happy?

 

[an7222]

Why is it 'right' or 'good' for people to be happy?

We are talking about morality, and life is a big moral value, and happy life is the biggest moral value. I don't want to discuss here why life is a moral value. I sugest you to study some material about that.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

"Good" and "evil" are merely social terms used to evaluate behaviour within a society. Outside of a strictly human context, these qualities are nonexistant.
An earthquake isn't "evil", nor the deadly virus that kills your infant child, nor a lion that kills the pups of his rival.

 

[Evee]

This thread is a play with words.
There is good and evil but your definition is different.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

No it isn't. Language shapes our perception. And we've been brought up to categorize things, according to the attributes we know. So we try to evaluate everything on a "good" and "evil" scale - which is the right thing to do, in order to function. Still, it's not a quality that exists outside of a merely behavioural context.

 

[Dragar]

We are talking about morality, and life is a big moral value, and happy life is the biggest moral value. I don't want to discuss here why life is a moral value. I sugest you to study some material about that.

Okay. But I don't think there is any answer. Or any better answer than a man can give you when you ask him why he considers certain paintings beautiful (or why he finds certain shapes pleasing to the eye, or certain flavours tasty).

 

[an7222]

Okay. But I don't think there is any answer. Or any better answer than a man can give you when you ask him why he considers certain paintings beautiful (or why he finds certain shapes pleasing to the eye, or certain flavours tasty).

Morality is not the same as the beauty of a painting (or shapes pleasing to the eyes, or certain flavors tasty), unless you define some objective criteria to define how to value a painting's beauty. We have a criteria to define wether something is or isn't moral based on objectively defined moral values.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

But that's the point: Moral rules aren't objectively defined, they are collectively defined. They work the same way language does.

 

[Dragar]

Morality is not the same as the beauty of a painting (or shapes pleasing to the eyes, or certain flavors tasty), unless you define some objective criteria to define how to value a painting's beauty. We have a criteria to define wether something is or isn't moral based on objectively defined moral values.

And where are you getting those critera from? And how do you know they're correct?